OK, then if there is no sign of a tyrant approaching in the horizon or beyond, why do you need an arsenal in every home ?
By the way, we in Australia and also your north of your border neighbours still live legally under a British ‘tyranny’ and we are happy this way. We rejected a motion to become a republic not long ago. 
It certainly wouldn’t cause a military coup. From the nation’s inception up until the present day there has been full civilian control of and authority over the military in the US. Generalship in the US Army is not a position of political power. Generals may have political ambitions for after they retire, but in itself the position has no political power unlike for example Japan in the 1930s, South Vietnam in the 1960s, Chile in the 1970s, or much of the third world today. When Truman told Douggy Mac to take a walk during the Korean War, he took a walk. McArthur was a very popular general and while there are many things about him that were flawed, presuming he was another Napoleon wasn’t one of them. More importantly, no one would have followed him if he tried to defy civilian authority. His soldiers certainly wouldn’t; his staff alone would have reacted as if he had lost his mind.
It’s not a cause and effect relationship, but I’d argue as you seem to that civilian control over the military is much more aligned in preventing tyranny than private gun ownership.
In the USA there is no real Marxist left in politics or anything near it, so where can a revolution come from ? from nowhere.
The Armed Forces need to see a threat to themselves to be motivated to give a coup to defend their interests.
The USA is a de facto oligarchy where the very few own most of its wealth and who bankroll the politicians who once elected are at their beck and call; and now with the loosen up of restraints in political funding more so than ever.
So, why would the oligarchs enrol the Armed Forces to gain control of the country that it is already in their hands ?
To make sure that there never will be a tyrant approaching in the horizon or beyond.
If you object to having an arsenal close by, maybe you should un-invite the U.S. military from coming to Australia’s defense by building new bases there. Defense from what, you may ask? Defense from anyone in the future who decides that Australia’s resources are ripe for the picking.
Lose a battle. Win a war. Which do you prefer?
DC was basically undefendable, not that it matters. We did much better down around New Orleans.
Soldiers, civilians, and pirates - Oh my!
Aren’t you assuming that “We the People” will actually give up their firearms when asked? Just because a tyrant asks for them doesn’t mean they’ll get them butt first. Unless there’s no more bullets.
It’s not really a question of political power or lack thereof - in that hypothetical it’d be about simple survival.
It’d be about thousands of soldiers getting tossed on their asses, military bases abroad shut down, planes and tanks not being bought from influential industrialists (who in turn would have to send their workers packing), the fear of losing control over the world and its juicy oil contracts… plenty of reasons for charismatic agitators or business tycoons to plant the seed, brand the civilian government as un-patriots in dire need of removing. For Freedom !
And in that event, would all of the generals be little Smedley Butlers ? Would they all share MacArthur’s spirit, when half of them are only playing soldier long enough to secure cushy seats in the private military procurement sector ? Bet your civil rights on that ? 
I think that, too, is a pleasant fiction we cling onto - I was just joking earlier because rat avatar seemed so adamant that civilian control over the military + private guns = no tyrants, and was special pleading like a motherfuck.
I know it’s very much a cliché at this point but Hitler *was *democratically elected, and there *was *civilian control over the military in Weimar Germany. And then there wasn’t, without even the need for a bloody coup. Because it was the right thing to do to save the country from the Communist Muslims or the Jewish Terrorists (I forget which) and by gum, everyone who protested was a dolschtossin’ traitor.
“But that could never happen here !” ? Yeah, well, maybe. I wouldn’t be so confident. I’m not seeing any of this happening at any point in the foreseeable future, mind. But never’s a very long time.
a tyrant appearing on the horizon or beyond is not dependant on you having an arsenal under your bed. if a tyrant (your bogeyman :)) ever appears of course he/she will have the support of the armed forces it will not be deposed by a bunch of armed mums and pops. In one of my posts in this thread I give my reasons why this is just a wet dreams of those who sleep with a gun under their pillow.
Well, to set the record straight:
The US Marines have not built a base of their own here in Ozland, they have been accommodated in an existing Australian base
The main reason for them being here is because of closures of other US bases in the Asia Pacific region (mainly Japan) and they needed to be re-located
A bunch of Marines by the way, won’t make any impact on the security of Australia.
This is part of the focusing of the US in this region due to the rise of the 'yellow peril".
Australia gets a lot of rewards by playing lackey to the USA for instance special commercial treatment for our exporters. You don’t get something for nothing.
But what has this got to do with defending you guys from a tyranny ? It would be the opposite: if you need a gun under the bed to protect you from a potential tyrant then why do you have a standing army in the USA which it would be the protector of the hypothetical tyrant, for without the consent of the armed forces no tyrant can hold power?
As I said in a previous post we are happy to live under the tyranny of QE II
Alright, I ran a linear regression to answer the question, and my answer is: no, guns don’t prevent tyranny. I’ll explain in a little more detail below, but basically, civilian gun ownership and freedom only correlate if you ignore that people in wealthier countries can afford more guns and thus own more guns. Factoring in wealth, civilians owning guns makes no significant difference in either direction.
So there you go. I’m working for you, Straight Dope.
This is a little back-of-the-envelope-esque. I know there are people here who actually know (or remember) something about statistics, one of you people ought to try this. I’d be happy to email you my numbers and techniques. Anyway, I took the numbers for guns per 100 people (guns/100p) linked earlier in this thread and combined them with Freedom House’s 2012 freedom index (via Wikipedia) and the World Bank’s GDP per capita (PPP — also via Wikipedia). I tossed them together and ran a linear regression. If you just look at the correlation just between the freedom index rating, there is a highly significant, positive correlation at p = 4.88•10^-4. However, I figure it’s pretty obvious that wealthy countries tend to be more free, and it’s also pretty obvious that wealthy people can buy more guns. The correlation in the opposite direction — that countries with more guns get wealthier— seems implausible on the face of it. I checked the graph of freedom and wealth and decided to use log(GDP/C) as the variable, which makes sense since many countries receive Freedom House’s maximum possible score. I tried doing the same thing to gun ownership, but it really made no difference. Anyway, if you add the variable of log(GDP/C), the p-value for guns/100p drops way below significance. More importantly, the adj. R-squared value for the regression using both guns/100p and log(GDP/C) is .249, versus an adj. R-squared value of .2535 — so considering civilian gun ownership adds no explanatory value. That said, there are some validity problems — the errors aren’t normally distributed, for one thing — so it could use some more work by someone who doesn’t forget how to use stats software.
And for all that, I actually think my statistical analysis is too optimistic about the effects of civilian gun ownership. A First-World country is generally going to restrict gun owners to specifically civilian weapons, whereas a vast number of Third-World countries cannot or don’t want to do so. Also, civilian-owned guns shouldn’t be as good at “preventing tyranny” if the government is relatively capable, and governments in wealthier countries probably tend to be more effective. It would be nice to come up with independent variables that took things like types of guns and military strength into account, but that was really beyond what I felt like doing today.
Do you assume “Them the People” just gave theirs when the Great Leader asked politely ?
Would you please stop fictionalizing my arguments. I just looked through this entire thread and I see no place I didn’t say it was PART of a system of checks and balances.
If you want to beat your chest about something I am claiming as being wrong that is fine just make sure it is something I actually claimed.
Or is your argument so weak you have to resort to fanciful straw-man arguments?
Sorry, that should read, “If you look at the correlation just between the freedom index rating and guns/100p,…”
This fixation of having an arsenal at home to protect you from, or be rid of the tyrant (bogeyman) is a form of paranoia or the result of paranoia.
And what is the origin, the cause of this, maybe widespread, mental illness affecting so many inhabitants of the US ?
Paranoid people are always vague about their unfounded fears and the case of this mythical tyrant is no exception. You may as well justify your arsenal (security blanket) as a defence against invaders from Mars or some other place in our galaxy or beyond.
Grow up, roll up your security blanket and step out into the world like the rest of us do without fear. Take a trip to Europe or Australia and learnt to live like free men, free from your paranoia, free from your guns.
What year was Hitler democratically elected?
Since you didn’t specify who “Them” are, I’ll assume it was already too late by then. The legislature and judicial system had already been compromised.
Hahaha, you’re a hoot. Europe and Australia had a different opinion during WWII. You don’t have to defend yourselves because you expect England or the U.S. to do it for you.
Why not, you don’t know any other way. You always rely on the kindness of strangers to protect you when things get really rough.
Are you talking about the US Armed Forces cavalry galloping to our rescue or the mums and pops ?
We are happy living under a ‘tyranny’ so don’t worry about us
Yes, I actually have bet my civil rights on that. I wouldn’t even call it a bet; there was no uncertainty of the outcome. In my lifetime military spending and employment dropped drastically after the end of the Cold War; outside of my lifetime it has dropped completely through the floor following the end of every war the US has fought in (well, aside from Korea and Vietnam but the Cold War was still happening when they ended). It absolutely is about a question of political power. Farcical as it was, Smedley Butler and the Business Plot was the closest the US has ever come to a military coup, and take a look at how that turned out. Butler didn’t even think to lead a fascist march on Washington, instead he went to Congress to testify and expose it. The military-industrial complex makes a nice bugaboo for various Conspiracy Theorists and survivalists who arm themselves to the teeth and move out to Idaho to await the UN takeover but that’s about it as far as it being a danger to democracy goes.
I really don’t think it is. As I said, I don’t think it’s anything like a cause and effect relationship, but the culture of the US and the military is such that a military coup is inconceivable. The military not having political power was a very recent development for Germany in the Wiemer Republic, and the Republic wasn’t very stable.
Oh yeah, certainly I agree. I wouldn’t say never, only that a lot would have to change before it became a conceivable fear. But there is no telling what the future will hold.
Private firearm ownership would certainly make them think twice.
The thought process for an unarmed populace
Unarmed people. Send in the death squads!
Armed Populace
Armed populace. Send in the death squads… errrr infact make them go in APC’s and while you are at it, a few bombing runs to soften them up won’t hurt…us that is.
So yeah, second thoughts.
;0)