Pulling off a dictatorship will necessarily require some harsh measures and the cancelation of civil liberties that will even piss off a lot of Trump supporters. If elections are cancelled or become show votes, even GOP voters might wise up that this is the tyranny they’ve been so damn afraid of. People might start talking amongst themselves about taking action and there are 400 million guns in this country. The ruling cabal can’t let it get to that point or all hell would break loose and that’s bad for business. I’m sure they know that confiscation of guns is just not possible. Will the fact that this is the most heavily armed nation on earth temper their plans?
Far too many of those gun owners are supporting this guy.
I’ve always thought that the size of the country was more of a major obstacle. I’ve never been able to envision “the United States as it’s structured now, except dictatorship”; it’s just so large, never mind Alaska and Hawaii. Any other factor, like guns, just compounds it.
It may be possible, but it’s hard for me to imagine.
Sure they can. It’s not about the number of guns, it’s whether the gun owners feel confident that they act unified enough to resist the tyranny. I see no sign of that. No matter how many guns the populace has, if they are splintered and don’t stand together as one, the regime is still supreme.
Right now. But the leopard-eating-their-face part will come for many of them.
So what? It hasn’t mattered yet, and it won’t matter in the future.
They don’t care about what might happen to them because they love what is happening to their enemies more than they hate what is happening to themselves.
Civilian guns are nothing compared to military guns. And he already has stated he would use the military on American soil, and THEY voted for that. They will be behind the tanks providing infantry support when they wipe out the enemy within, which is us.
…the frontline that you are going to have to deal with are the cops. Which means if you live in New York, it’s the NYPD. They’ve got intelligence units, drones, armoured cars, and and so more guns than you can imagine.
And if you live in a small town you’ve got the sheriff, who is probably buying a brand new armoured car as we speak.
There will be collaborators who will sell you out for a dime. All of the militias have already picked a side.
The people opposed to all of this? You saw them getting smashed up during the BLM protests in 2021. Or getting shut-down on the college campuses this year when they tried to rally for Gaza. They are not armed. And if they try it on, they’ll get thrown in jail and “disappeared.”
They’ve been preparing for this for decades. And now its here.
And watch how fast they start implimenting existing gun laws now that they can pick and choose who has the right to own them and when to enforce them the laws. People like Hunter Biden will get locked up first, while others will get a slap on the wrist and told how to skate around the law properly by paying the right attorney.
Gun ownership was common in Saddam’s Iraq; it was Americans who imposed gun control. Gun ownership isn’t a threat to dictators, that’s just a fantasy built on America’s weird gun fetish.
I feel like the fact that while the people of the States have voted for Trump, the States themelves (as entities in their own right) are unlikelyi to be very excited about losing any more sovereignty to a dictator, even if it’s one they otherwise like.
Right now, they’re thinking Trump will do his thing in Washington, and they’ll do theirs wherever they are, but I don’t know how enthusiastic they’ll be if Washington starts reaching its tentacles into state stuff.
Which will happen, if things go as direly as some fear.
The Federal government has a huge military and nuclear weapons, and they don’t.
To point one, the National Guard (under state command) is smaller than the standing army, but not so much so that it doesn’t count as a huge military in its own right. It’s roughly 3/4 the size of the standing army and air force.
To point two, it’s extraordinarily unlikely that anyone would use a nuclear weapon against Americans on American soil. That’s so absurd as to not really even merit discussion.
But it won’t come for all of them at once. And by the time it’s obvious it’s coming for everybody, a lot of them will already have been eaten. And some of them will have been eaten in the sense that they’ll have eaten a neighbor’s face or two – after which, rather than face what they’ve turned into, a lot of them will double down on it.
It’s always been ‘States’ Rights to do whatever I want done! (Doesn’t apply to whatever I don’t want done).’ Nothing new about that attitude.
So long as they think what the administration is enforcing is what they want, they won’t see it as limiting their own state; they’ll only see it as limiting those pesky other states, which don’t have any States’ Rights to do the Wrong Things™.
It certainly ought to be.
But I’ve seen so much stuff happen in the last eight years that in the previous decade to that I’d have thought “so absurd as to not really even merit discussion” that I’ve pretty much given up thinking there is such a category; at least, as it applies to USA politics.
If Medicare and Social Security was ended, that would impact millions of them. And their children who would then need to take care of them. Something that big would cause an uproar no matter who they tried to blame it on. Sure, facing the military is ultimately a hopeless proposition but desperate people often do hopeless things. And terrorism and guerrilla warfare will be bad for business. Making money is the prime concern of the billionaires (Thiel and Musk et al) who are going to be making decisions. They can’t let things get too out of hand when their bottom line is at stake. I can’t see them trying to turn us into North Korea without expecting some push back from 400 million guns. Sure, they would ultimately win but how much capital and assets, not to mention goodwill from affected businesses, would they lose? It wouldn’t be worth it.
Aren’t fully automatic rifles like the AK-47 rampant in Iraq and Afghanistan? It doesn’t help them.
Weapons are an everyday part of the Iraqi landscape. Nearly every home has at least one weapon, often an AK-47 assault rifle. At many buildings, residents and bodyguards can be seen checking their pistols with security before they’re allowed to go inside. Political figures are protected by bodyguards often carrying a pistol and an assault rifle.
Based on what happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam, it sounds like IEDs and boobytraps accomplish more to wear down an occupying military than small arms.
They won’t do that. Not like that.
Medicaid, maybe. Should be only for the “deserving” poor, doncha know – the ones unexpectedly widowed with children, and who also go to your church. And “privatize” Social Security; which will kill it gradually, not instantly. And then maybe ‘medicare and social security only for those who are already getting it or expect to be getting it soon. All the rest of you – fewer social security taxes coming out of your paycheck!’
But they won’t come out a year from now saying ‘we’re ending medicare and social security right now!’
They may be betting that the Feds would be a bit unwilling to take a nuclear dump on their own lawn.
Some are already preparing.
Yes, it will be a more gradual approach. Hitler didn’t start with cattle cars full of people, he started with the police conducting a few midnight raids on a few families. The neighbors wake up the next morning, and have no idea why the Cohens are gone. Rumours might spread that they were “criminals”, and so no one looks at it too closely.
Find an excuse to arrest some of the community leaders. If anyone tries to use a gun to resist this, that just proves they’re all criminals, doesn’t it? No one would object to seizing the guns of criminals, would they?