[hackyhacky]

The answer to your question is obvious: gun owners buy into a fantasy, probably inspired by action movies, that they will one day be able to use their weapon "righteously" against another human being. Possibly in simple self-defense from a crime, but especially in a poetic-heroic setting, such as defending their god-given rights from an oppressive government.

Never mind that gun owners in America don't have the organization, training, resources, or equipment to effectively combat a police department, much less the US army quelling an armed insurrection, even if their rights ever were legitimately threatened. Never mind that private gun ownership as it currently exists would never be a realistic check on any government. The macho fantasy endures, and colors so much of our discussion on gun rights.

The other missing datum from the macho fantasy is under what conditions is armed revolt justified. The sibling post mentions Hong Kong as an example. So what if, on the other hand, the government wants to compel citizens to vaccinations? Are the citizens justified in murdering cops and healthcare workers in order to avoid mandatory vaccination? What if the citizens believe that an election was fraudulent? Are the citiens (legally, ethically) justified in raiding the Capitol to forcibly overthrow the government?

There are no good answers to these questions because the justification for gun ownership is not based in any real-world conditions: it's purely a fantasy.

[Clubber]

>Never mind that gun owners in America don't have the organization, training, resources, or equipment to effectively combat a police department, much less the US army quelling an armed insurrection, even if their rights ever were legitimately threatened.

This is a common argument, but completely ignores what the Taliban/Iraqis/ISIS did to the best and most well funded military for 20 years. What the Vietnamese did 40 years before that; completely ignoring 60 years of actual events.

[hackyhacky]

The Taliban were repelling an invading army. The Viet Cong were strictly trained.

Do you think ordinary Americans have the skill or appetite to take up arms against other Americans? Especially better trained and equipped Americans?

How far do you think the Jan 6 insurrectionists would have gotten had the capitol police taken the threat at all seriously?

The argument that "America's armed forces have lost wars" does not support your conclusion that "ordinary Americans are capable of defeating America's armed forces."

And you also conveniently ignore the rest of argument, pointing out that a democratic government doesn't need armed insurrections.

[throwaway0a5e]

>Do you think ordinary Americans have the skill or appetite to take up arms against other Americans? Especially better trained and equipped Americans?

IDK. Ask the Irish.

The Taliban, VC, etc, had basically ZERO ability to mess with the invading army's supply lines or the political process keeping those supply lines open. Furthermore, the martial law steps taken in places like Iraq to stem the violence would be much more politically costly domestically. I can crap out plenty of non-US examples of this kind of thing if that helps.

This shit is all basic stuff covered in Armchair General 101. Educate yourself.

[hackyhacky]

> This shit is all basic stuff covered in Armchair General 101. Educate yourself.

Based on the snide tone of condescension, this response sounds like it was written by precisely the kind of delusional macho wannabe who fetishizes firearms and dreams of one day murdering someone.

[throwaway0a5e]

>this response sounds like it was written by precisely the kind of delusional macho wannabe who fetishizes firearms and dreams of one day murdering someone.

Or maybe I've read just a little bit of history and think you're the delusional one.

Civil wars don't go down like foreign occupations. If this nation breaks down into widespread violence (I don't personally think it would, I think it would balkanize before we ever got to that point) I hope that you live long enough to be subject to is so that you may learn an important lesson and that some future generation may be spared the task of mopping up the mess.

[hackyhacky]

> maybe I've read just a little bit of history and think you're the delusional one.

That's exactly the problem: you've read some history and now you think you're an expert in civil war.