• ChunkMcHorkle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            I meant an active dictatorship.

            That makes it a much more interesting – and impossible to predict – question, most of which depends on at what point during the transfer of power an individual gun owner finally has enough personal, immediate cause to raise that gun against an individual enforcement of the new order.

            Not all coups involve armies; not all coups involve immediate martial law or enforcement against non-government individuals, though all that comes in time. Compare Malaysia to pre-WWII Germany and you’ll see exactly what I mean: both countries had the same essential events involved in moving to an authoritarian government against the will of the majority, but differences in both size and culture made those same events look extremely different, and take place at different points in the transition of power.

            So your guess is as good as mine. I will tell you this, though: if the US loses democracy, absolutely none of the players are unaware of how much firepower citizens now hold, and will not want any citizen owning a gun. Every imaginable resource and effort at drawing them out and seizing them will be made, at every level of government.

            And all this will happen to the vast shock and surprise of those who are unfamiliar with just how much of a surveilled life we now lead and think this new government is there for them because they helped overturn the old one. Anyone having “wild West” fantasies about exercising their own 2a rights against an unwanted new government may find the reality very different: there has never been a coup in history enforced by a militia that was unwilling to kill to cement its place in power, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. Once the military is on board, blood will run.

            For example, Chile loaded civilians into stadiums for the killing, and Argentina loaded them into planes to dump them over the sea. These were civilized democratic countries, not backwaters or banana republics. And that’s just two examples of many from the 20th century; I haven’t even mentioned Cambodia or Brazil, or cartel-related coups like the one in Colombia.

            So the question stands: if/when a new US authoritarian government arrives by coup in the 21st century, how will an 18th century right to bear arms stand against it? I honestly don’t know. I don’t think anyone else does either. But in the age of precisely-targeted drone warfare and mass surveillance, and speaking solely for myself, I think the odds of individual arms’ success after a coup have dropped significantly, and certainly well past the point their proponents now believe.

      • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        How does one resist a dictatorship in control of tanks, bombers, drones, and the largest surveillance state in history, with little rifles? How do other countries with strong gun control resist dictatorship? How many existing dictatorships can you name, where guns aren’t readily available?

        • capital@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          You already forgot about our 20 yr boondoggle in the Middle East?

          What resources did those guys have?

          • jagungal@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Local cooperation. When it’s a foreign force it’s relatively easy to get cooperation from local civilians. When it’s your own government who has been installed by your own fascist faction I think it’s harder to resist without getting dobbed in.

          • Doc Avid Mornington@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            First of all, you’ve responded apparently to the first of my sentences, and pretended the other two don’t exist, so I’m not feeling too optimistic about your good faith in this conversation. But ok.

            There is a vast difference between a local authoritarian government intending to control the local populace, and a neoliberal government from far away that just wants to destabilize your region, increase oil profits for transnational corporations, and funnel a fortune into arms dealers. Our boondoggle in the Middle East was only a boondoggle if the goal was the one stated, which, I suspect you are smart enough to know, it wasn’t. The actual goals were very much accomplished, and the local resistance was a key part of that - how else could they justify all that spending?