[ActorNightly]

Hate to break it to you, but people just simply dont care as much as you think they do. We have the right to own firearms for the purposes of protecting us against tyrany, but thats pointless when we cant even realize tyrany right outside our door.

[noncoml]

This shows how flawed the idea is that individual gun ownership protects people from a rogue government. Acting alone with a firearm does not stop tyranny. It only leads to prison or worse.

Real resistance to authoritarianism has never come from isolated individuals using violence. It requires organized collective action where people stand together and refuse to comply. History shows that meaningful resistance often begins with simple nonviolent acts like refusing unjust rules or asserting basic dignity rather than a lone person reaching for a gun.

Owning a gun by itself does not meaningfully protect anyone from government overreach. Organization solidarity and collective action do.

[mothballed]

A single gun is useless yet when a deranged asshole used it against children it stopped ~200 cops for 77 minutes. What a wild world we live in.

Are police more incentivized to protect a nebulous state than literal children who live in their same town and who are under their charge? If so I hope we are figuring out how to fix that.

[ActorNightly]

The big problem is, everyone is so very attached to their comforts in their daily lives that its a big cost for anyone to resort to violence.

This is why I am hoping that Trump will go through with fascist takeover of US, because at a certain point, the economy is going to tank, and then when people start actually hurting, then there will be way less on the line to lose.

[microtonal]

Examples like Russia show that it's too late at that point, the grip of the state will be too large. Protestors just disappear in prison camps.

By the way, violence is not necessary at all. A large general strike is enough, when the whole economy comes to a standstill and stocks start to crash, the oligarchs are going to get worried.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> History shows that meaningful resistance often begins with simple nonviolent acts like refusing unjust rules or asserting basic dignity rather than a lone person reaching for a gun.

I'm having trouble coming up with many recent examples where non-state resistance to authoritarianism succeeded in defeating it, regardless of method. Myanmar? Hong Kong? Xinjiang? Iran? North Korea?

[mothballed]

Non-state actor YPG fought off ISIS authoritarians and held off Assad authoritarian in Kurdish Syria.

[tjnaylor]

Honduras leading up to the 2021 elections was able to oust an authoritarian president Juan Orlando Hernandez (the same recently pardoned by Trump) through peaceful protests - mostly targeted at blocking major roadways between cities with burning tires. This was a sustained campaign over months, I don't see US citizens as prepared for something like that honestly, but logistically that's a recent example that came to mind.

[noncoml]

Rosa Parks?

[potato3732842]

Having the capacity to do credibly threaten violence back acts as a check on abuse because nobody will stand for cops occasionally getting clapped over stuff they should never have been doing in the first place.

Look at how cops roll up on "is armed because you can't not be at his level" drug criminals. There's reconnaissance, preparation, checklists, etc, etc. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's generally orders of magnitude more professional than the sort of slapdash thuggery ICE is up to. And it's also much more expensive so they don't just target it at entire demographics, they prioritize.

While it's not a silver bullet. Being able to make credible threat of taking one or two of them with you really does force the government side to behave better, maybe not categorically, but enough to matter.

A nearly identical "force them to do better" argument applies to being able to film police, open records, and many other things.

[Teever]

I've had similar thoughts for a while now.

As it is between the guns, radios, helicopters, and digital surveillance crrupt members of law enforcement knows that reprisal against their corruption by the general public is difficult if not impossible.

The second someone uses a drone to take out a blatently corrupt cop who received a paid vacation as punishment for murder the dynamic will change completely.

[mothballed]

I mean look at Bundy V1. Law enforcement did not want to die over a few cows, so they said fuck it. Bundy (senior) is still grazing his cattle on that land to this day.

Law enforcement is not any braver than you or I, if they don't have overwhelming firepower they fall back on their first commandment which is "the policeman goes home safe to his family at the cost of absolutely everyone else including defenseless children."

[thunderfork]

Look at the MOVE bombing, etc - if they wanted to glass the Bundys, they would have. Safety wasn't the reason they didn't.

[mothballed]

I wouldn't describe 'safety' as the state of things after the last time feds glassed a right-wing adjacent group. When the feds 'glassed' Waco, a little known guy named Timothy McVeigh was there. He used it as inspiration to bomb a federal building at which there were 700+ casualties of which over 150 were deaths.

The feds were very much aware "Bundys" was not just the ranching family but a whole bunch of people and greater militia network. If they had glassed Bundy himself it would have been a total shit-show.

[scarecrowbob]

I probably agree with your position in general. I would note that from my position it's more about the politics of the right and how that's more tolerable for folks in power.

Consider Michael Reinoehl.

[kazinator]

> It requires organized collective action where people stand together and refuse to comply.

... armed with guns and prepared to use violence.