A Hypothetical: When and where is the revolution?

Great Debates
1

The Prologue

To start, I’m not calling for a violent uprising. The purpose of this thread is to investigate the so-called claim by proponents of civilian firearm ownership that such ownership prevents a loss of other rights and freedoms.

I think that an actual violent uprising in the USA would be a colossal failure. This notion, held by some gun owners, is nothing more than a macho fantasy delusion. In reality, if there were a successful mass uprising, then many revolutionaries would be killed very early by poorly coordinated attacks (due in part to the macho fantasy). Of the remainder, some percentage would be lost to being unable to deal with the hardship of guerilla warfare, some percentage would be unable to kill another person. The remainder, probably less than 100,000 dispersed across the county would be branded terrorists, and the vast majority of the American public would believe it as they’ve be indoctrinated to accept government propaganda on this issue. They would then slowly be killed off, while inflicting certainly fair casaulties in return until the whole thing essentially collapsed.

Note, this assumption no mass starvation in the USA. People revolt when they’re hungry, and Americans (like most of the anglosphere) are simply not hungry. The revolution, I’m afraid, is at home watching TV and surfing the internet for cat videos.

But this thread isn’t about the likely success or failure of a revoluion. I’ll concede to start that it would be succesful. No, this thread is about why haven’t gun owners revolted? Where and when is the revolution to protect the USA?

While I will try to avoid it I may use the term “you” throughout. This is the general you not intended to address the reader.

Part I

The freedoms and democratic ideals of the USA are under attack. A partial list non-partisan list (this includes things done by Bush, Obama and Trump) includes:

  • Patriot Act
    – Sneek and Peek warrants (section 213)
  • Drones strikes on American citizens overseas
  • NDAA (indefinite incarceration of Americans)
  • FISA court
  • Muslim ban
  • Asylum seeking refugees in cages
  • Severe gerrymandering
  • Voter ID and other efforts to reduce the vote for likely political opponents
  • Removal of voting machines from areas likely to vote for political opponents
  • Explicit lies being told by American officials to the public
  • Citizens United
  • Proto-fascist president [1][2][3]
  • Rise (again?) of authoritarian voters [4][5][6]
  • Support for foreign interference in US elections
  • Erosion of ADA
  • Erosion of freedom of religious conscience
  • etc.

So where’s the revolution? America is under attack even if only the partial list is accurate or something, then shouldn’t there be an uprising?

Well, I can see the objection being that none of those things quite rise to uprising worthiness. So if you’re going to post that, then I can save you the trouble. Skip to Part II.

  1. Giroux, H. A. (2017). White nationalism, armed culture and state violence in the age of Donald Trump. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 43(9), 887-910.

  2. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.

  3. Kellner, D. (2016). American nightmare: Donald Trump, media spectacle, and authoritarian populism (Vol. 117). Springer.

  4. MacWilliams, M. C. (2016). Who decides when the party doesn’t? Authoritarian voters and the rise of Donald Trump. PS: Political Science & Politics, 49(4), 716-721.

  5. Wrightsman Jr, L. S., Radloff, R. W., Horton, D. L., & Mecherikoff, M. (1961). Authoritarian attitudes and presidential voting preferences. Psychological Reports, 8(1), 43-46.

  6. McCann, S. J. (2009). Political conservatism, authoritarianism, and societal threat: Voting for republican representatives in US Congressional Elections from 1946 to 1992. The Journal of Psychology, 143(4), 341-358.

Part II

If the list above is insufficient to be worth revolting over (and I would argue that some of those things have to be very concerning since there are direct attack on the democratic principles of the USA), then the question becomes “Then what is?” How do you know when it is time to revolt?

Now, before you answer this question lightly, keep in mind this needs some very careful reflection. If somebody revolts too early, then they’re a lone wolf nut and are quickly arrested or killed by police. In 2014, Moncton, NB, Canada, a person attacked and kill three police officers. He thought he was sparking the revolution according to this own words [7]. He was very wrong. If you revolt too late, then your odds of success go way down (popular support rises over time, people get comfortable with the new way, military and police become more loyal to the regime).

So, what’s that sweet spot? At what point, at least from a hypothetical point of view, is enough enough (again, for clarity, I’m not calling for violent uprising)?

And if that point cannot be identified, then how does civilian gun ownership help defend your freedoms? If the point of needing a revolt cannot be (easily) identified, then does civilian gun ownership really protect your freedom?

[7] Moncton shootings - Wikipedia

** The Epilogue**

While obviously I have no powers to control what people post I would ask the following:

A. Avoid arguments either way with regards to hunting and sport shooting. It is irrelevant either way.

B. Avoid arguments either way with regards to self defense, and crime reduction. It is irrelevant either way.
– In other words, lets keep this focused exclusively on does civilian firearm ownership protect other freedoms.

C. It is conceded, as above, that an uprising would be successful, even though I personally think this is unlikely. So, I would ask any follow-up from a gun control/gun confiscation side to respect this concession so that the pro-gun ownership side does not have to try to defend that hypothetical.
– If we get to the point where this needs to be addressed, then I will start another thread focused on that question

D. I would caution the pro-gun ownership side from using Venezula as an example. While a gun confiscation took place in Venezula in 2012, Venezula has not been a politically stable country for the past 100 years. It does not have a strong democratic history, so arguments that Venezula shows that a gun confiscation creates a dictatorship will be met with derision.
– It would be best to stick with countries that are politically similar to the USA; i.e., with strong democratic traditions.

E. My own personal view is that civilian firearm ownership may have had some validity at some point in history, for a variety of reasons. I think that there are certain edges cases where civilian firearm ownership still has some limited validity. However, overall, I am very much in favor of banning civilian firearm ownership, in particular weapons like the AR-15. I have some modest experience with firearms (I’m certainly no expert) largely from my time in the military but also some use as a civilian at a shooting range, so my thoughts are not due to a lack of familiarity or fear of firearms. I personally find shooting a firearm to be quite fun, so I understand the appeal from that point of view. So any replies saying that I’m just a cowardly cuck libtard who is afraid of guns will be met with laughter.

2

P.s. - I’m trying to get a conference paper out the door today that is due at midnight tonight. So, I will be periodically very busy and may not be back right away. I’m not ignoring you, and I will return. Adiós, muchachos.

3

Any violent revolution in the US is doomed to failure unless it has the support of a very large chunk of the military. And any revolution with the support of a very large chunk of the military probably doesn’t have much need for civilian firearms. I suppose there’s the possibility of some revolution in which the military is evenly divided, and the great mass of civilian firearms might be enough to swing it one way or the other, but that seems like a pretty rare sort of revolution, and also assumes that all or most of the civilians with firearms would be on one side.

I don’t think this is a particularly strong argument for the 2nd amendment at this time. It might have made sense in 1800, when a US soldier didn’t have access to any better weaponry than US civilians, but that’s not true any more, not by a long shot. Even beyond firearms, the military has tanks, jets, artillery, etc. – all of which would be virtually invulnerable to civilian firearms.

4

While I agree with you, it is conceded in the OP that an armed civilian uprising would be successful.

5

the thing is, it’s never going to happen.

At the risk of sounding sanctimonious: The most effective “revolution” you can have is to just get out and vote. Plus this also has the benefit of not putting yourself in harms way or even having to change one’s lifestyle.

I think deep down, most people understand this regardless of party affiliation.

6

Sorry, that was a long OP.

Why haven’t gun owners revolted? Because they’re not desperate enough, I would estimate. Comfortable people generally don’t revolt – why risk one’s life when one has a decent income, a nice house, a good family, a good quality of life, etc.?

For a successful revolution to occur, I think we’d need a very large chunk of the country to be in desperate circumstances – maybe 20% or more. Desperate circumstances mean pretty much no legitimate chance at a decent quality of life for one’s self and family.

7

If you consider occupation by another country a loss of rights and freedoms it has worked in the past. Japan admitted part of the reason it didn’t seriously consider landing troops on the mainland in WW2 was because it was fearful of facing a very large militia force.

8

Is there any meaningful difference between what you would label as “armed revolution” and “domestic terrorism”? Or even “riots triggered by political upset”? Or those silly what if a civil war bits?

The only potential difference I can see is some critical mass of participants. The critical mass really has to be an overwhelmingly solid majority of the country in support of violent revolution. Less than that and it is just domestic terrorism or rioting. (Both of which we have had.) And thing is that even with gerrymandering and structural advantages that have allowed a minority of this country to impose a president and a Senate on the majority and to impose that minority’s agenda on the majority, that “overwhelmingly solid majority of the country in support” is not there. Moreover if it was the revolution could and would (hopefully will) be in the voting booths. And it will be televised. :slight_smile:

9

[quote=“iiandyiiii, post:6, topic:846567”]

Sorry, that was a long OP. /QUOTE]

No worries. In the improve GD thread quite a few people talked about having more formal rules. While difficult to enforce, I’m hoping to try something more akin to a formal debate. So including assumptions, axioms, forbidden directions, all to hopefully keep things more directed, but still somewhat open ended. I hope fun and engaging for all involved.

10

Is the hypothetical *“if gun owners were guaranteed success, would they rebel?”
*
Or is it more like "“Why haven’t they already?”

Regards,
Shodan

11

Before debating the When and Where of the Revolution, you might want to address the Who. :rolleyes:

In many of the famous revolutions of the past, there was a huge underclass, often quite impoverished and willing to unite.

In the U.S. you have a very large middle-class, unlikely to despair enough for violence (except for wackos like Bundy) and certainly unlikely to unite. Consider the response to OWS if you think the middle-class have more interest in politics than getting out of bed once every 2 years on Election Day.

Among the middle-class, it is gun enthusiasts who are most likely to resort to violence. Yet the correlation between this group is for high support of the very issues listed in OP that you think America will be revolting against! @ OP — I think you need to rethink your thesis.

It is the lower class that would be desperate enough to serve a revolt if there is one. The lower-class divides rather neatly between poor whites and poor blacks (with perhaps poor browns). The former group is generally not fond of the latter.

If/when large-scale violence strikes the U.S. it will be dominated by poor whites and poor blacks fighting each other. The government will (we hope) try to serve as peace-maker.

12

That would seem to be the case.

One might also note that assassinations are more likely than large revolt. And, further, one might note that these do take place (e.g. the Congressional baseball shooting) but, obviously, the level of complaint among the general populace is far below the threshold necessary for any real, organized radical undertakings.

My personal criteria would be far more sane than the average person’s and far more strict.

For the average person, conceptual issues and philosophical arguments come into the fore as a post-hoc rationalization after having become unhappy.

If you look at the work of Ida B Wells, for example, she demonstrated that lynchings of African Americans tracked with financial instability in those areas. If you asked the locals, they would say that “Ol’ Jimbo” raped a white woman or stole a horse or whatever. But, of course, there would be no evidence to support these accusations and it always seemed that the towns which started seeming to need to put the fear into the local African Americans always were places where the white people were falling on hard times financially.

When the revolutionary fervor overtook the US, France, or Russia, it’s unlikely that the grand majority of the people of those nations strongly considering the underlying ideals of “basic human rights” or “socialism” that the leaders of the movement were talking about. It was a good excuse to force things to change and, surely, the guy who seems smart is smart and knows what he’s talking about.

There will always be some idea that could form the theoretical basis of an uprising. As you have demonstrated, there is no shortage.

If you look at mass murderers, for example, we see some who kill because God told them to, others kill because they want to be like The Joker, another might think that he’s The Highlander, it varies. Why the violent offender decided to pick that particular rationalization for his desire to do violence is just a piece of trivia that, realistically, has very little to do with anything. The real issue would generally be, simply, that they needed psychiatric care.

And, similarly, how uprisings choose a philosophy or rationalization for their violence is, realistically, little more than a piece of trivia. The cause will almost always be that they were unhappy and they felt like the leadership was sufficiently weak that they could get away with acting against them.

In the USA, we were lucky that a batch of good ideas happen to have been at the fore, and that encouraged some more reasonable people to take on leadership roles and displace the radical idiots who had initiated things. But that is not normally how it goes. In France, they were not so lucky. And, in Russia, the philosophy itself was severely flawed as well.

13

We didn’t invade the Japanese home islands for partially the same reason – we didn’t want to have to fight them to their last man, woman, and child, as they threatened we would have to (and I think this threat is much more credible coming from Imperial Japan than the United States). The reason Japan didn’t invade the US Mainland is because at no point in the war were they capable of doing so, and I’d need a very reliable cite if you claim otherwise.

14

And I’ll note that this was without the Japanese having high rates of personal gun ownership.

15

Even ignoring your correct assessment regarding the liklihood of a revolution suceeding, a revolt only makes sense if the current status quo is worse than the likely result of a successful revolution. Even the worst abuses of the Trump administration current or future pale in comparison to the death, destruction, and shattering of morality that would accompany civil war 2.0. Take a look a Syria to see what the effects of civil war look like. Now if they start rounding brown people, gays and liberals into reeducation camps, then we can start talking.

As to how it will start, there seem to be two ways.

The grass roots way involves be mass protest, that grows to the point that it threatens the powers that be, who violently repress it. This repression is met with more more protests and violent resistance, which is further suppressed until the cycle of violence leads to widespread disorder an chaos, until: the rebellion successfully repressed, the rebels establishing their own highly restrictive government, or the state completely implodes with a bunch or warlords vying for control.

The simpler and probably healthier way involves a military coup in which the current regime is told to pack its bags, and then the generals decide how to proceed from there. Related to this would be succession where an already established government separates itself from the larger body, using the portions of military under its control to secure its departure, like in the revolutionary or civil war.

There is a third possibility of external invasion and regime change, but that seems unlikely given the strength of our military.

16

I thought I would jot down some of my own thoughts on this since I have a bit of time.

There are about 300,000,000 people in the USA. Suppose that 1% of the American population thinks that the list I provided (or whatever else) rises to an attack on America worthy of violent uprising. That, 3,000,000 people. It is estimated that about 40% of Americans own a firearm. [1] So, 40% of 3,000,000 is 1,200,000 revolutionaries. Let’s say 1% is too high and lower it to 0.1%. That’s still 120,000. or 0.01%, that’s 12,000. Where are the revolutionaries?

There’s only, in my mind, two possibilities. Neither are good for the argument that civilian firearm ownership stops a the American gov’t from taking your rights and freedoms.

  1. Civilian gun owners won’t revolt over the erosion of rights and freedoms; or,
  2. Nothing on the list rises to revolt worthy.

Obviously, if it is the first option, then civilian firearm ownership doesn’t protect other rights and freedoms. So, let’s examine the second option.

If the items on that list are not serious enough, then what is? And how does a gun owner know that’s they’ve reached that critical point? How does a gun owner know they’ve reached the critical mass of people to be successful (yes I’ve conceded that a violent civilian uprising would succeed but certainly not by one dude with a red bandada and an M60)?

This is a really critical issue. It is already quite clear that the government is quite capable of intercepting and decrypting (domestic) terrorist messages. We just saw one on the news where they busted up a violent white nationalist cell (I’m disgusted to say a former Canadian soldier was involved). How do you get a resistance started when the government has already gone as far as they have? Is it already too late?

If you act on your own, then you lose. If you act too late, then you lose. There’s a critical point where a resistance needs to act, but it seems impossible for such a resistance to start. The government is already capable of monitoring a hypothetical revolutionary cell and branding them terrorist. And Americans have already been indoctinated to accept that when the governments brands somebody terrorist, then they are a terrorist. Not that they would need much convincing. Certainly a news article say, 50 guys and gals with red bandanas and AR-15s planned to shoot up the, I don’t know, state legislature aren’t going to get much sympathy from the American public.

In other words, they time to act, enough is enough, is incredibly subjective. There’s no real objective measure to say, ok, they’ve eroded enough of my freedoms. So for any individual gun owner to act is incredibly difficult. And for gun owners to organize is already very difficult. There’s a whole apparatus designed to keep domestic terrorists from becoming a threat to the state.

So I maintain, that gun owners cannot act. There’s never a clearly sensible objective point to go for it. No, rather is is subjective, and then requires coordination. It requires the would be revolutionary to gather like-minded people (ideally with their own red bandanas). It is very difficult, if not impossible, to organize with the actions already taken by the government. Soooooo, if I think this way, then where are the revolutionaries? Where are the people who think the government has already gone too far? They’ve taken away your right to violently rise up!

Ultimately, I just think this idea that a bunch of civilians with guns will rise up to overthrow a tyrannical government is impossible in practice in the real-world. It is quite clear that Americans, like everybody else I’m not picking on Americans, are quite content to have their rights eroded so long as they can have a 65" TV, potato chips and watch Bonanza reruns. People revolt when they’re starving. People do not react to a slow erosion, as we’re currently seeing, and by the time you might want to act, it is incredibly difficult. The entire government apparatus is already designed to stop small groups of terrorists.

  1. Gun ownership in the U.S. 1972-2022 | Statista
17

It is closer to “Why haven’t they already?” At least this is the main point of Part I. The point of Part II is if the current situation isn’t bad enough (the likely answer to “Where are the revolutionaries?”, then what is bad enough? How can a would be revolutionary know when it is time to strike?

18

An interesting thought; however, pro-gun ownership usually characterize it as preventing the US government from becoming tyrannical.

19

I think it’s another case of the “Real America” mentality.

To some people there’s a national image that’s separate from the actual United States of America. It’s Real America. It’s their idealized version of what America should be, distinct from what it actually is.

Many of the people who believe in the idea of personal firearms defending America are also Real America believers.

And Real America doesn’t feel the things you listed as attacks against it. Laws against Muslims or Mexicans or blacks or gays or refugees? Those people aren’t Real Americans. So Real Americans don’t feel any need to fight for their rights. If anything, Real Americans support those laws as a defense against threats to Real Americans.

20

Usually? I haven’t heard one pro-gun person say “I own my guns to prevent the US government from becoming tyrannical”.

At least, not any sane ones.