[TheLarch]

With the advancement of technology it's harder and harder to sympathize with the idea that firearms in the US could effectively combat governmental tyranny. Situations such as Ruby Ridge and Waco could be handled by drones now. It's hard to believe that there is a principle at play here deeper than a simple love of guns.

[mindcrime]

it's harder and harder to sympathize with the idea that firearms in the US could effectively combat governmental tyranny.

People keep trotting out this argument, and it remains just as wrong. "Regular" firearms by themselves probably aren't enough to resist the US government, but that isn't the point. Firearms are just one tool out of many that would be in play if an actual armed revolution broke out. And what people gloss over are factors like:

1. Military units that defect to the "rebellion". Now the rebellion has tanks, airplanes, drones, etc.

2. IEDs and other improvised munitions which are capable of doing more damage that just, say, an AK-47.

3. The idea that "quantity is its own quality". Enough people, armed with AR-15's or AK-47's can constitute a formidable force just through sheer numbers.

Anyway, nobody is out there pretending that they are going to overthrow a hypothetical "tyrannical US government" using nothing but light weapons. But that doesn't mean that those light weapons aren't still important.

[sievebrain]

The only thing that really matters is (1) and if your revolution requires military defections to succeed then you didn't need amateur firearms to begin with.

Unless you believe a bunch of randoms with rifles are a match for a professionally trained army equipped with the latest tech. In which case I think Iraq may wish to disagree with you.

[bllguo]

A revolution would not involve conventional warfare (invasion of Iraq) but asymmetric, guerilla warfare (Vietnam, occupation of Iraq)...

[TheLarch]

"Firearms are just one tool out of many that would be in play if an actual armed revolution broke out."

I reject your premise. How will militias assemble before these conflicts can take place? Facebook? I'm not being facetious. A ruthless government could, in a state of emergency, cut off the internet in a locality, or lean of Facebook to turn over names, or etc. The internet IS the battleground. Physical control of land with guns is a small, receding target. Guns aren't protecting us from the government, the EFF is.

[mindcrime]

Telephone, radio, couriers, etc...

[djloche]

The existence of an armed, trained civilian population prevents the current government from going completely insane with the vast power they've thus far been allowed to take and selectively abuse.

I'd love to see the people take some of the power back without a bloody, internal war.

[jbmorgado]

"The existence of an armed, trained civilian population prevents the current government from going completely insane with the vast power they've thus far been allowed to take and selectively abuse."

Yes, that's why basically all Europe lives in a dictatorship now-a-days due to our gun control laws.

[blakes]

Hey, you never know.

Also, I'll bet the American government is a lot more afraid of the people than most European governments are of their people. I suppose that could be argued either way to be a good or a bad thing.

[pnut]

I disagree.

I bet the French government is more afraid of their people than the American government is.

The French people shut down their economy and raise holy hell when the government starts acting contrary to their interests.

The Americans mumble some crap about 2nd Amendment rights online, and then fire up steam or crack a beer.

[Daishiman]

I don't see people going on general strike, boycotting entire state agencies or even going out to protest massively

[return0]

That american idea can only hold ground in the US, a country that has not experienced an external threat or revolution since its inception. The world's revolutions started from relatively unarmed people. Once the flame is ignited, and the socioeconomic conditions fan the flame, there is little chance a government can stop it.

[naveen99]

by the US, I guess you mean the federal government. Remember people are actually at various smaller levels. Any sort of rebellion would require organization atleast at the city level. Cities have police forces, some of which have access to firearms, and maybe even a few non-active duty or defecting soldiers. After the federal government puts down uprisings at a few cities, they might get whole states defecting, if those city dwellers had powerful friends. This is not even considering possible rebellions at outfits like corporations, which are little countries in themselves, which internal economies, surveillance of their employees etc...

But realistically i can't even imagine USA going to war with any major trading partner, much less their own population.

More likely is some corrupt local city government gets ousted by organized people defecting to neighboring towns... again neighboring towns have police / weapons. But you can also just sue cities in state / federal court probably, as they don't have sovereignty. Not to mention elections. So again, i don't really see cities doing anything too stupid to a majority of their own population...

i think the need for weapons will continue to decrease as time goes on and the world economy consolidates more and more... weapons are mostly for sport, just like boxing or mma. Its more of a staged drama...

[madengr]

That's why the 2A states "arms" and not "firearms".

[0xfeba]

Right. If you ignore some 200 years of jurisprudence, you might have a point.

[deadfece]

In the present day, civilians own tanks, cannons, rocket launchers, grenades, machine guns, explosives, etc. This has largely been the case for 200 plus years. If we ignore the some 200 years of jurisprudence supporting that ownership, then what?

[0xfeba]

Then we can reinterpret it to mean "human arms", as opposed to legs. I mean, the courts have the final say in what the US Constitution says, so just rattling off "the constitution says X!!!" like it means one thing but ignoring the years and years of case law meaning something else (and what's actually enforced) is just being naive.

[EdHominem]

Well yeah, if it wasn't constitutional it should be ignored.

The courts can't make something constitutional.

[0xfeba]

> The courts can't make something constitutional.

That's literally what they do. They determine if executive or legislative branch actions are constitutional or not.

[EdHominem]

No, they can declare that the government shall currently act as if X is constitutional (or not).

They interpret the constitution, not write it.

[EdHominem]

It's a straw-man to nitpick only the worst-case scenario - a full-on civil war against a nuke-wielding government.

Syria is an on-going example of people involved in limited engagements with a somewhat modern government, defending themselves with small arms. They don't need to be ideal to be better than nothing.

Even in Syria, a large part of the armed forces refused to fight their own people. I imagine in America it would be a greater percentage, and you'd only be facing limited local insurrectionists. And it'd be enough to hold out for help, rather than battle them to a stand-still ala Rambo.

[kiba]

Cryptography scared authoritarians and chicken little more than guns.

[ethbro]

Can't tell if you're being ironic or not, but in case you're not: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_of_cryptography_from_...

[0xfeba]

Eh, all of those incidents are examples of dubious "He shot first!" claims on both sides. I don't think drones are going to make the government look any better.

[hga]

Errr, the government in both those cases admits to shooting first, to kill these groups' dogs. At Ruby Ridge, Weaver's son and friend were just behind the dog, at Waco, well, we know one BATF agent climbing a ladder had a negligent discharge and shot a guy underneath him, who did not survive. Contagious fire from the BATF agents after the guy who got shot shouted out is more likely than most other explanations, especially when you note how the government was very certain to destroy everything that might have indicated they shot first and shot the most (the vehicles in the back drop, the front door, the whole complex for that matter). And we know they lied about the denouement, for the Texas Rangers found and inventoried a relatively incendiary "tear gas" round they swore up and down that they never used.

And as I might comment elsewhere, drone operators have to sleep sometime, somewhere, and depend on a huge logistics tail; the US has never fought without a pretty secure rear, certainly not after the War of 1812 (threat of invasion from Canada).

[jonstokes]

Yeah, you're right. See, for instance, the way that the West totally put down the Taliban in Afghanistan and pacified the entire country, which is now peaceful to this day. The Taliban were just a bunch of illiterate goat herders with AKs, so there's no way they could stand up to the America's more technologically advanced army, plus the drones.

And then look at Iraq, and Syria, and all of the other insurgencies involving irregular combatants armed with nothing but improvised explosives and small arms, that have now been totally put down by the drones...

Except that none of the above is true :p

[pjc50]

Surely the big lesson from the middle East is that guns can deliver violent chaos or despotic centralism but not peaceful stability?

[mindcrime]

Surely the big lesson from the middle East is that guns can deliver violent chaos or despotic centralism but not peaceful stability?

Guns, in and of themselves, don't deliver anything. They're tools, that's it. Whether or not the people of the Middle Eastern countries like Afghanistan find peaceful stability or not depends on a whole laundry list of variables.

[angersock]

I'm not sure that there are any good lessons to be learned from that region at this point. It brings to mind the ending of Burn After Reading.

[ethbro]

First and last lesson: never partition countries out of disparate ethnic/religious/sectarian groups who don't have some sort of larger overriding loyalty holding them together.

Of course, that boat sailed a while ago.

[kiba]

In case of unbearable government tyranny, the civilians are going to have an insurgency against their own fathers, sons, and brothers?

[maxerickson]

It happened in the civil war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brother_against_brother

And that was with the sides largely being split geographically.

[dragonwriter]

The idea that the sides were split geographically has some truth, but is overstated and a result of looking at the decisions of state governments -- there were supporters of the Union cause in states that seceded (and, in fact, there were union regiments raised from every state in the Confederacy except South Carolina), and supporters of the rebel cause in states that remained in the Union. The illusion of a clean geographic split is the result of the fact that a state government's choice to secede and join the confederacy or not was starkly binary.

[maxerickson]

According to [1] and [2] about 5% of Union soldiers were from southern states. "Largely" works for a split like that.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Unionist

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Army

[kauffj]

In case of unbearable government tyranny, the soldiers are going to kill insurgents that are their own fathers, sons, and brothers?

[daxorid]

Absolutely. Given the full power of the UCMJ, Oathkeepers are little more than a fun Constitutionalist fantasy.

[jonstokes]

Dunno why you got downvoted, but that's actually a much more legit objection to the "guns are a last defense against tyranny" argument than "ZOMG DRONEZ". My answer is, I have no idea, and I hope I never find out.

[rhizome]

You may be interested in the Korean movie, "Tae Guk Gi," which illustrates exactly what you're talking about and occurred during your parents' or grandparents' lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taegukgi_(film)

[yongjik]

Err... the movie shows what happens when the government forces people to shoot the bad guys. When there are two governments (The Korean War), brothers end up shooting at each other.

[rhizome]

To be sure, there were two governments in the US Civil War as well. I'd say it's a pretty rare situation where a unified government turns citizens against each other with guns. Maybe The Great Leap Forward and the like, but even that was maybe more prosecutorial.

[adventured]

You mean like the Revolutionary and Civil wars in the US? Yes, that exact thing does sometimes occur. Historically it occurs frequently all around the world. At any given time, there is a civil war going on somewhere in the world that involves just such conflict.

[TheLarch]

My belief is that you have apples and oranges. Nomadic goat herders are not reliant on the internet. In the US the starvation clock starts running without it. Guns are more effective in the Middle East, but control of the internet is more effective in the US.

[inthewoods]

Just my opinion, but they do "well" against Americans (Russian, whoever else is foolish enough to weigh in) because the war is asymmetric. They have no issue killing civilians or causing any collateral damage. The US must instead try and precisely get them and only them - and while drone mistakes happen (and they might or might not be mistakes), the US largely has to operate under a completely different and restricted rules of engagement compared with their enemy. The enemy instead folds into the civilian population, making the war extremely challenging.

[yongjik]

In other words, "American civilians with guns" makes perfect sense if you predict (1) America will become like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria in the near future, or (2) civilians with guns can somehow stop America from becoming like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria.

Considering that all those armed insurgents in those countries didn't stop governments (domestic or foreign) from killing them, I'm skeptical on (2). Regarding (1), well, if you want to believe that... (shrug)

[anoonmoose]

I don't think there's enough evidence to say that we necessarily couldn't crush those insurgencies with drones. As far as I can tell, the US has (reasonably, humanely)[1] pulled its punches considerably over the last fifteen years.

[1] to the extent that any war can have these descriptors slapped on them. War is hell, The US has done inhumane stuff, I don't think they did as much as for example I think they did in Vietnam.

[jonstokes]

Then you're left to argue that the US military has pulled its punches on the Taliban, but they're really gonna take the gloves off if they get turned against their fellow citizens. Good luck with that.

[mikeash]

The whole scenario is predicated on some horrible tyrant taking control of the US. Why wouldn't the gloves come off in that case?

[pkinsky]

Because said tyrant wishes to avoid a coup by the armed forces/defections to the rebels/etc?

[ethbro]

That doesn't seem too unreasonable. The former is a conflict half a world away for (at best) geopolitical goals, the later would be an existential threat.

[danharaj]

Well guns don't do anything on their own, people do. Organizations of people overthrow governments. I think access to violence is important for the success of such organizations as the past has shown. I think your examples of the governments sieging individuals who refused to bend to its will just demonstrate what kind of resistance fails to threaten the government. The only way to resist a tyrannical government is to fight for the destruction of the structural institutions that enable tyranny. You can't get a government to back off. A government's purpose is to perpetuate itself and increase the scope of its power. No matter how long you try to hold out against it, it will persistently attempt to subjugate you or lose its patience and destroy you.

One thing i haven't heard explained in detail by people who justify the 2nd amendment as a safeguard against tyranny is what conditions they personally think justify armed insurrection against the government. There's a lot of abstract support for it, but how could you support insurrection in the abstract without knowing which concrete circumstances would cause you to take up arms against the government? How many pro-gun rights people are down with leftists who want to dismantle capitalism, for example? What about right-wingers who want to do away with liberal values? I think abstract arguments for gun rights, like abstract arguments for free speech are terribly inadequate compared to concrete values.

[jonstokes]

One of the most interesting things about the gun rights community is how strenuously this exact question of "where do you draw the bright line that, once crossed, you'll rise up?" is avoided.

You know how that guy took that video of himself asking anti-abortion protestors, "if abortion is murder, then shouldn't we put women who procure abortions on trial for murder?" and they all just short-circuited, like they'd never even thought of the question before? And how Trump stepped in it when he suggested that women who procure abortions should be punished?

The "ok, so exactly when do you plan on using that thing, and with what group (because we all know you're not going to fight tyranny by yourself)?" questions are sort of like that, but for pro-gun people. They either haven't really thought it through that far, or they're not willing to talk about it, or both.

FWIW, I think many gun rights people have the same delusion about guns as anti-gun people, and that's this: a gun in the hands of an individual is a thing of immense, Godlike power for mass destruction. The pro-gun people are all <boromir>We can use this power for good</boromir>, and the anti-gun people are all <gandalf>drop that ring!</gandalf>.

But where they both go wrong is at the heart of what you've pointed out: guns are an effective political force only when wielded by organized groups towards a specific set of goals. Everyone just having a gun in their closet is about as effective as everyone just going out and voting (without having a party or a plan). You can do that and feel like you've got some power, but you're not actually changing anything or threatening the status quo. It's just a political fantasy that you're buying into.

[RyJones]

I don't disagree with your most of your points, and I would go further: most gun owners are buying fashion items without any intention to use them, ever, in any way.

I suspect there is another reason to consider about reticence to discuss where the line is and what exactly the plan is once crossed: the POR against insurgency is find, fix, and destroy [0] and there has been plenty of domestic [1] practice. Why make yourself an easy target?

So, to your first point that they haven't thought about it meaningfully, I agree. Fashion items.

[0] http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/f...

[1] http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2015/05/18/407665820/... etc

[Frondo]

"most gun owners are buying fashion items"--thank you, I've never seen it better said.

As for where the line is drawn, well, I think the biggest reason people don't want to draw any such lines is because the US government isn't a tyranny and isn't heading there in any way.

One of the biggest political issues in recent times is, of course, health care, but can you imagine how stupid it would come off as to try and lead a revolution against mandatory health insurance? Likewise for every other hot-button issue--armed revolution because now gay marriage is a thing? Because it's harder to find incandescent light bulbs? Mandated gas mileage improvements?

Wherever you'd draw the line and not have it be 100% asinine, it'd be so far from reality that even declaring "here and no further" would make you look dumb.

[daxorid]

Indeed. Which is why the widespread social stigmatizing and LEA spying of militia membership is so very effective, and so very worrisome. No reasonable organized resistance could ever arise in the US, as it stands - even if despotism took hold.

[mwfunk]

Militias do a fantastic job of socially stigmatizing themselves, no government plots required for that one at least.

[phd514]

I think you're underestimating the network effects of widespread, private gun ownership. It's true that private gun owners will rarely coalesce into a potent political organization (NRA notwithstanding), but those types of organizations often form in reaction to external pressures. In other words, the more oppressive the government becomes, the more likely such organizations would be formed.

Additionally, even without formal organization, they do serve as deterrents against crime. And then, of course, there are also individual benefits, but that's yet another matter.

[hga]

That's because a lot of us don't want to let anyone know exactly when we'll take up arms, especially the more they have to lose and the more covert they might want to be about it.

Me, I have a number of declared lines in the sand, the first and most obvious is required registration of all firearms. Although the kinds of enemy of the state I'd become is not so obvious, e.g. I won't start wacking government officials. On the other hand, other people [censored by dang, but please don't open that door].

[Frondo]

Heh, and I don't want anyone like you judging when it is a good idea to overthrow the government. Frankly speaking, I already don't trust the judgment of anyone who talks so casually about revolution as you've done here ("I have a number of declared lines in the sand"?????). I have far more confidence in the current system than anything that would emerge when the internet tough guys get together to try and take it down.

I have zero confidence that rational, reasonable people (and "I have a number of declared lines in the sand" and other such statements is not rational nor reasonable) would be included in the new politics following that revolution, and that would make me worried for how my friends, family, loved ones would be treated on the other side of such a revolution.

[int_19h]

It's not unreasonable to have some lines in the sand, based on one's knowledge of history. For example, I could confidently say that genocide would be a line at which I would definitely consider armed resistance to a government that would perpetrate such a thing a moral imperative, even if I wasn't a target.

And it's not unreasonable for people to ponder such things when they look at history, see the parallels to today, and realize that they _could_ be targets. For example, I'd imagine that there are quite a few Muslims in US pondering these very questions right now.

It's the specific lines that some people state ("registration of all firearms", seriously?) that expose questionable judgment on their part. Or, alternatively, the lines can be reasonable, but their perception of reality is so skewed that they treat absolutely mundane things as crossing those lines in their mind. All the conspiracy theories around Jade Helm were a good example of that.

[Frondo]

Yeah, definitely. You're right, it's not nuts to entertain the thought experiment, "what would be too far for a government?" Genocide, sure, I like to think I'd stand up against that, and defend the people who were the target.

But yeah, either putting nutty things on that list (like firearms registration, as you said), or looking at the state of the country and thinking we're anywhere near the need to overthrow a government, that's what's concerning.

There's a therapy term, catastrophizing, which I think fits here. It's where you take some situation, imagine the worst thing that could happen from it, and assume that is already happening or is about to happen. Like firearms registration leading to, what? FEMA death camps? Enslavement by the Bilderberg group?

And that's the pattern you see in all these overthrow-the-gubmint kind of conversations: X (harmless) leads to Y (not likely) leads to Z (increasingly unlikely) leads to W (totally implausible) and that's why we need to start killing our fellow citizens at X.

It's scary, but at the same time not too scary, since a lot of this stuff just falls under the umbrella of internet-tough-guy talk.

[hga]

How are you going to engage in armed resistance in case of genocide if you've allowed yourself to get disarmed beforehand? You evidently don't know the pattern of registration being followed by disarmament followed sometimes by genocide, with the PRC being the major exception to this pattern (the CCP instead used rifle taxes imposed on the rich to dry up the supply of those not in their hands).

Even in the US mandatory registration has already led to confiscations in California and New York. And more of that will likely happen if enough of the coming "Gunpocalypse" gets enacted in California, although that might await a new governor, Jerry Brown is by no means all bad on this issue.

So you're just as welcome to question my judgement as I your knowledge of history, but neither is very productive when it comes to thinking about what various people will do if pushed too far.

[hga]

Heh, and I don't want anyone like you judging when it is a good idea to overthrow the government.

Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide that for others. "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you" (misattributed to Trotsky).

and "I have a number of declared lines in the sand" and other such statements is not rational nor reasonable

And we should care about your opinion because...?

that would make me worried for how my friends, family, loved ones would be treated on the other side of such a revolution.

Then, if you're on the Left/progressive, you should stop pushing the other half of the country so hard. The other half just wants to be left alone, but that's obviously not happening.

[Frondo]

Wow! You really want to go to war on your fellow Americans! So much for democracy, eh? Screw voting, let's kill those lefties, is what you're saying.

"if you're on the Left/progressive, you should stop pushing the other half of the country so hard."

So, because a bunch of folks on twitter talk about rape culture or because gay people can now marry their partners...line in the sand kind of thing? I mean, you won't disclose the things that make you want to use your guns to overthrow the government we all share, but "progressive" is part of it. I'm so curious which leftie policy it is that makes you want to start killing (literally, in your own words, Mister "War is interested in you"!), but maybe asking questions is something else that will literally drive you to attempt to overthrow our government. Who knows?

Man, if that isn't scary, I don't know what is.