Key 2nd Amendment argument: guns are needed to fight a tyrannical government....

[steve2470]

Ok, let's really analyze this in depth. Not trolling, I think you long time DU'ers know me well enough to know I don't engage in that BS

Hypothetical scenario: Trump goes full fascist dictator and the military supports him. (yes yes I know, but bear with me)

I don't know all the facts about our military, stipulated.

How successful can we Americans be if our military supports a fascist dictator ? My assumption (yes, it's an assumption) is that eventually we democracy-loving Americans would prevail, somehow.

Help me please. I am being sincere here. I need to be educated by people who know the facts. Thank you in advance.

[guillaumeb]

1. Many Second Amendment fantasists think that the movie "Red Dawn" is fact.

And Lethal Weapon, and all of the other gun porn movies.

[Corvo Bianco]

2. If the American government decides to kill people the American government can win in

twenty minutes with their eyes closed. The citizens do not win. Grumpy men are sold guns so that rich grumpy men can get richer. The 2nd amendment is a convenient little lie.

[EX500rider]

7. The Taliban might not agree.

[Corvo Bianco]

16. Sure, sure... If we're just talking about a gun protecting you from the US government,

I think the bombs and tanks and drones and jets win against AR15's.

[EX500rider]

17. "I think the bombs and tanks and drones and jets win against AR15"

We have all that against the Taliban and their Ak-47's, why haven't we won then?

[Corvo Bianco]

21. I don't believe AK-47's prevent our military from defeating the Taliban.

But you're presenting an interesting premise. Maybe we need to get some pro tunnel-digging tips from the Taliban. So what we really need are... shovels? The right to dig a hole and hide

[EX500rider]

26. Tunnels have little to do with it.

It's not giving up and fighting a guerrilla war which can last a very long time.

[pimpbot]

24. because its not our country

When you own it, its a lot easier to round up entire populations. See Germany and the holocaust.

[EX500rider]

29. Good luck rounding up Americans to go in death camps...

...we are not as quite a submissive to authority as Germans.

[Egnever]

42. On that point I think you might be quite surprised.

there is plenty of research done on people doing exactly that.

[EX500rider]

43. Oh getting Americans to do it i agree...

.....getting Americans to go peacefully I highly doubt.

[EX500rider]

30. And again, the Afghan government would strongly disagree.

[XRubicon]

3. You don't need an ar-15 to cause alot of trouble

See Iraq 2007.

[bearsfootball516]

4. Back when the 2nd amendment was created...

The military didn't have tanks, drones, aircraft, etc. They had muskets. That's it. Same as the citizens, so if the two went against each other, it was a fair fight and civilians had a real chance.

The argument that the 2nd amendment was created so Americans could protect themselves from a tyrannical government isn't really relevant nowadays, because if the government REALLY wanted to, they could obliterate citizens without ever having to pull a trigger on a gun because of all the other weapons they have.

[Iggo]

8. Sense.

You're making it.

[X_Digger]

20. What makes you think the warfare would be symmetrical?

See e.g. Viet Nam, Afghanistan (both now and in the 80's), for example.

Remember the lockdown in DC caused by two guys with a rifle and a hole in their trunk? Now imagine that x 10,000.. 100,000?

[pimpbot]

5. Might as well move to a new country

In the situation you present, where the military is on the side of the dictator, average joes stand no chance to fight back. Drones, missiles, tanks, etc. It would be a Handmaid's Tale scenario. The only way to fight would be to flee and let the dictatorship collapse on itself. Other countries would refuse to trade. It might take decades, but all the crazys would start in fighting and probably blow each other up.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. As part of a well-regulated militia

Not random individuals.

[gordianot]

9. This is strictly coup territory.

“Does the military support him?” An insurgent revolution would die quickly.

[kentuck]

10. Except, they would be fighting with the tyrants.

Not for our freedoms. They are already fighting with the tyrant. They don't need guns.

[Yavin4]

11. The government can simply shut off the power and boom millions dead

No fire power needed. Just an off switch.

[Corvo Bianco]

25. Aghhhh yeah that's a dark realization.

[msongs]

12. one may suspect most gun owners would be fine w a trump tyrannical takeover nt

[SoCalMusicLover]

13. Well, Gun Owners Are Responsible

So, when a gun owner says that he will blow your head off, if you try to take his guns away, he's being "responsible."

Just defending his 2nd Amendment rights. Never mind the fact he's willing to commit murder to defend that right.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. First, your premise isn't exactly correct. The purpose of the Second Amendment

was not just so the people had weapons to defend against a tyrannical government, but to prevent the new federal government from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a standing army. The founding fathers opposed the creation of a federal standing army, which in Europe had a history of being an instrument of oppression by monarchies. So at that time the Constitution was drafted, the idea was that individual owners or firearms would be entitled to keep them in order to participate as members of state militias and to make a federal army unnecessary.

But now that we do have a federal standing army despite the founding fathers' opposition, do you seriously believe private gun owners could effectively oppose an army whose weapons include artillery, tanks, missiles, and even nukes?

[steve2470]

23. I think we misunderstand one another

I was already aware of everything you said.

The 2nd amendment extremists are the ones advancing that argument, not me. Before SCOTUS made some key decisions in the last few decades, the 2nd Amendment implementation was much more reasonable, IMHO.

The purpose of this OP is to thoroughly evaluate the extremists' argument. Of course, it would be vastly preferable to keep our military from ever being corrupted in such a fashion, and to maintain our institutions so that we never have to face this scenario.

I think we're probably on the same page now.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. OK, got it.

I don't think the military would ever allow Trump to take them over and act as an occupying force. And IMO examining the arguments of 2A extremists is kind of pointless because they're stupid.

[kurtcagle]

37. Not quite

The second amendment was a sop to the Southern States, who were worried that their slave hunting posses would be curtailed if there was a ban on state militias (this was a very contentious issue, even then). Shay's Rebellion also highlighted this. In the aftermath of the revolutionary war, with the first Confederacy effectively broke, merchants were squeezed by their European creditors who wanted hard currency, not what many in Europe considered worthless American paper. The merchants in turn attempted to pass these on to their inland customers, who had even less access to hard currency (silver or gold) than the merchants did, using the state courts of Massachusetts to enforce seizures of assets. The rebellion (primarily by former Revolutionary War soldiers who had not been paid) highlighted the danger to the mercantile class of having armed debtors, and the benefit of having a state militia. It was worth noting even then that these militias were still stronger than the rebels, and that asymmetry has only been growing with time.

Asymmetric Warfare is often misinterpreted to mean that a small force can prevail over a much larger, more technologically advanced one. This works great in the movies, but in reality, all that most asymmetric warfare can achieve is to affect the public opinion of an occupying nation or force. This was true of the revolutionary war, which was not so much won by the colonists but proved to be a too expensive luxury for England that was also fighting more conventional wars on the continent. The American militias still lost almost every conflict in that war, but in time the English came to realize that the cost of maintaining pacification forces was just too high for the benefits.

[bullimiami]

15. The pea shooters and slingshots the second amendment lets you keep are nothing.

Fight the military with that and it’s over before it starts.

[sarisataka]

18. Giving serious consideration

I will look at it from a worst-case perspective that the entire military supports a takeover under the current regime.

If people try to take their weapons form large units and meet the military head on it will be game over and the troops will be back in their barracks in time to watch Wheel of Fortune. There is no way civilians can go head-to-head with the current fire power of the military.

However that is not the only way to oppose such a takeover. As large as it is the military is less than 1% of the population. They cannot be everywhere at all times and if only 10% of gun owners resist the numbers are about even. An Insurgency can strike where they are weak and then fade away. As I have said in the past an Insurgency does not need to win only to not lose.

Another important factor is what non-gun owners would do. Would folks who are brave on the internet join their armed fellow-citizens in Acts of sabotage or Disobedience, or would they meekly submit to the powers-that-be and accept their fate as subjects?

[Kaleva]

19. It's very rarely ended well for those who took up arms against the federal government

Be it the Weather Underground, the South and numerous other groups and individuals.

[Turbineguy]

22. The weird thing is that the most virulent

supporters of the Second Amendment (in its modern interpretation) seem to support Facism.

And I don't see them joining the National Guard in order to be able to keep their guns.

But yes, from my civics classes, the Constitution is a contract between the US Government (those who govern) and the ordinary Citizen. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to fight a tyrannical government and was enacted with a "don't even think about it!" idea.

Obviously the Founding Fathers did not throw that in there so that thousands of fellow Americans could be massacred.

What we have now is more the way Hitler would have envisioned it, as in, "great, that saves me the trouble!"

[dlk]

28. The Military Has Fighter Jets, Tanks, Rocket Launchers, Predator Drones, & Atomic Weapons

If the "government" (which is us) wanted to take everyone's guns, they could.

[Oneironaut]

31. Its armchair conjecture. Firepower is absolutely pointless if you are fighting in

the open field against the US Army. It’s also useless if you’re barricaded in a building, or are in any way findable. They’ll turn you into dust before you could even get a shot off. You would be shocked how ruthless and determined they would be after you tried to murder their fellow countrymen. Your last act, before being converted to floating carbon atoms, would be to shit yourself.

Money still wins wars. Money, technology (not to be confused with firepower) and political power. A couple of unorganized red necks taking on the entire US government would be a laughably quick fare. You wouldn’t last one day (and that’s being extremely generous).

The instinct of these types is also to run out into the wilderness and try to hide. In that regard, the US Army and America as a whole thanks their enemies for committing suicide and saving the effort. Please go freeze, die of thirst, or die of trauma on the open, rugged terrain that very few humans on earth can handle anymore. Furthermore, without supplies and a mere pea shooter, you’ll be a joke. Yet, this is still the first tactic in the far-right militia’s playbook.

I’m no Tsun Tzu, but it doesn’t take anything other than common sense to see how dumb that supposed pro-Second Amendment argument is. Warfare is unconventional now, and the US Government doesn’t care about your phallus-enhancing murder machines anymore. Not only do theirs laughably eclipse yours (in ways that would give you nightmares), but you don’t have the know-how or mettle to live out your murderous Red Dawn fantasies against the “ANTIFA” hoards you obsess over.

Edit: In case this is misunderstood, I was not in the least bit talking about the OP. “You” in this context means right-wing militias, though a similar fate would be shared by anyone fighting the US armed forces. To answer your question, you would have absolutely no chance. Peaceful revolution is far preferable.

[steve2470]

34. I see guerrilla warfare being discussed here

IF...gigantic if...things ever got this bad, I'm not too sure the guerillas would stand a chance. Sure they could harass the army for a long time, but ultimate victory ? Maybe decades down the road. I think there would have to be a huge sea change both in the military and in the culture to have an ultimate victory. Germany got their democracy back a lot faster courtesy of the Allies.

Of course, the BEST answer is to keep the military loyal to the Constitution and keep our democracy healthy.

Thank you for indulging my question, much appreciated

[XRubicon]

40. "guerillas" would probably "harrass" the collaborating civillians

More effective.

[steve2470]

41. that's a true point nt

[TNLib]

32. It's a fantasy

Gun nuts that repeat this nonsense are not mentally healthy people. They are delusional and not living in reality. They obsess and fetishize guns, and dream of being the good day taking out the tyrannical government with there AR15. These people are not mentally well.

[jmowreader]

33. Thats not what the Second Amendment is for

The entire Bill of Rights is an attempt to prevent the sins of England from happening here, and Jefferson perceived a standing army as one of those sins. Back then, it was hunky-dory to raise your own private artillery battery, cavalry troop or infantry company. If you had the money to do it, you could buy horses and cannons, enlist private soldiers to fight in your outfit, and go to war. The Second Amendment ensured that these private militias could get the equipment they needed.

In 21st Century America, the raisimg of armies is a job reserved for the government.

[struggle4progress]

35. "School children: yet another sign of government tyranny!"

[samir.g]

36. US military hasn't done so well against Vietnamese and Afghan peasants

[pimpbot]

39. both had/have backing from external sources

Russia/China in the case of Vietnam. Pakistan/Iran in Afghanistan. I guess Canada could help us, but remember Trump would have the nukes.

Plus, 60+ Million people voted for Trump. Most of those people would cheer on his dictatorship while gulping down a healthy dose of Fox News State TV. They would be helping round up the rebels. There is another large subset of our population who can barely function in a modern society. Take away their car, cell phone, credit card, electricity and they'd join up with Team Trump in a heartbeat. Trump would have no problem nuking half the country making it inhabitable.

As I pointed out elsewhere in this thread, The Handmaid's Tale is a similar plot line to the OP.

[noel1237]

38. The Trumpanzees are the ones with all the guns so this isnt

a good scenario. I don't own a gun. I'd just leave the country.