It’s almost like the state has a monopoly on force.
Institutional restructuring is the solution, not private stockpiles of ordnance
Erica Chenoweth did a fascinating quantitative study of this a number of years ago. Kinetic strategies faired markedly poorer than collaborative reform efforts. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/why-civil-resistance-works/978...
I remember reading something from a UCLA military science guy who approached it another way and independently came to the same conclusion. I forget the name. He also did propaganda and disinformation studies. Can't seem to find him. Maybe it's like UCL and I'm misremembering something foundational.
It continues to fascinate me that people have already forgotten, or never heard, the stories of the foundations of the country. We asked the existing government multiple times to allow us to handle ourselves, and give us more autonomy. They outright said no. And what was one of their first actions in response? Go take the plebs' guns. Now, if controlling the arms, ordnance, and munitions isn't important, why is that?
And no, our government being a republic rather than a monarchy does not make this time any different than the last. It should be evident by now that all it does is slow down the inevitable, and prevent us from pointing the finger at any one specific person. Which is to say, it'll be even harder this time. And that is not an excuse to give us less advantages. It is a reason we need more, or our future generations are more doomed than we already have allowed ourselves to be.
You can't transpose the context of colonial america to contemporary life. Even nearly 200 year old inventions like the gatling gun, professional policing, penny press, telegraph and car dilute the predictive power of conflict analysis of the 1700s to apply it to the 21st century. Yet alone say, apache helicopters and SAMs.
> And what was one of their first actions in response? Go take the plebs' guns.
The volumes that chronicle these histories are deeply ahistorical. Every one I've seen is actually about arming favored groups and disarming unfavored ones.
It's not about taking away guns, it's about making them plentiful for a group driven by fear and anger and making them scarce for the designated scapegoat.
Unless you think AR-15s and ammunition for homeless, pedophiles, illegal immigrants, and woke mobs is part of your strategy, you are in effect, doing exactly what you are accusing these other societies of doing because you are inherently carving out a group that should and a group that should not have access to guns - which is precisely what all those historical groups did.
If you're a US citizen, you have a right to keep and bear arms. That is my only "carve out". Homeless, poor, gay, vegan, etc. all count. Yes, illegal immigrants are a carve out. They are not US citizens, and they therefore don't enjoy full protection of the law here. Well, shouldn't. Get your citizenship and I don't care anymore. This used to be a given before the globalist agenda.
Right. For the Nazis, the often go-to for the gun grabbing argument, this was the reich citizenship law of 1935.
By clamping down on citizenship definitions and who's allowed to have papers, they did the carve out
That's the exact strategy they took - right to bear arms was reserved for reich citizens.
Since armed Choctaw rebellions and plantation slave uprisings are of course still a very legitimate concern buying assault rifles at the gun store should be a sacrosanct holy right. We certainly don't want another Haitian revolution on our hands.
Also, I never said you'd survive such a scenario. Not everyone survived the first revolution. Did that make it a bad idea?
Also x2, why do people I speak to about this always get the impression that everyone in the military will unanimously agree that drone striking and nuking its land, resources, and people is a beneficial strategy? Not to mention the immorality of it. There will be splintering. It will be civil war. There's a great chance there will be two US armies, two presidents, etc. when the time comes.
Because we are thinking about randoms with guns and other weaponry, not organized rebellion/treason a la the Confederacy.
edit: wouldn't, in the case of such a massive organized rebellion, engaging in even more brutal and aggressive tactics actually make more sense? The stakes are much higher in that scenario, and wouldn't the United States want to decimate the enemy's supply, etc., as it partly did during the original Civil War?