Does gun ownership actually stop tyrannical government

Post Reply New Topic

I keep hearing ultra-right gun activists and pro-NRA lobbyists argue that gun control legislation is a tactic used by tyrannical governments, such as Nazi Germany under Hitler, and that unrestricted gun ownership is the solution to overreaching tyrannical government

Only that sounds like BS

Given the sheer disparity in military logistics of a bunch of divided gun owning citizens and the military might of an intelligent, regimented military force, saying gun ownership staves off tyranny seems almost archaic. Sure maybe in the 1800s. But now when the military owns fighter jets, tanks, nukes, I doubt a bunch of civilian fire arms really have any value in stopping tyranny

I'm not saying the 2nd Amendment should be repealed or that guns don't have other uses, but I think the repeated mantra that guns stave off tyrannical government seems more fiction that fact

Even if the population was armed enough to rival the military might of the government, then what? The last time a nation's citizenry rose up against an actual tyrannical government, the Syrian revolution against Bashar Al-Assad, look how that mess ended.

I dont think the argument that an armed citizenry staves off tyrannical government holds much water in contemporary context

An infamous 4chan post:

Warning for extremely vulgar language, you'll probably have to click on it to read it.

The Anon is more or less right, though rude. State armies are designed for fighting other state armies. The U.S. army more or less lost in Afghanistan against a very poorly equipped enemy, they have little hope of winning against the U.S. populace and their crazy gun collection. Drone strikes have never killed off an entire insurgency. They are not going to use nukes or other mass damage weapons against their own infrastructure and economic base. Kennedy was shot with basically a toy rifle, surrounded by guards. I wouldn't say a well armed population is a definite guarantee against tyranny, but do not underestimate what a bunch of pissed off civilians can do with basic guns and home made explosives, even against a modern army.

I would argue a well-armed populace isn't in any way a guarantee against tyranny if that well-armed populace (or at least the best armed portion of it) desires tyranny.

It's actually very much a two-edged sword. The fact that the state can overwhelm any potential non-state actor that attempts to impose tyranny also forms a protection from tyranny, otherwise Jim Crow never would have ended.

yes. it's unlikely even a decently armed militia would get very far against drones with optical stealth, let alone a lone guy with a hand-gun.
there are debatable uses for guns, but fighting off a tyrranical US government is delusional at best.

however, if I were a drone pilot, I'd go for vehicles, power and water supply. As mentioned before: the US army failed in Afghanistan - but Afghans were already living and surviving in abject poverty.

Last edited by shlaifu on 25 Jun 2021, 8:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You wouldn't confront tanks; you'd ambush logistics drivers, spray 'em and gtfo before you have to deal with the response.

What exactly do they think the government is going to do to them (besides take their guns)?

Teach their kids evolution and make them sit next to a trans-kid without bullying them.

That assumes that the armed citizens are united in what they consider a tryrannical government, and united in opposing it. When BLM protests against a tyrannical branch of government happened, those same people pivoted so quickly from "we need weapons to oppose tyranny" to "we need weapons to back up government power", it's a wonder they didn't get whiplash. Then there was this from the Capitol riots: “They’re shooting at us. They’re supposed to shoot BLM, but they’re shooting the patriots.” Many of those people are very much in favour of government tyranny, as long as it is directed at those they perceive as enemies. I think a major motive for wanting guns is as a backup in case the government isn't tyrannical enough against those enemies.


South Africa has very high gun ownership, and there was armed resistance against apartheid, and I don't know how important that was, but in the end, it was not an armed uprising that ended apartheid. The Tamil Tigers fought discriminatory policies, and lost. There are many guns in Gaza and the West Bank, but the occupying government has little inhibitions against the use of air power and tanks, and it doesn't look like armed resistance is making the occupation any less tyrannical.

Armed resistance is easily framed as terrorism (see China's protrayals of Uighurs, and Myanmar's portrayal of Rohingya) and can be used to justify more oppressive policies.

afghans are TOUGH, double tough. amuuuuricans are FAR from that level of tough. our security apparatus can pacify us but it will be bloody.

They always bring up tanks and fighter jets. Sometimes they even mention nukes. I don't think it would actually escalate that far.

just look back in our history, the first use of airplane bombing was when the town of tulsa basically EXTERMINATED its "black wall street." i put NOTHING past the PTB of this nation, the WHITE ptb.

Last edited by auntblabby on 27 Jun 2021, 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

not tanks. drones.
have you seen those wikileaks videos where they shoot up a wedding party? the wedding guests didn't put up much of a fight. And in the US, all communication is under surveillance and in unlikely to be in some Afghan or Iraqi dialect, so the government would likely know when your wedding takes place ....

And did the second amendment allow black wall street to mount a successful retaliation? I'm guessing, probably not.

the NRA is on record as having supported gun control when it suited them, IOW they did not object to the 1968 gun control act because it banned "saturday night specials" which primarily were used in black/brown communities. historically it has been comparatively hard for POC to legally obtain weapons.

Then the NRA doesn't really care about helping people liberate themselves from tyranny.

it is only about enriching its top leadership. everything else is just lip service.