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?
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.
Yeah. Say hello to the new boss. Same as the old boss.
Or worse.
I just object to the fantasy that some have of overthrowing *this* government.
I'm not up on Venezuela but, as for the Russians, the majority seem to support the malevolent dwarf they've got.
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?