[satokema_work]

You might find the extreme gun fanatics this way, but for every one of those there are dozens that just have a regular weapon in the closet for emergencies and don't advertise it whatsoever. (At least in some jurisdictions, may vary based on your location)

[shadowgovt]

In an actual revolution scenario, they're pretty easy to find too. They'd be the people with guns.

I don't think I've actually ever really understood this aspect of American paranoia.

[34679]

See Venezuala. First came registration, then confiscation, then conflict. The government would round up as many guns as possible before war broke out in the streets.

[shadowgovt]

It's an interesting hypothesis that more guns in the hands of civilians would have resulted in less bloody conflict (as opposed to military escalation in light of armed resistance), but I don't know how one proves it. What's the control group?

[RonanTheGrey]

I don't think the claim has ever been that it would result in less bloody conflict. On the contrary, likely more bloody.

I think the claim is simply that it can potentially change the outcome.

And before anyone disagrees, how many soldiers died in Iraq & Afghanistan at the hands of insurgencies?

[shadowgovt]

Plenty, until the US pivoted to drone-launched missiles.

[homonculus1]

Have fun launching missiles at American cities and insurgents embedded in civilian targets. Even shooting missiles at the desert kill enough innocent bystanders to radicalize the enemy, now imagine doing that in Miami and Houston.

[IG_Semmelweiss]

Heuristics. What are the 2 longest-standing governments in the world? US and SUI

What are the 2 most-armed civil societies in the world? US and SUI

Then you have the other end of the spectrum: is regulation of private gun ownership predict government turning on its citizens? No.

Is regulation of private gun ownership a prerequisite for authoritarian govts to turn on citizens? Yes

[A4ET8a8uTh0]

It is not paranoia when a US presidential candidate states he wants full blown confiscation.

If anything, it is mistrust.

[fzeroracer]

I'm curious as to why gun advocates trust the candidate who says they want to confiscate guns less than the president engaging in authoritarian and corrupt behavior.

The whole point of the right to bear arms is that they're meant to be used against the government when they overstep their bounds. But what happens when the people who bear said arms agrees with how the government is breaking the law?