[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.

[int_19h]

Gun registration and/or licensing does not inevitably lead to confiscation of all guns. It may lead to confiscation of some of them (as with semi-autos in Australia), but just looking at various countries which have some form of mandatory gun registration - which is most of them outside of US - they have extreme variability in other gun control measures; from legal ownership of "assault weapons" & normal-capacity magazines and concealed carry in Czech Republic, to near-blanket bans in some Asian countries.

[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.