The thing I always find astonishing about the LARPing element of "taking up arms against the state" is how one-sidedly political it is. An authoritarian right-wing state - say, an alternate world where Trump had somehow seized power and suspended democracy - would find large numbers of American gun owners who would be very happy about this and serve as a pro-government paramilitary (coordinating the police/military and doing all the Bad Things that the government doesn't want to be seen doing, like human rights abuses and ethnic cleansing).
It shows an astonishing lack of historical awareness to imagine that gun ownership in private hands will be default mobilized "against tyranny" - like tyranny is always going to be some sort of sneering baddies that the public is 95% against. There are obviously some genuine libertarians among gun owners, but there's also a pretty large contingent of authoritarian right wingers (or people who are libertarian only in respect to their own freedoms).
Exactly. Nothing enables a tyrant like a sympathetic mob that is more heavily armed than those who would fight for freedom. Historically, would-be tyrants tend to make sure their sympathizers are well armed more than to disarm anyone. The idea of someone with MAGA and Punisher stickers on their pickup using their guns to oppose tyranny is laughable. No, they'll be first in line to trade in their fake military insignia for the real version.
It's actually advantageous to have a separate "mob" as well as controlling the military/police; the last thing you want is to formally deputize or enlist them.
This way you can go to international events and join the hand-wringing over lynchings, torture and murder ("we can't control our overenthusiastic supporters and of course mistakes were made on both sides, etc"). You can also preserve your control of rule-followers and humanitarians in the police and military.
As a rule, weapons in private hands seem to be handy for overriding the policies of democratically elected governments while complaining about "tyranny" (c.f. Ammon Bundy).
> lack of historical awareness to imagine that gun ownership in private hands will be default mobilized "against tyranny"
Why is it so hard to believe? You really think the military would drop bombs on cities and destroy infrastructure just to control the populace?
The nature of tyranny is about instilling fear in the populace in order to control them. If you destroy your own cities it defeats the purpose of being in power as a dictator.
The end goal is CONTROL, and you cannot control an armed populace. There aren't enough police and military to take on a city where a good portion of the people are armed. There are millions upon millions of armed civilians, and even the military wouldn't stand a chance. Not to mention that in history, taking guns away is exactly what dictatorships have done.
First, the military would need to have its own fight, which would probably reduce its numbers, and then it's a matter of sheer numbers which is on the civilian side. Again, I'm assuming cities won't get bombed, what's the point of destroying your own country. On the ground, there are potentially many strategies that could defeat the military if there are way more armed civilians.
It's remarkable how little you engaged with what I actually wrote, in your haste to deploy the usual LARPing tropes about freedom fighters and "armed civilians" and such nonsense.
Once again, for the slow kids with reading comprehension problems:
Armed civilians are not a reliable source of resistance against certain types of tyranny - notably right-wing authoritarian tyranny. They are, in fact, more likely to crop up in pro-government paramilitaries who are willing to do the dirty work that a tyranny doesn't want to get around to.
In short, for every gun in the hands of a genuine libertarian, there are 2-3 guns in the hands of hard right authoritarians whose embrace of 'libertarianism' only extends as far as "government letting people exactly like me do whatever they want".
I quoted the part I was responding to. The other part seems not true to me. Trump was extremely overblown by media and many believed it. He stepped down... that's not what dictators do, and it was Trump that as LARPing as a dictator just to get reactions. The evidence is that he was an entertainer and had a TV show. How many dictators in history had TV shows? He played the media, and then everyone went insane. Sure, he's an idiot, but thinking he's a dictator? That is also LARPing.
As far as guns, unlike your suggestion of right-wing authoritarian citizens enforcing government, there are many instances in history like Cuba, where the first thing a dictator does is take away civilian guns.
The point of the 2nd amendment, is for anyone and everyone to own guns. We can see this post and also last year during the riots (BLM, left-wing rallies arming themselves) that everyone goes against gun control once they realize they need to defend themselves.
> LARPing element of "taking up arms against the state" is how one-sidedly political it is
Did you look up any news from Portland lately? Because looks like you didn't, otherwise you'd know about people that has been successfully fighting the police and causing a lot of damage to the state, and the state basically retreating before them with the tail tacked between its legs (the reasons might be complicated but the fact is pretty obvious). And those people don't have much love for Trump, to say the least.
It shows an astonishing lack of historical awareness to imagine that gun ownership in private hands will be default mobilized "against tyranny" - like tyranny is always going to be some sort of sneering baddies that the public is 95% against. There are obviously some genuine libertarians among gun owners, but there's also a pretty large contingent of authoritarian right wingers (or people who are libertarian only in respect to their own freedoms).