Hey everyone, long time listener first time caller to SD. If this post contains any hideous gaffes let me know.
A friend of mine has recently been sucked into the alt-lite wormhole of YouTube algorithms and Russian trolls. As part of that he completely buys into the proud boys militia esque talk about standing up to the government (democrats) and the need for lots of guns to protect our rights.
I asked him what exactly would cause him and other 2A-minded gun owners (the extremist subset) to retreat into the woods and start taking potshots at cops other than door-to-door confiscation. After thinking about it for some time he told me that that was the only thing.
Personally I think that it’s entirely possible to have a tyrannical government AND a heavily armed populace. The government just has to throw a bone to them every now and then. As far as I can tell the militias who yelled “Jade Helm Obama’s coming for our guns” at every helicopter they saw are okay with the US military taking private border land to construct a wall. Haven’t heard many concerns over children in cages, suggestions of state TV, cozying up to dictators, religious registries or obvious Russian control of the GOP upper echelon either. Even trump literally suggesting that we discard due process and start taking guns seems to have been quickly forgotten.
I’d like to get input from gun owners who purchase them for the express intent of dissuading government tyranny. Given that this board leans left I understand that I might be screaming at the choir though.
Assuming that the US government continues to meet right wing gun owners social demands, what if anything would cause their more reactionary elements to rise up? I understand that the majority of gun owners do not follow this sort of rhetoric.
Sent from my RNE-L23 using Tapatalk
I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “continues to meet right wing gun owners social demands”, but there are probably lots of things, all rather improbable, that might lead to people taking up arms against the government. I’ve heard mention of: confiscation of retirement savings, banning of Christianity, limiting the number of children couples can have (something like China’s one-child policy), abolishing jury trials, etc.
The US government banning Christianity is so outlandish as to be not worth considering. What about similar hypothetical transgressions against Islam though? Half of the conservatives sampled in this study favored making Islam illegal, and the vast majority thought that Muslims should be ineligible for office.
Would militia-types “rise up” and protect us if a similar ban was placed on Islam? A massive infringement of our civil rights that does not clash with gun owners’ social politics.
The “militia types” are an extremely small subset and certainly in no postiion or of any stature to “protect us.” Most gun owners are regular folks who simply happen to own guns and not the demonic possesed crazies that many like to protray us as. They vote D, they vote R, they vote I.
I’m not a gun owner, though I do support the 2A, but no, I don’t see any major insurrections happening from “2A types” minus a gun confiscation. We had an “assault weapons ban” and nobody did anything then.
Loner stuff? Maybe. I would gather that Timothy McVeigh probably was a “2A type” but his reasoning was not about guns, and I think it is safe to say he was a fringe case.
I don’t think we would have an insurrection even then, I think a massive amount of people would just not turn their guns in, under the pretense that self-protection is a natural right that isn’t granted by the government. And yes, that would make them “outlaws” in the eyes of the law.
I can’t remember the cite, but NJ banned bump stocks and almost no one turned them in. I suspect people would be even less likely to turn in their guns.
2A supporters are pretty against a national gun registration, which would make gun confiscation easier for the government.
You’re correct that gun owners who believe and spread fear about imminent dystopia are a small but loud subset of the gun owning population. That’s why I bent over backwards to draw that distinction in my opening post. I should have used more distinct terminology however.
My question was if there is a government overreach that would prompt Mcveighian responses, assuming that our trend of overreach favoring right-wing social issues continues.
E.g. if Trump attempted to nullify or otherwise interfere with the results of the 2020 election, would buildings start blowing up? Or would the militia movement continue to support him?
I think it would take blatant attempts to contravene or ignore the Constitution, supported by Congress and carried out by law enforcement and/or the military for those guys to actually think that it might be time.
Let’s say that 10 years from now, whoever the President is decides to proclaim a ban on criticizing the government’s non-action on global warming, and directs law enforcement to jail anyone who does so. It would take basically Congress to pass a law specifying the offense and punishments, law enforcement to actually do it, and the States to go along with it. I imagine that if ALL that was in place, then the RKBA types might feel like this was their moment to rise up.
Many 2nd Amendment advocates like to argue that the right to bear arms protects all the other Constitutional rights (e.g. see here and here), yet they never threaten to use that protection when the other amendments are under attack by administrations, legislatures, or courts.
I don’t think what would prompt a “McVeighian response” is really predictable. I think there are lots of potential McVeighs out there that could get pushed over the edge for a variety of different things. I can’t really think of a whole lot that is going to start a full scale insurrection though.
I think it’s more ideological for most. The fact there are so many gun owners basically ensures that you don’t have sudden tyrannical moves by the government. Police can’t walk around blatantly abusing citizens when they can be shot.
It’s a basic checks and balances thing.
They don’t get too carried away because they can’t.
At the same time I think as long as the vast majority of people have a house and food and opportunity I think a government can pretty much do as they please. As long as the propaganda goes long enough and they don’t alienate too large of a portion of their populace
Unless the sudden tyrannical moves made by the government are approved of by the side that has all the gun owners, in which case their presence makes it harder to resist.
One side doesn’t have all the gun owners. All the sides have some gun owners. All the identity politics factions have some gun owners. I am a white, atheist, Democratic-voting gun owner. One of my frequent shooting partners is gay, black, and a preacher. My daughter is a lesbian, Hindu, gun enthusiast. We have a great time at the range together. When I lived in Laredo, TX, the only thing there more common than Catholic Hispanic gun owners might have been days ending in “-day.” The Righty-Tighty-Fundy faction of the gun owning public is definitely the loudest and likes to claim their side has all the guns, but that’s bullshit.
I dont think there’s much, because anything that would make them revolt is pretty much Unconstitutional. SCOTUS would slap it down.
Now let’s say there was some horrible mass shooting, and Congress started debating repealing the 2nd, and the Prez issued some Emergency orders that directly contravened the Constitution … and SCOTUS said so- but he went ahead anyway, ignoring their orders. Say he banned the possession of all assault rifles and ordered them turned in , without payment. (I know but SF did that with handguns, Kamala Harris said it was perfectly legal, and the courts struck it down very fast).
That would cause issues, and it would be hard for me to blame them. But not on a national scale. There’d be some Ruby Ridges and some Bundy stand-offs. It would be bad. Even the Fed LEOs would have issues- do they obey the Prez even tho SCOTUS ruled he couldn’t do so?
But that sitrep is at least slightly plausible.
On the other side would be a Theocratic prez abrogating the 1st Ad unilaterally.
On reflection it might not be that difficult to disarm right-wing gun owners if you go gradually enough. As groups go, doesn’t it tend to be made up of individuals who don’t give a fuck for anybody but themselves? Just take them out one-by-one, state-by-state. Most of them won’t react until the Feds are at their particular doorstep, and it’ll be too late by then.
- this commentary sponsored by Broad-Brush Industries. Broad-Brush, when you don’t have time for nuance.
That’s basically the strategy.
Just ban these ones, only register those ones, just ban a few more and a few more.
A few more restrictions on what you’re allowed to with them, and then a few more.
It will eventually be widdled away entirely or to such a point as to be a meaningless right.
That’s the reality assuming we continue to be a comfortable first world nation at least.