I would only find that argument compelling in the context of advocating for the complete overthrow of the current government. Otherwise it just sounds an awful lot like LARPing of the same sort that... well, militia movement types who glorify Ruby Ridge engage in.

[–] nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 2 weeks ago

If you want the fight to be more even, guns are a fucking waste of time. You’d need armed drones dropping grenades like in Ukraine. Or IEDs like the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cops already assume too many houses are armed up like ruby ridge and they go in no-knock warranting and shoot your dog while blinding and burning your toddler “just in case”.

The more guns proliferate the more on edge we all get, and cops aren’t the ones that are gonna be more respectful with more people armed. Quite the fucking opposite has been true so far.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

The alternative is simply trusting the state will wield their violent powers fair and justly.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

There are numerous steps one can take to provide oversight to the actions of a state that do not include a literal arms race between the civilian population and the state. I would go so far as to say that civilian firearm ownership is near-negligible in terms of threats that a state actor can face, and that glorification of civilian firearm ownership as a means of 'preventing tyranny' is exactly the kind of atomized and easily-struck-down approach to dissent that right-wing governments encourage.

Put it this way - if things get bad enough that you're planning a shootout with state forces, the point where individual acquisition of an AR-15 would make the difference has long passed.

[–] cabbage@piefed.social 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

So the arms race just needs to continue!!

The private militia needs tanks! Missiles! Fighter jets!

...come to think of it, I guess Mexican drug cartels are pretty much the libertarian wet dream.

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I guess Mexican drug cartels are pretty much the libertarian wet dream.

Ooo, that one's good, I've never thought of that before. I bet "So you want a weak government like Mexico?" would short circuit many libertarian's brains.

[–] vorpuni@jlai.lu 1 points 3 weeks ago

Except most libertarians would not give them a steady income stream: legalise drugs, prostitution and gambling and organised crime does not have much left.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

And how are those numerous steps enforced?

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

If you're asking how oversight is enforced, then I freely invite you to examine the past century of behavior in democratic polities which involves varying levels of participation and opposition to the state in utilizing methods most effective at the given time to maximize the impact of participation by the general population and the generation of continued enthusiasm from said population. Violence is often involved - the idea of making the state 'scared' to 'come to [an individual's] door' by civilian firearm ownership a la GOP-style no step on snek dick-waving rarely is.

If you want me to outline the totality of escalation from civic participation to civic disobedience to direct action, I'm gonna have to decline.

[–] Bernie_Sandals@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

A general strike would be one example.

It's hard to have an army without an economy, and it's hard to effectively enslave a nation by forcing them to work at gunpoint.

[–] Arbiter@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Sure, that can work but not without a lot of casualties.

Armed or not, the state will send armed forces to break the strike violently.

Don’t forget the lessons learned in Blair Mountain and Tiananmen Square.