[daenz]

>The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles.

Let me make sure I understand your basic premise: the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns?

Aside from being completely contrary to the American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny, it's based on the bogus premise that the advanced military technology can be used effectively against its own people. Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Into every rural home and every urban apartment window of everyone they suspect has guns, with thousands of civilian collateral casualties? Are tanks and fighter jets going to roll in and level entire economic hubs like cities? Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? Are you envisioning "the rebellion" would set up a nice neat base in some remote location for the military to aim its tech at? Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? How long before regional coups? How big do you think the US military is, relative to the armed civilian population? You are also aware that soldiers and police wear recognizable uniforms, while "the rebellion" doesn't?

I don't think you've thought this through.

[Ancalagon]

Well said, I am very tired of these blasé remarks about the second amendment. Sure, the people don’t have tanks, but when the people and the guns out number the tanks 1000:1, and the tank driver doesn’t really want to fight, and those 1000 guns are all playing geurrilla tactics, I like to imagine the people stand a chance.

[sjwright]

And if you could keep all your guns safely locked away until then, that would be great.

–thanks, everyone else.

[Ancalagon]

I know you were being funny, but I actually wholly agree with this statement. Every gun owner should have safes/locks for their guns.

[sjwright]

I was being serious. I don’t have a problem with responsible gun ownership.

Switzerland is a good model. The NRA loves to point at rates of Swiss gun ownership. If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws I think you’d be okay.

[bdowling]

If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military. I’m not sure that is what you’re implying that you’d want.

[rsync]

"If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military."

There are several things wrong with the above statement ...

First, in many (most) states of the United States, you can indeed purchase a fully automatic weapon / suppressor / grenade launcher / "destructive device" / etc. You'll have to pay a $200 transfer tax, submit to registration and fingerprinting and either get local CLEO signoff (Sheriff, Chief of Police) or purchase as a trust. Interestingly, you also sort of give up your fourth amendment rights as you grant the BATF right to check on the "device" at any time, for any reason.

Second, military (automatic) weapons in Switzerland are distributed by the Swiss Army and are kept in local possession under those auspices. A swiss cannot simply walk into a gun shop and buy an MP5 on a whim - regardless of background check.

Finally, and most importantly, Swiss gun laws were dramatically reworked in the past year as part of a general normalization of Swiss and EU regulations. There was a referendum and it passed - many aspects of Swiss gun laws that you may romanticize are now a thing of the past.

[seanmcdirmid]

> If the USA implemented all of Switzerland’s gun laws, a citizen who passes a background check would be able to buy a newly-made full-automatic machine gun that is not allowed in the US outside of law enforcement or military.

But they wouldn't get access to the ammo needed to use those guns, which are stored in a central community location to combat an unwanted suicide problem (and aren't they semi-auto anyways?).

They also aren't bought, but part of ones' militia service. You know, that first clause of the USA's 2nd amendment that the pro gun lobby says to ignore.

[solidsnack9000]

In Switzerland, people can not actually buy those guns, I don't think. They are issued by the military to pretty much everybody, that's true -- but they are kept on base these days, not at home.

One of the big differences between US gun culture and Swiss gun culture is that in the US we believe in a certain right "to enjoy arms", to keep and bear them in an undisciplined and disorganised way.

[behringer]

He's saying he wants to have the 2nd amendment while simultaneously having sane gun laws that are also enforced.

[mhroth]

Then the USA should also enact obligatory military service. So that everyone would know how to use those guns. And see them as a grave responsibility, not just a right.

[brightball]

IMO every high school should be teaching first aid, gun safety, etc.

[sjwright]

Normalisation of guns is part of the problem.

[brightball]

Is it? Because they’re already everywhere and statistically speaking there’s a level of responsible ownership that qualifies as statistically perfect (> 99.99).

With the level of saturation, not providing safety education is the most irresponsible course.

[homonculus1]

We do! The number of guns used in crime is a statistical whisper compared to the hundreds of millions that are in legal, peaceable private ownership and circulation in the US alone. The empirical view is vastly different than the sensational media representation, which (due to attention and advertising incentives) cherrypicks the extremely rare worst-case events.

[aphextim]

Also take into account even if the military supported this theoretical dictator, many brothers in arms would NOT attack their fellow citizenry mindlessly. Sure there are those who will follow an order no matter what, but many folks would easily defect and help their fellow citizenry.

[josephdviviano]

Yes, I do think that a gap in weapons technology is meaningful.

I love numbers so let's talk about those using the Iraq war as an example.

Here's an estimate of the number of casualties in the Iraq war: https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Roughly 200k civilians, 90k combatants.

According to wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-National_Force_%E2%80%93... 5k western coalition forces died.

Even if these numbers are wildly inaccurate, I don't like those odds. Yes, it is difficult for the army to actually completely squash the insurgency, but there is a very messy grey zone between "winning" and "losing" where those in power relentlessly oppress the rest at relatively little cost to themselves.

I'm not saying, by the way, not to resist oppression, I am simply saying that the weapons that civilians cannot buy are very very scary, and it is probably wise to pick one's battles.

[throwaway8879]

It may be wise to pick ones battles, but it certainly is braver to pick one knowing you will lose. Stupid, but brave.

[Retric]

Insurgents who don’t attack, don’t accomplish anything That’s why civilian insurgents have a horrible track record historically. They need to go on the offensive using poorly trained and poorly equipped troops.

A small armed resistance in the US would be incredibly ineffectual. At best preforming unless but inspiring attacks, but more realistically simply dying in droves.

You can look at hundreds of past insurrections for inspiration, but grassroots military might has almost nothing to do with their success.

PS: Just look back on the US Civil war which included actual defection of large chunks of the military etc. They started with territory and an actual military including trained officers, cannons, and warships yet still lost. Now picture what would have happened if the southern military had stayed with the north.

[UnFleshedOne]

Not everyone who has guns, but everyone who resists. Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. And if people who tend to have guns are more inclined to support your flavor of tyranny (because you purpose-built it that way), you side step most of those problems.

[munk-a]

> Even worst tyranny has some public support usually.

Tyranny always has public support. The evil wizard lord of a kingdom scenario has never and will never occur in reality - someone despised by everyone cannot come into power... That doesn't mean the tyrant has the majority of public support, but I'd find it hard to believe any tyrant has less than 30% when coming to power.

[dmurray]

Someone despised by everyone can come into power when they are born into it. King John of England is a common example, though I don't know how historically accurate.

That said, your point is important and something many people don't seem to understand: those foreign leaders we in the West like to describe as tyrants, dictators, despots, strongmen, etc, are generally at least popular at home, and often adored.

[munk-a]

I don't really accept King John as a counter example. I'd revise my statement above to clarify that only someone with popular support can usurp power - unpopular monarchy can inherit power either because (1) the monarchy as an institution is more regarded than individual monarchs (2) once seizing power a tyrant can usually reduce their popular support and retain that power - the same holds for institutions of power, so the monarchy might not be popular but enough power is gained from and invested in it's continuance that no one wants it to go away[1]. John also may have been a desirable monarch because he was initially a useful idiot and managed to ride luck to transform that initial investiture of some power into a stronger reign.

Lastly, popular support is from the factions, not the people - in medieval europe most of the people had no factional representation politically, all the power had been entirely concentrated in the various estates.

1. See Lord Vetinari in like every discworld book ever.

[samus]

The Nazis started their power grab in earnest after the arsoning of the Reichstag. Even before that incident, public opinion was actually already firmly against the communists. To this day there are debates on who exactly arsoned the Reichstag, but it was suspiciously convenient for the Nazis so they could blame the communists. Soon after this incident, laws were passed that effectively abolished the constitution and granted the Nazi the power they required to establish their rule.

[slg]

Isn't this basically what the fascist in Germany, the communists in China and the Soviet Union, and countless other examples did? It is weird that people think that Americans are somehow a morally superior people to all the other countries that had already fallen down that path. I mean we are already locking up toddlers in cages and I haven't heard a single report of any push back from the people who are controlling those detention camps. World history has taught us that people are perfectly willing to betray or even kill their neighbor as long as you give them a believable enough reason. If anything, I think the overabundance of guns makes things more likely to go to shit quicker rather than less.

[nostrademons]

Surprised you're downvoted. The U.S. already has one civil war in its history, conducted when the 2nd amendment was in force and even more people owned guns than do today. It played out exactly like what the grandparent said was ridiculous: the respective militaries fired into every rural and urban home, set whole plantations on fire, destroyed their own infrastructure, killed their brothers and extended families, fought over their hometowns, and caused thousands of civilian casualties. There were in fact regional coups - really, the whole thing was one big regional coup, with some fractal splitting in the borderlands - but that didn't stop the bloodshed. And eventually, the guy who nobody in the rebellious states voted for won.

War is not rational. People will destroy all sorts of stuff if something close to their identity is under threat.

[diminoten]

The second amendment was nothing then like it is today; until 2008 it has been interpreted to mean the states have a right to raise a militia, not as an individual mandate to possess firearms.

[solidsnack9000]

That is not true, although there is a DailyKos article that says that.

Whatever rights they wanted to give the states in the Constitution, they gave to "the states". The right to bear arms was specifically given to "the people", to prevent disarmament.

[diminoten]

The states are not the same as the people. You literally notice what you wrote is different in the two sets of quotes you have here, right?

[solidsnack9000]

Right, the states are not the same as the people. The right to bear arms is the right "of the people".

[nostrademons]

And yet people did possess firearms - it was pretty necessary when living an agrarian life on the frontier, then as now.

Curious how you think that would alter the conclusion? If anything organized resistance would be more effective then, because you already had state militias and rough technological parity with the military.

[diminoten]

I'm not sure what your point is... both the Union and the Confederacy were "well regulated" armies which issued weapons to their soldiers, in great numbers, and even by then military technology was beginning to outpace simple farm muskets.

I feel like you're treating all guns as equal, when that wasn't true in the civil war and is completely not true now.

[rjf72]

This is the text of the second amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." From its advent until somewhere around the mid to late 20th century it was interpreted universally as an individual right. The founding fathers and others of the time wrote extensively on this and it was not controversial for centuries.

Wiki provides numerous examples of early commentary here. [1] I find the most compelling and clear to be that of Judge Thomas M. Cooley, which I'll include at the bottom due to its length. In brief form: he posits that if the law were constrained only to the militia, and not the masses of people that may comprise it, then it would be quite a pointless amendment as the very government it seeks to protect individuals from could undermine it by inaction or neglect in regards to the formation of that militia.

What happened in 2008 was DC vs Heller. [2] After DC banned guns in 1975, a police officer found himself in a situation where he was able to have a gun during his line of duty but was left unarmed in the increasingly dangerous and deteriorating neighborhood that he lived in. He petitioned the NRA for help fighting the law. They refused, so he went to the Cato Institute. They (Heller along with 5 other citizens) filed suit, it made its way to the supreme court, and the supreme court unambiguously affirmed that it's indeed an individual right.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Full quote of Judge Cooley:

"It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well-regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

[jcranmer]

> In brief form: he posits that if the law were constrained only to the militia, and not the masses of people that may comprise it, then it would be quite a pointless amendment as the very government it seeks to protect individuals from could undermine it by inaction or neglect in regards to the formation of that militia.

It should be noted that the Bill of Rights was originally interpreted to only limit the actions of the federal government, not the state governments. It should also be noted that one of the major events on the road to the American Revolution was the British government's attempts to disarm the militias in Massachusetts, which resulted in the Battles of Lexington and Concord, so the theory that the government might permit the militia but outlaw its arms was not mere theory but an actual historic act well-known to the drafters.

The modern controversy is whether or not the right in the Second Amendment is a right to keep arms is inherently a military right [1] or if it protects personal arms entirely separate from military contexts. The text isn't particularly helpful, and I suspect in large part because for the people who wrote it, there wasn't a separation between the right to personal use versus the right to military use--if you could use them, you were a member of the militia.

[1] I'm using military as a catch-all term here, which would include militia, civil defense, police, and other similar occupations. In the 18th century, these duties would have been performed by the military or the militia, as dedicated police forces had yet to be invented.

[solidsnack9000]

Perhaps the militia, as a social institution, would correct the issues we see with gun ownership in the US today.

The militia is always in its construction open to everyone, whereas the gun community is seen as a kind of subculture today.

The militia brings people together in a context where the underlying story about arms is not one of power, violence or even self-defence but rather one of duty, personal discipline, safety and cooperation.

The militia provides a way for people to learn a lot about firearms and firearms safety before buying a gun, as opposed to the situation in the US we have today where often the requirements for an intro course include one's own gun.

As a social institution, militia would not necessarily have to be government funded.

[rjf72]

Can you elaborate on what you mean in regards to the Bill of Rights being interpreted to only apply to the federal government? This seems to be in contradiction the supremacy clause.

[diminoten]

Thomas M. Cooley and you are both right, the Second Amendment is now completely useless, as it was written in a time when individual states operated their own militias who were actively being disarmed by the "tyrannical" government at the time. Now they don't and therefore aren't being disarmed, so it can go away entirely.

Trying to warp this specific Amendment written 220+ years ago to serve as guidance for modern times is a farce, and has been manipulated by special interests into causing the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.

Thomas M. Cooley recognized that, but didn't draw the better conclusion; that the Second Amendment needs to be revoked.

2008 was a substantial setback, but it isn't the end of the conversation. The Second Amendment will be the thing our grandkids shame us most about.

[rjf72]

In the instances you mention, the government tended to pass gun control or confiscation before engaging in widescale tyranny. In 1938 Nazi Germany passed a gun control law that effectively gave 'true Germans' vastly more gun rights (which had been compulsory rescinded at the end of WW1) yet, they it simultaneously prohibited Jews from owning any weapon - even knives. [1] The holocaust began in 1941.

In 1924 in the Soviet Union all firearms were banned except for smoothbore shotguns which pose minimal In the danger outside of close range. [2] This was greatly expanded with increased penalties and also eventually applied to knives as well. The culling of opponents and directed starvations began around 1929 leading to the deaths of millions of Soviets.

In 1966 China laid out the foundation of their now famously strict gun laws. That was the same year that Mao began the "Cultural Revolution" leading to the deaths of millions of Chinese.

Ultimately their civilians, by the time the worst came, had no way to pose any resistance. And so they died.

---

As for our situation, I think we can appeal to the declaration of independence: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

You're comparing a transient discomfort for a relatively tiny number of people entering the country illegally, to events where millions of citizens were systematically and intentionally killed or starved to death by their governments.

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews

[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_Soviet_Unio...

[3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_China

[slg]

Directly from the Wikipedia article you linked:

>The Jews of Germany constituted less than 1 percent of the country's population. It is preposterous to argue that the possession of firearms would have enabled them to mount resistance against a systematic program of persecution implemented by a modern bureaucracy, enforced by a well-armed police state, and either supported or tolerated by the majority of the German population. Mr. Carson's suggestion that ordinary Germans, had they had guns, would have risked their lives in armed resistance against the regime simply does not comport with the regrettable historical reality of a regime that was quite popular at home. Inside Germany, only the army possessed the physical force necessary for defying or overthrowing the Nazis, but the generals had thrown in their lot with Hitler early on.

You could even argue that armed push back from the Jews would have resulted in more popular support for their extermination and would have hastened and worsened the Holocaust.

>As for our situation, I think we can appeal to the declaration of independence...

The Declaration of Independence is irrelevant here. We aren't talking about any legal, moral, or ethical reason for opposing despots. We are talking about it from a practical perspective. It is wildly less practical today than it was in the 18th century because the growth in military might of today's government has far outpaced the firepower available to the citizenry.

>You're comparing a transient discomfort for a relatively tiny number of people entering the country illegally, to events where millions of citizens were systematically and intentionally killed or starved to death by their governments.

And just like with the earlier examples, things start slow. The temperate of the political water in the US is rising and like a frog, no one has yet jumped out of the pot. That doesn't spell doom yet, but it also doesn't forecast great things if the political environment continues to worsen.

[rjf72]

Let's take a single eccentric artist and vegetarian of no meaningful background, wealth, or power. By his 30th birthday our artist was no better off and his life's greatest achievement was working as a low ranking courier during WW1. What are the odds that this arist would go on to become one of the most important and powerful individuals in history and one who would come to within a hair's breadth of dominating the entire modern world? It's never wise to speak in certainties in regards to alternate histories.

One of the few things we can say for certain is that tyrants don't like having their targets armed. Would having arms have saved the Jews, the Soviets, the Chinese, etc? That's impossible to answer. But it'd certainly have given them more options and opportunities, rather than fewer.

[Sandman]

> the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns?

Basically, yes. Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world? Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis.

> Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure?

Would they even consider it their own infrastructure? Or would they consider it infrastructure currently held by rebels, which needs to be either seized or destroyed?

> Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families?

I suspect a lot of them would destroy towns if they we're told that these are now enemy bases. This has been repeated in many parts of the world throughout the history, even recent one. If they wouldn't, they'd be defectors and it really wouldn't matter whether the war was fought with modern weapons or sticks and stones.

[huntie]

It wouldn't work as you imagine because it would be far too expensive for the government. In the Middle East it works out because none of our infrastructure is affected by the war; so our GDP, and thus tax revenue, is still strong. In a civil war where the government is bombing its own infrastructure the cost for each kill will skyrocket and the effect on the economy will be catastrophic. Fighting a defensive war is immeasurably cheaper than an offensive war as the defenders value the lives of their soldiers much less than the offenders do. Also keep in mind that a rebel faction could very easily sabotoge critical infrastructure like electricity which would be very difficult to repair in a timely manner.

Relying on very expensive advanced weaponry is the modern equivalent of relying on mercenaries, and Machiavelli told us why mercenaries are bad.

[CapricornNoble]

>>>Do you honestly think people would have any chance against probably the most powerful army in the world?

You are placing waaaay too much faith in technology. Look at the Saudis: one of the worlds highest military budgets, and stockpiles of first-rate western hardware.....they are getting absolutely routed by Houthis, who run up desert mountains with just sandals, an AK, and a mouth full of stimulants.

>>>Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis.

What is the data that is driving you to this conclusion? Are you ignoring pretty much every counter-insurgency experience the US has had for the last 50 years? [2][3]

>>>I suspect a lot of them would destroy towns if they we're told that these are now enemy bases.

I suspect you don't know actual American military personnel very well, especially officers and NCOs, and how seriously we take the Laws of Warfare, AND the Constitution.

[1]https://www.snafu-solomon.com/2019/09/pics-of-houthi-rebels-...

[2]https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/05/why-america-lost-in-afg...

[3]https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2015-0...

[Sandman]

> I suspect you don't know actual American military personnel very well, especially officers and NCOs, and how seriously we take the Laws of Warfare, AND the Constitution.

You're right, I don't. But, if Americans don't need to fear that they'll have to fight the US Army, why have the 2nd amendment at all? Who would they need to protect themselves against?

[behringer]

Rioters, rogue police, vigilantes, rogue militas, nazis, militaries commanded by those that are not upholding the constitution. Honestly your argument makes it more sensible that we should open up restrictions and allow more lethal weapons.

[justsubmit]

> Sure, they could try fighting a guerilla warfare, they'd even inflict some casualties against the enemy but it's unlikely that in the end they'd succeed against an army that is professional, highly skilled, better equipped, has better offensive and defensive capabilities, knows a lot more about tactics and logistics and has trained for this type of situation on a daily basis.

Have you heard of the Viet Cong?

[dragonwriter]

> Have you heard of the Viet Cong?

The one that got basically wiped out despite foreign backing (though the regular army that was their most direct supporter—the North Vietnamese Army—intervened and ultimately won the war after they were crushed)? Yeah, heard of them.

They kind of prove (or at least demonstrate) the point the grandparent post was making, though.

[coryfklein]

> Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?"

Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners.

> Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure?

The infrastructure is the exact kind of ground that can be held much more securely against pistols and rifles using the U.S.'s advanced weaponry.

> Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families?

See the Arab Spring for reference on this one

> How long before regional coups?

I'm sure a civilian populace will experience war fatigue waaay before a trained, well paid, well fed military.

You're coming up with a hypothetical scenario where it's the entire US government against the entire populace. In the real world it doesn't happen that way - the populace is divided between the rebels and the government supporters.

Besides, look at today's political climate: most of the gun owners are the one's backing our most authoritarian leader! If, somehow, we were to slide into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side.

[CapricornNoble]

>>>Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners.

Why would you draw that conclusion, when pretty much every available case study (re: drone strikes and terrorism) clearly shows otherwise?

>>>Besides, look at today's political climate: most of the gun owners are the one's backing our most authoritarian leader!

Is he really our most authoritarian? How authoritarian would you rank him compared to Obama, the first President to order a drone strike to kill an American citizen without due process? [1]

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[coryfklein]

> when pretty much every available case study (re: drone strikes and terrorism) clearly shows otherwise?

I'm pretty sure I read those case studies differently than you do. Why, do you suppose, the military continues to make drone strikes if they are ineffective?

> How authoritarian would you rank [Trump] compared to Obama

Waaaaay more authoritarian. By his own admission, even. Trump praises, celebrates, and socializes with dictators on a much greater scale than Obama.

And if the single largest signal you're drawing from Anwar al-Awlaki's killing is that Obama is authoritarian, then I think you need to step back and examine that situation more broadly.

[daenz]

>If, somehow, we were to slide into dictatorship you can be sure the leader would make whatever promises necessary to get the gun toters on his/her side.

This demonstrates to me that you understand the political power of an armed citizenry, the same group that you used the first half of your post to discredit by suggesting "blowing up a home or two" would be enough to suppress them.

[coryfklein]

It's reductionist to say the armed civilians have no effect whatsoever. But my last point was to emphasize that "armed civilians" are not a protection against dictatorship.

I still believe that, even if he failed to persuade the gun owners, a dictator's armies win against an armed populace.

[Clubber]

You are talking about war like it's like a football game. You have one, and when the time's up, it's over. You have a clear winner and a clear loser based on the scoreboard.

Wars are comprised of many battles, which may or may not cause one side to "win." Wars are over when both sides agree to stop. What compels a side to agree to stop? Many, many things. The US won every major battle in Vietnam, yet there isn't a clear cut winner. The CSA probably would have been an independent nation had Lincoln not been reelected in 1864, a victory Lincoln himself didn't think would happen.

The point being, an insurgency, yes, ultimately wants to "win", but winning includes things like protecting food / water, freer movement, slowing down an advance, creating safe areas, disrupting the enemies ability to wage war as effectively, or just general annoyance of the enemy. If this can go on until the opponent ultimately loses the will to fight, or offers acceptable concessions, it's a victory. It doesn't have to be an overwhelming, parade-in-the-streets type victory, it just has to make the enemy lose the will to fight the insurgency.

[CharlesColeman]

> Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners.

By deterrence, did you actually mean motivation?

Killing someone's family and friends often radicalizes them, and I would say it very rarely pacifies them.

I mean look at the example of the HK protests: the police didn't stop them by kicking some people's teeth in [1], they actually fueled them by doing that.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/video/world/asia/100000006702862/hon...

[coryfklein]

No. I believe that the sum total effect would be deterrence - sure some would radicalize and may throw themselves suicidally against the regime, but I believe the majority would give way to their desire for self preservation.

Why does the USA order strikes on terrorist targets, knowing full well there will be blowback? Because, on the whole, the strategy works.

[CharlesColeman]

> No. I believe that the sum total effect would be deterrence - sure some would radicalize and may throw themselves suicidally against the regime, but I believe the majority would give way to their desire for self preservation.

Your belief is contradicted by recent evidence.

> Why does the USA order strikes on terrorist targets, knowing full well there will be blowback? Because, on the whole, the strategy works.

No, it doesn't. They've been doing that for 20 years in Afghanistan, and we still have headlines like:

"Afghan government controls just 57 percent of its territory, U.S. watchdog says" (2017)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2017/02/02...

"As talks to end the war in Afghanistan continue in Qatar this week, and amid continued political disarray in Kabul, there seems to be one clear trend on the ground: The Taliban are consolidating control. The longer the war drags on—now in its 18th year—the more the balance of the conflict tips in the insurgent group’s favor. While there has been fierce debate in the West and in government-controlled areas of Afghanistan about what peace talks with the Taliban mean for women’s rights and the future of Afghan democracy, the view from Taliban-controlled areas suggests a harsh reality that few in the international community seem prepared for: If peace talks succeed, the Taliban will effectively formalize, and likely expand, their control over vast swaths of the country. If peace talks fail, however, the outcome will likely be far worse, with renewed fighting and a precarious government in Kabul."

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/04/afghanistan-taliban-pea...

[cwkoss]

> Blowing up a home or two harboring a "terrorist cell" during a meeting I'm sure will be deterrence enough for a lot of those gun owners.

Like cutting the head from a hydra, this would spawn dozens of new "terrorist cells" in response. Military is made from the citizenry, and without moral authority, command would lose power and become opposed by many of their own forces (in addition to the general populace)

[fiter]

I find the strength of your argument unconvincing. It's possible that is how it will play out, but it's possible it will also play out differently. My expectation is that uncertainty is part of the second amendment calculus.