3 ms·
History only give us multiple examples of what happens if the people where disarmed in the years before the gov went fully tyrannical. Not the evidence you want
by noxer 5y ago
History only give us multiple examples of what happens if the people where disarmed in the years before the gov went fully tyrannical. Not the evidence you wanted but good enough for me.
>I think the reverse is far more likely (private arms supporting tyranny)
They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.)
- handrous 5y ago> They would need to overpower gov AND the privately armed non-supporters. Compared to only the gov if the people would not be armed. (unless you assume the tyranny group is actually unarmed because they follow the law but this seems weird highly tyrannical and criminal groups all over the world always find a way to arm themself even in places where private people dont have guns.) The role they play is usually as part of a deniable dirty-work militia, or in cases in which the military sits out the conflict (usually a very bad sign for whoever's in power, tyrannical or not). In some cases in which the government is very ineffective and has a shit army, they can help—but again, I'm aware of that working in cases like the Cuban revolution, which wasn't exactly a blow struck for liberty, and it requires that the government has poor support and is very weak to begin with.
- noxer 5y agoSo the worst thing that could happen is that people who will be ordered to do the dirty work already have guns rather than whoever controls them has to arm them first. Seems to be a minor detail not something that has any effect on larger outcome of conflicts.
- handrous 5y agoYes, I would agree that private arms rarely, bordering on never, have much effect either way, unless a government is already extremely weak, and then the arms often aid in establishing (perhaps another, rather than a new one) tyranny, not ending it.
- tekknik 5y agoI was curious where this was coming from so I checked your comment history. It seems your scared of a particular party (republicans) forcing their way into power via the use of guns. Is this true?