Does gun ownership actually stop tyrannical government

Post Reply New Topic

People, mostly unarmed, stormed the US Capitol. According to most of the posts on this website, such an action almost led to the complete overthrown of the US government. (As if far-flung federal agents, military personnel, government agency field offices, etc., would all submit to some yahoos that smashed some windows and trespassed in the Capitol Building. )

Yet, while the unarmed storming of the Capitol is equated with the whole US government almost being subverted and overthrown (as postulated by a lot of folks here on WP), possession of personal firearms couldn't possibly have any bearing on the government in power, and, therefore, firearms should be taken away since they serve no purpose regarding people's resistance to government.

So, according to WP, unarmed hooligans almost overthrew the government, but an armed populace couldn't possibly do so. Which is it with you people??

the whole thing makes no sense to me, because i know for a GD FACT that if it was BLM protesting there even outside of the capitol, those flatfoots that were getting B!+ched out by those maga yahoos would have transformed into storm troopers putting out CS gas and smashing heads with batons with rubber bullets flyin', just as they did when trump ordered the same police force to put down a protest. i never understood why those cops were so WEAK in the presence of that right-wing mob. something is fishy in denmark.

^Some Internet theories:

If you're LEFT of center, those cops were themselves racist, pro-Trump supporters. Or they were ordered not to harm white people the way they would PoC or white liberals.

If you're RIGHT of center, the DC establishment had intelligence of what would happen, but deliberately allowed it to occur to smear Trump and his supporters and show how dangerous they are.

Either way, no chance the whole of the Federal Government of the United States of America coast-to-coast would collapse regardless of who was busting up windows at the Capitol.

anyways, it was plain as day even to the dead, that it was allowed to happen, even encouraged.

Yes. So, it wasn't that the protesters were all-powerful. Rather, an insider group allowed them to be hooligans. The way folks here talk, those protesters overpowered the Capitol Police all by themselves, and, --all by themselves--, had the power to overthrow the government.

Why do tyrannical governments not allow citizens to own guns?

So a hard thing for a lot of people to understand, although I do get the hint that enough people in this thread do, tyranny and control are games of thresholds.

With controlling a populace there has to be excuses that populace are willing to go along with, or at least a slight majority, if that populace is armed. The things you have to do in order to disarm and armed populace generally give away bad intent. Could the government roll right over their armed citizens with tanks, F-22's, drones, even nukes? Hell yeah!! ! The trouble with actually doing that, you'll get nowhere close to that sort of behavior as a democracy. A government that isn't autocratic relies on the faith of the people, siccing the military on the populace doesn't tend to go well in that regard - and at least as of today the UN still frowns on it.

In that sense the blunt violence vector toward tyranny is closed or at least made prohibitively expensive without an amazingly persuasive excuse for people to voluntarily give up their rights, and that's not really something most governments have the capacity to fabricate, it would be some truly bizarre change in the landscape like some new virus that can turn anyone into a mass shooter.

Is that the only vector for tyranny? Clearly not. We're seeing that corporate monopolies and decadent governments have a similar fetish for having as much asymmetric information on their populace and customer bases as possible, and you see as well that economics are a great way to control people - ie. keep as many people living paycheck to paycheck and if you control that paycheck, tell someone to jump they'll say 'How high', they don't have a choice. In a scary way the game of power is to take away freedom and keep other people back on their heals any way you can.

I think our biggest threat right now is a docile populace who gets sucked into tv, video games, and personal prestige too much to see or care about broader threats to their liberties, or at least in a country of over 300 million (US) there's a 'they' who'll do the brave and scary stuff and risk life and limb, no effort needed on their own part. I think they miss the part that they can be relied on to give these people ample room to fall for having dared to attempt reforms.

stinking right wing hypocrites. raygun can burn in an innermost circle of hell AFAIC.

A dead politician can't screw you anymore. I think the concept of citizen's owning guns is safe for the middle class.

I don't know whether guns will save us from tyranny, but I can tell you there are simply too goddamn many of them in my state. You may be familiar with the old chestnut that "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns" but the fact is that the fewer legal restrictions exist on obtaining guns, the easier it is for outlaws to get them. There is probably a direct correlation between permissive gun laws and gun violence, which could probably be demonstrated by comparing on a country by country basis (not by comparing S. Illinois to Chicago).