That cat is already out of the bag and it's too late. There are so many ARs in circulation that it's going to be impossible to get them out of circulation without risking a whole lot of Waco/Ruby Ridge-style incidents. Besides that, the gangs are always going to have AR/AK-style rifles so cops will continue to have to contend with that threat whether or not law-abiding citizens disarm en masse anyway. The time to do something about this was in 2004 when the national AWB was sunsetting and we had a chance to do a long-term ban. Guess which party largely tanked that vote? Now we're here.
Designing, testing, and producing a weapon for the military is an expensive and time consuming project... plus the military doesn't pay nearly as much per weapon as a civilian consumer does.
So you spend a few years geting the weapon to a production state, you invest in the physical plant/tooling, and you sell a few hu8ndred thousand units over the next several years as the force shifts weapons (and then wait another 50-60 years for the next chance).
So to make money you create a "civilian" version to take advantage of existing plant and to further recoup your investment.
And sell more than you did to the military. Yay capitalism.
Too bad you can't do that with tanks or artillery or crew served weapons, I guess? Lots of lost profit opportunity there.
If we decided to actually control guns TODAY and passed he laws TODAY, I figure that it will take at least three generations to get things under control, because there are just so many guns out there.
And then you would still have weapons in the hands of actual criminals--although they would have a harder time arming themselves as time passed.
In the 1970's when the AR first made its appearance on the civilian market it had no market. No one was calling for it. It met no specifications that any civilian shooting sports organization was asking for. Unlike a better competitive target rifle, or a better quail and grouse gun, or a better deer rifle, no one was complaining at the time that we needed a better home defense weapon that what we already had available. Isn't it ironic that now the AR is needed because of all the other AR's out there.
1) If there isn't a market for something, you can often create one. Which is what happened. The NRA and the firearms industry kind of conspired on that one.
2) Most AR owndership (and double-stack semi-auto pistol ownsership) is less a functionality thing and more a cultural, status thing.
ARs are horrible home defense weapons. I would not buy one for home defense... also not a great GP weapon. Seems to be mostly a question of style/culture/wannna-be ism.
When I was growing up, the use of self-loading weapons for most recreational purposes was illegal. It was also seen as unsporting. I have owned one self-loading rifle (and it was my first one)--a 22LR used for target plinking. Everything else was a bolt or lever action. Had one self-loading shotgun (Remingto 1100 a great weapon). My competition guns were single or double barrels.
And, to maybe freak some people out--my high school had an actual rifle team (state champs every year I was there).
All of that was before the NRA metasticized into the abomination it now is.
I attribute the rise in AR-15 ownership to two things:
1) the sunsetting of the national AWB
2) the Global War on Terror making the M4 into the iconic American fighting rifle that everyone wanted after that (and many vets bought them after getting out, which made the gun-worshippers who didn't serve want them as well by proxy)
Yeah, but before that, the original market for civilian "assault rifles," including the term, was cultivated in the late '70s and '80s, by gun manufacturers and publishers. Literally the same words that would get you mocked, twenty years later, for supposedly not knowing the difference between full and semiautomatics, were on the covers of gun-industry publications. When the AWB was debated, "gun rights" people derided it as being concerned with "scary" military stylings - which had been *exactly the intended image* for the Soldier of Fortune cosplay market.
What's really scary is thinking about what happens after everyone who wants an AR style assault rifle has as many as they want, and those who own them begin to die away from old age and leave them to their heirs. An AR properly cared will have a service life of about 200 years (don't believe me? You can find original Brown Bess muskets on the market that will kill a man today same as they would 250 years ago). The gun industry will be right back where it was in the 1970's, with a diminishing market for a product that lasts essentially forever. Will they then try to sell us Star Wars blasters (which appear to be horribly innacurate by the way).
I've dug enough AK-47s out of the ground to know just how long those things will last under adverse conditions. Some packing grease and plastic wrap will keep those things alive for decades if not centuries.
Believe me, I would gladly toss my assault rifles into a smoldering volcano--no buyback necessary--if I could get the rest of the assault rifle owners in this country to do the same, but the problem is that a critical mass of the rest of assault rifle owners in this country *want* the same firepower as the cops because they consider the cops out-gunning the citizenry to be the prologue to authoritarianism (and historically-speaking, they're not exactly wrong there).
It's kind of hard to topple an authoritarian government if the populace is largely disarmed. How easy is it for the citizens of Venezuela or China or Russia to get rid of their authoritarian govs absent the arms to do it with? The closest guy to get to toppling Putin was Prigozyn, and that was because he had a bunch of dudes with guns behind him.
If Trump 2.0 went full authoritarian and we had an 100-years rule by the MAGAfied GOP, what would the uncooperative parts of the domestic populace need on hand in order to overthrow it? Foul language? Feather dusters? Sharpened sticks?
I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy. Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships.
His main worry is keep his own military from turning on him.
[Edit] The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
"I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy."
King George the 3rd and Muhammar Khaddaffi would like a word.
"Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships."
Illiterate heroin farmers in Afghanistan lacked tanks and helicopter gunships, yet their ability to not give a fuck about that kind of thing on a long enough timeline gave them a victory now didn't it? Just because one side has the tanks/helos doesn't mean they have the ROEs to employ them against an insurgent force that blends into the civilian populace. Ask the Israeli government how using ordnance against civilian populations is working out for their international credibility and if it'll stop Palestinians from continuing the fight against them in the future.
"The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?"
Some peoples would rather die on their feet for generations than live on their knees over the same time period. Should the Ukrainians pack it up and let Russia into Kyiv on the basis that it'd be better to end the war now and live under occupation as opposed to a longer protracted war?
Aside from the case of Khaddaffi, which I'd have to look back at (I suspect he lost support of his troops), those are all really guerrilla movements against foreign forces. Not the same as the population overthrowing their own authoritarian.
A lot of domestic populations tend to lose the support of their troops when they go harsh on the populace (Assad's Syria is a counter-example).
Khaddafi did lose the support of *some* of his troops but he also lost others to NATO fires. That said, the Libyan militias were already moving to the outskirts of the capital by the time NATO launched TLAMs against Khaddafi's tanks and air defense (mostly from a single submarine). George the 3rd definitely didn't lose the support of his troops when confronting the colonial revolution that became the US.
Examples of successful domestic revolutions: American Revolution. French Revolution. October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Revolution of Liege. Haitian Revolution. Batavian Revolution. Bolivian and Peruvian Revolutions (Same time period). Mexican War of Independence. Argentine War of Independence. Venezuelan War of Independence. Chilean War of Independence. Second Serbian Uprising. Ecuadorian War of Independence. Greek War of Independence. Brazilian War of Independence. Belgian Revolution. Texas Revolution. Dominican War of Independence.
A more extensive list of successful/unsuccessful revolutions and uprisings here, but the important takeaway is that none of them happen without an armed populace:
Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian. The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies.
Also, there is the issue of the level of arms required to overthrow a government that has lost popular support. Pitchforks and torches are sufficient when the mobs are large enough. Molotov cocktails can do a lot of damage.
Kind of like the resistance the French are now dealing with in New Caledonia.
"Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian."
Valid enough point, but again, how do modern Venezuelans, Russians, etc. overthrow their current rulers absent being armed? Sure, the Ukrainians overthrew their puppet government in 2013 without guns, but how does a Russian or Chinese or Venezuelan citizenry do so without them?
"The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies."
Didn't say the new boss would be better than the old boss, just that the people being armed tends to make getting rid of the old boss a helluva lot easier. Napoleon and Lenin would have had a harder time maintaining their authoritarianism if the people were armed against the gendarmerie or the NKVD.
This is the best perspective. I've never accepted the, тАЬYou can't fight the militaryтАЭ argument. Look if the US military decides to target me with an armored division and Hellfire missiles, then I guess my time has come. At that point though we will have lost the Constitution. More realistic is a lawless ruler who deputizes the тАЬright peopleтАЭ to handle policing duties. Like Proud Boys and Oathkeepers. In this situation, perhaps me and my neighbors would decide to resist these roving bands of hooligans.
I do not own a gun. I have in the past, and I have friends and family who do. My point is that the Second Amendment is there for ME in the event I need to arm myself. When and if I decide to exercise it is a personal one. I understand the change in mindset necessary to bring a gun into my home. I'm not there yet, but this is also about personal responsibility.
Considering that the MAGAts are likely more heavily armed than the Resistnce, how does that work out?
Resiatnce to "authoritarianism" is contextual and most of these arguments presume that the armed people will somehow not face any resistance from the other armed (but regime supporting) people.
The reality is that the "militias" were intended as protections for the established order, not as a defensibe bulwark against the established order.
Also as a replacement for a permanent army, that no one wanted to (or could afford to) pay for and which was seen as a danger (given historical practice).
The US Military was way more heavily-armed than both the Vietnamese and the Afghans, but that didn't stop them from losing in the long run. The one advantage an insurgency will always have over a better-armed authoritarian force is that the authoritarian force will always need to be present in the streets--and generally in uniform of some kind--to enforce its order, whereby the insurgency can remain un-uniformed and attack the ever-present opposition forces by surprise at a time of their choosing. As someone who's been on the business end of this insurgent advantage, trust me I understand just how much of an advantage it is when well-executed.
"Resiatnce (sic) to "authoritarianism" is contextual and most of these arguments presume that the armed people will somehow not face any resistance from the other armed (but regime supporting) people."
This is a better point, but again, you can't even confront the American version of armed Chavistas without the opposition being armed themselves. Again, these groups tend to be known and present and uniformed as opposed to an un-uniformed and shadowy resistance force, but more than that it's actually bombings and snipers that are more effective against this kind of group than fielded platoon/squad-like units. Clandestine cells are more effective against this kind of force than fielded units openly-carrying arms.
"The reality is that the "militias" were intended as protections for the established order, not as a defensibe bulwark against the established order."
This is absolutely true in the constitutional sense of our national history, the problem is that SCOTUS has a different interpretation, and they're the ones who determine which interpretation is the effective one by law.
The problem that I see in all of this is that you end up with competing groups of what are effectively terrorists--in other words, Northern Ireland or worse.
Insurgencies are next to impossible to get rid of (although both we and the British have succeeded at it in the past)--unless you can remove its support and turn it against itself. But at the same time, they can kind of become the new normal. Something that the non-participants structue their lives around to avoid--because the reality is that only a small part of the population is ever going to get involved.
There is a difference between fighting an insurgency as a foreign occupying power (US in Afghanistan and Iraq) and fighting one on your home turf, I think--at least in the motivational levels.
I do not see insurgency as a viable strategy, except in the long term (20 years plus) and hideously expensive at a variety of levels. I do not see enough Americans going along with it.
It comes down to (as in the case in the examples you invoke) the willingness to fight--having the will and dedication to outlast your opponent--only in the case of a domestic insurgency, the ability to simply pack up and go home does not exist.
"The problem that I see in all of this is that you end up with competing groups of what are effectively terrorists--in other words, Northern Ireland or worse."
Yes. But actually more like Somalia or Afghanistan in the 90's under multi-tribal warfare.
"....unless you can remove its support and turn it against itself."
This is why insurgencies tend to work on a long enough timeline, and an American one against an authoritarian regime would be no different, provided it had the arms to bear in the first place. Given what we know about Trumpism and the anti-Trump coalition do you think there wouldn't be sufficient popular support for an insurgency in either direction? Either *for* a Trump authoritarian regime or against it via an insurgency by the anti-MAGA coalition?
"There is a difference between fighting an insurgency as a foreign occupying power (US in Afghanistan and Iraq) and fighting one on your home turf, I think--at least in the motivational levels."
Things change when foreign powers get involved with domestic insurgencies on a large enough scale. The French aided the American Revolution topple the British monarchy. NATO aided the Libyan uprising against Ghaddafi. The CIA backed I don't know how many popular coups in the S/C Americas and Africa. If we had a significant insurgency in the US do you think places like Russia or China wouldn't be helping the insurgents out given what we've seen them do in our elections?
"I do not see enough Americans going along with it."
You don't need a lot of Americans to get on board with it, just a small critical mass of core support. The Troubles in Northern Ireland went on for 30 years. What percent of that populace do you think took part in that? America itself--as both a colonial power and a nation--has been through two civil wars (the torries vs revolutionaries one and the secession one). We've got a history of supporting domestic resolutions and insurgencies--to say nothing of popular support for terror groups like the Klan across different decades.
"Given what we know about Trumpism and the anti-Trump coalition do you think there wouldn't be sufficient popular support for an insurgency in either direction? Either *for* a Trump authoritarian regime or against it via an insurgency by the anti-MAGA coalition?"
Doesn't this sound more like the recipe for a civil war rather than the fantasy of a popular revolution?
Oh, you're very right. Like any other suggestion for actually improving things here, which has exactly zero chance of happening if it conflicts with the desires of the country's owners.
It's not as simple as that. Like, if you could wave a magic wand and every AR-15 in the US disappeared, you'd still have to contend with all the other rifles that are functionally identical. For example, Ruger has been making the Mini 14 since 1974. The only basic difference between that and the AR is that the Mini-14 doesn't have a pistol grip and is cosmetically different (i.e. the Mini has wood paneling and the AR is "tactical").
That cat is already out of the bag and it's too late. There are so many ARs in circulation that it's going to be impossible to get them out of circulation without risking a whole lot of Waco/Ruby Ridge-style incidents. Besides that, the gangs are always going to have AR/AK-style rifles so cops will continue to have to contend with that threat whether or not law-abiding citizens disarm en masse anyway. The time to do something about this was in 2004 when the national AWB was sunsetting and we had a chance to do a long-term ban. Guess which party largely tanked that vote? Now we're here.
Designing, testing, and producing a weapon for the military is an expensive and time consuming project... plus the military doesn't pay nearly as much per weapon as a civilian consumer does.
So you spend a few years geting the weapon to a production state, you invest in the physical plant/tooling, and you sell a few hu8ndred thousand units over the next several years as the force shifts weapons (and then wait another 50-60 years for the next chance).
So to make money you create a "civilian" version to take advantage of existing plant and to further recoup your investment.
And sell more than you did to the military. Yay capitalism.
Too bad you can't do that with tanks or artillery or crew served weapons, I guess? Lots of lost profit opportunity there.
If we decided to actually control guns TODAY and passed he laws TODAY, I figure that it will take at least three generations to get things under control, because there are just so many guns out there.
And then you would still have weapons in the hands of actual criminals--although they would have a harder time arming themselves as time passed.
In the 1970's when the AR first made its appearance on the civilian market it had no market. No one was calling for it. It met no specifications that any civilian shooting sports organization was asking for. Unlike a better competitive target rifle, or a better quail and grouse gun, or a better deer rifle, no one was complaining at the time that we needed a better home defense weapon that what we already had available. Isn't it ironic that now the AR is needed because of all the other AR's out there.
1) If there isn't a market for something, you can often create one. Which is what happened. The NRA and the firearms industry kind of conspired on that one.
2) Most AR owndership (and double-stack semi-auto pistol ownsership) is less a functionality thing and more a cultural, status thing.
ARs are horrible home defense weapons. I would not buy one for home defense... also not a great GP weapon. Seems to be mostly a question of style/culture/wannna-be ism.
When I was growing up, the use of self-loading weapons for most recreational purposes was illegal. It was also seen as unsporting. I have owned one self-loading rifle (and it was my first one)--a 22LR used for target plinking. Everything else was a bolt or lever action. Had one self-loading shotgun (Remingto 1100 a great weapon). My competition guns were single or double barrels.
And, to maybe freak some people out--my high school had an actual rifle team (state champs every year I was there).
All of that was before the NRA metasticized into the abomination it now is.
I attribute the rise in AR-15 ownership to two things:
1) the sunsetting of the national AWB
2) the Global War on Terror making the M4 into the iconic American fighting rifle that everyone wanted after that (and many vets bought them after getting out, which made the gun-worshippers who didn't serve want them as well by proxy)
Yeah, but before that, the original market for civilian "assault rifles," including the term, was cultivated in the late '70s and '80s, by gun manufacturers and publishers. Literally the same words that would get you mocked, twenty years later, for supposedly not knowing the difference between full and semiautomatics, were on the covers of gun-industry publications. When the AWB was debated, "gun rights" people derided it as being concerned with "scary" military stylings - which had been *exactly the intended image* for the Soldier of Fortune cosplay market.
What's really scary is thinking about what happens after everyone who wants an AR style assault rifle has as many as they want, and those who own them begin to die away from old age and leave them to their heirs. An AR properly cared will have a service life of about 200 years (don't believe me? You can find original Brown Bess muskets on the market that will kill a man today same as they would 250 years ago). The gun industry will be right back where it was in the 1970's, with a diminishing market for a product that lasts essentially forever. Will they then try to sell us Star Wars blasters (which appear to be horribly innacurate by the way).
Hey, only Imperial Stormtroopers are that precise. The misses are intentional ;)
That the storm troopers were all clones of a tier 1 mercenary speaks volumes to how it's the training that counts.
True, I never really though about that, lol.
You ever watch any of these, they are hilariously on point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g43lgCJ_D6o&list=PLxJr4XsTcWljTxufEaW_3X1VY_eqjuLgi
I've dug enough AK-47s out of the ground to know just how long those things will last under adverse conditions. Some packing grease and plastic wrap will keep those things alive for decades if not centuries.
How many guesses do I get? ;)
Sigh
Believe me, I would gladly toss my assault rifles into a smoldering volcano--no buyback necessary--if I could get the rest of the assault rifle owners in this country to do the same, but the problem is that a critical mass of the rest of assault rifle owners in this country *want* the same firepower as the cops because they consider the cops out-gunning the citizenry to be the prologue to authoritarianism (and historically-speaking, they're not exactly wrong there).
Regarding your last point, what is the historical record supporting that?
I'm not arguing against the idea, I just can't immediately think of any cases where an armed citizenry prevented an authoritarian takeover.
It's kind of hard to topple an authoritarian government if the populace is largely disarmed. How easy is it for the citizens of Venezuela or China or Russia to get rid of their authoritarian govs absent the arms to do it with? The closest guy to get to toppling Putin was Prigozyn, and that was because he had a bunch of dudes with guns behind him.
If Trump 2.0 went full authoritarian and we had an 100-years rule by the MAGAfied GOP, what would the uncooperative parts of the domestic populace need on hand in order to overthrow it? Foul language? Feather dusters? Sharpened sticks?
I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy. Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships.
His main worry is keep his own military from turning on him.
[Edit] The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
"I think the notion that an armed populace will overthrow an authoritarian government is largely fantasy."
King George the 3rd and Muhammar Khaddaffi would like a word.
"Even a civilian population heavily armed with assault weaponry stands little chance against the guy with the tanks and the helicopter gunships."
Illiterate heroin farmers in Afghanistan lacked tanks and helicopter gunships, yet their ability to not give a fuck about that kind of thing on a long enough timeline gave them a victory now didn't it? Just because one side has the tanks/helos doesn't mean they have the ROEs to employ them against an insurgent force that blends into the civilian populace. Ask the Israeli government how using ordnance against civilian populations is working out for their international credibility and if it'll stop Palestinians from continuing the fight against them in the future.
"The armed populace wouldn't be able to overthrow the authoritarian but they could sure engage in one heck of a civil war. Wouldn't that be wonderful?"
Some peoples would rather die on their feet for generations than live on their knees over the same time period. Should the Ukrainians pack it up and let Russia into Kyiv on the basis that it'd be better to end the war now and live under occupation as opposed to a longer protracted war?
Aside from the case of Khaddaffi, which I'd have to look back at (I suspect he lost support of his troops), those are all really guerrilla movements against foreign forces. Not the same as the population overthrowing their own authoritarian.
A lot of domestic populations tend to lose the support of their troops when they go harsh on the populace (Assad's Syria is a counter-example).
Khaddafi did lose the support of *some* of his troops but he also lost others to NATO fires. That said, the Libyan militias were already moving to the outskirts of the capital by the time NATO launched TLAMs against Khaddafi's tanks and air defense (mostly from a single submarine). George the 3rd definitely didn't lose the support of his troops when confronting the colonial revolution that became the US.
Examples of successful domestic revolutions: American Revolution. French Revolution. October 1917 Revolution in Russia. Revolution of Liege. Haitian Revolution. Batavian Revolution. Bolivian and Peruvian Revolutions (Same time period). Mexican War of Independence. Argentine War of Independence. Venezuelan War of Independence. Chilean War of Independence. Second Serbian Uprising. Ecuadorian War of Independence. Greek War of Independence. Brazilian War of Independence. Belgian Revolution. Texas Revolution. Dominican War of Independence.
A more extensive list of successful/unsuccessful revolutions and uprisings here, but the important takeaway is that none of them happen without an armed populace:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions
Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian. The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies.
Also, there is the issue of the level of arms required to overthrow a government that has lost popular support. Pitchforks and torches are sufficient when the mobs are large enough. Molotov cocktails can do a lot of damage.
Kind of like the resistance the French are now dealing with in New Caledonia.
"Without taking the time it would take to dig into all of these it appears as if most of them were anti-colonial battles. Not the same as an overthrow of a homegrown authoritarian."
Valid enough point, but again, how do modern Venezuelans, Russians, etc. overthrow their current rulers absent being armed? Sure, the Ukrainians overthrew their puppet government in 2013 without guns, but how does a Russian or Chinese or Venezuelan citizenry do so without them?
"The two standouts are the Russians and the French, neither of which led to institution of happy and healthy democracies."
Didn't say the new boss would be better than the old boss, just that the people being armed tends to make getting rid of the old boss a helluva lot easier. Napoleon and Lenin would have had a harder time maintaining their authoritarianism if the people were armed against the gendarmerie or the NKVD.
This is the best perspective. I've never accepted the, тАЬYou can't fight the militaryтАЭ argument. Look if the US military decides to target me with an armored division and Hellfire missiles, then I guess my time has come. At that point though we will have lost the Constitution. More realistic is a lawless ruler who deputizes the тАЬright peopleтАЭ to handle policing duties. Like Proud Boys and Oathkeepers. In this situation, perhaps me and my neighbors would decide to resist these roving bands of hooligans.
I do not own a gun. I have in the past, and I have friends and family who do. My point is that the Second Amendment is there for ME in the event I need to arm myself. When and if I decide to exercise it is a personal one. I understand the change in mindset necessary to bring a gun into my home. I'm not there yet, but this is also about personal responsibility.
Considering that the MAGAts are likely more heavily armed than the Resistnce, how does that work out?
Resiatnce to "authoritarianism" is contextual and most of these arguments presume that the armed people will somehow not face any resistance from the other armed (but regime supporting) people.
The reality is that the "militias" were intended as protections for the established order, not as a defensibe bulwark against the established order.
Also as a replacement for a permanent army, that no one wanted to (or could afford to) pay for and which was seen as a danger (given historical practice).
The US Military was way more heavily-armed than both the Vietnamese and the Afghans, but that didn't stop them from losing in the long run. The one advantage an insurgency will always have over a better-armed authoritarian force is that the authoritarian force will always need to be present in the streets--and generally in uniform of some kind--to enforce its order, whereby the insurgency can remain un-uniformed and attack the ever-present opposition forces by surprise at a time of their choosing. As someone who's been on the business end of this insurgent advantage, trust me I understand just how much of an advantage it is when well-executed.
"Resiatnce (sic) to "authoritarianism" is contextual and most of these arguments presume that the armed people will somehow not face any resistance from the other armed (but regime supporting) people."
This is a better point, but again, you can't even confront the American version of armed Chavistas without the opposition being armed themselves. Again, these groups tend to be known and present and uniformed as opposed to an un-uniformed and shadowy resistance force, but more than that it's actually bombings and snipers that are more effective against this kind of group than fielded platoon/squad-like units. Clandestine cells are more effective against this kind of force than fielded units openly-carrying arms.
"The reality is that the "militias" were intended as protections for the established order, not as a defensibe bulwark against the established order."
This is absolutely true in the constitutional sense of our national history, the problem is that SCOTUS has a different interpretation, and they're the ones who determine which interpretation is the effective one by law.
The problem that I see in all of this is that you end up with competing groups of what are effectively terrorists--in other words, Northern Ireland or worse.
Insurgencies are next to impossible to get rid of (although both we and the British have succeeded at it in the past)--unless you can remove its support and turn it against itself. But at the same time, they can kind of become the new normal. Something that the non-participants structue their lives around to avoid--because the reality is that only a small part of the population is ever going to get involved.
There is a difference between fighting an insurgency as a foreign occupying power (US in Afghanistan and Iraq) and fighting one on your home turf, I think--at least in the motivational levels.
I do not see insurgency as a viable strategy, except in the long term (20 years plus) and hideously expensive at a variety of levels. I do not see enough Americans going along with it.
It comes down to (as in the case in the examples you invoke) the willingness to fight--having the will and dedication to outlast your opponent--only in the case of a domestic insurgency, the ability to simply pack up and go home does not exist.
"The problem that I see in all of this is that you end up with competing groups of what are effectively terrorists--in other words, Northern Ireland or worse."
Yes. But actually more like Somalia or Afghanistan in the 90's under multi-tribal warfare.
"....unless you can remove its support and turn it against itself."
This is why insurgencies tend to work on a long enough timeline, and an American one against an authoritarian regime would be no different, provided it had the arms to bear in the first place. Given what we know about Trumpism and the anti-Trump coalition do you think there wouldn't be sufficient popular support for an insurgency in either direction? Either *for* a Trump authoritarian regime or against it via an insurgency by the anti-MAGA coalition?
"There is a difference between fighting an insurgency as a foreign occupying power (US in Afghanistan and Iraq) and fighting one on your home turf, I think--at least in the motivational levels."
Things change when foreign powers get involved with domestic insurgencies on a large enough scale. The French aided the American Revolution topple the British monarchy. NATO aided the Libyan uprising against Ghaddafi. The CIA backed I don't know how many popular coups in the S/C Americas and Africa. If we had a significant insurgency in the US do you think places like Russia or China wouldn't be helping the insurgents out given what we've seen them do in our elections?
"I do not see enough Americans going along with it."
You don't need a lot of Americans to get on board with it, just a small critical mass of core support. The Troubles in Northern Ireland went on for 30 years. What percent of that populace do you think took part in that? America itself--as both a colonial power and a nation--has been through two civil wars (the torries vs revolutionaries one and the secession one). We've got a history of supporting domestic resolutions and insurgencies--to say nothing of popular support for terror groups like the Klan across different decades.
"Given what we know about Trumpism and the anti-Trump coalition do you think there wouldn't be sufficient popular support for an insurgency in either direction? Either *for* a Trump authoritarian regime or against it via an insurgency by the anti-MAGA coalition?"
Doesn't this sound more like the recipe for a civil war rather than the fantasy of a popular revolution?
I'm fine with taking their AR-15s from their cold, dead hands. After making them such. Reducing the population of morons is always good.
How many cops are going to die along the way to getting all of those guns out of all of those hands do ya think?
Four cops died at Waco (many others were wounded) and one cop died at Ruby Ridge and many others received gunfire in that incident for reference.
Oh, you're very right. Like any other suggestion for actually improving things here, which has exactly zero chance of happening if it conflicts with the desires of the country's owners.
As JVL likes to say, "the people are the problem." It's our own damned culture that has us living this way.
It's not as simple as that. Like, if you could wave a magic wand and every AR-15 in the US disappeared, you'd still have to contend with all the other rifles that are functionally identical. For example, Ruger has been making the Mini 14 since 1974. The only basic difference between that and the AR is that the Mini-14 doesn't have a pistol grip and is cosmetically different (i.e. the Mini has wood paneling and the AR is "tactical").