au contraire - they started by arming thugs who then attacked unionists and lefties, and then seized the government and "switched off" every independent organization in the country.
A larger point: you seem to argue that armed citizenry is a necessary condition of democracy (cf. your "disarmed citizens = no democracy" argument above). I disagree. Western Europen countries are more democratic and less armed (except Switzerland) than the US. So it really depends on specific historical circumstances - sometimes armed citizenry is a good thing (cf. Russia circa 1917 or Spain circa 1938), sometimes a bad thing (Italy circa 1922), and sometimes it does not count for much (cf. Poland circa 1944-47).
In my humble opinion, the US armed citizenry is probably closer to that of Italy circa 1922 than that of Russia circa 1917 or Spain circa 1938 - which means that if by any chance they did to DC what Italians did to Rome in 1922 - I would be on a one way flight to Europe in no time.
Am I wrong?
wojtek