Is the American idea of bearing firearms related to stopping a dictatorship?

Forgive my ignorance as I'm English.

Yes we have rain today and yes I'm drinking earl grey and live in a mansion. Chin chin.

Is this idea and rationale relevant in modern times? Even if the US military suddenly say took over the country in a military coup like that has happened in some African states.

The US army would ground to powder any civilian dissent with tanks, artillery, poison gas and fighter jets.

Rifles in the hands of civilians are no match for the full might of a nations military.

So how does your civilians having firearms stop this from happening? To take on the US army the civilian militia need equally more heavy arms like tanks, missiles and fighter jets.

The government could just assassinate the instigators of the revolt.

9 Answers

Relevance
  • 1 year ago
    Favorite Answer

    The British people lost the right to keep and bear arms in the 1920s when the political elite disarmed the populace in order to prevent a communist revolution - like the one that had just happened in Russia.

  • Foofa
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    It's basically the paranoia that you lot will return and try to corrupt our government. Apparently The Framers didn't predict Putin.

  • 1 year ago

    and how did russia become democratic and no longer the soviet union?

    what about east germany?

    where was your army then?

  • 1 year ago

    Look at all of the countries recently having internal upheaval.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    1 year ago

    So you’re saying the military should not be allowed to bear arms, because the violence done by governments is much greater than that done by all the civilian mass murderers put together?

    Yes?

    Correct?

    You’re saying governmental violence is orders of magnitude bigger and worse?

    Yes?

    Correct?

  • 1 year ago

    That is a big part of it, yes. And it doesn't have to be a "dictatorship." Any government or other group that becomes abusive, or could potentially become abusive. An armed population is a deterrent in itself, just as criminals are less likely to target somebody who is open-carrying.

    Your far-fetched scenario makes many assumptions which won't necessarily be anywhere near reality. An overt military coup is among the least likely scenarios for a dictatorship forming, and what makes you think that the entire military will unquestioningly obey an illegitimate and oppressive government?

    Overall, you have a simplistic and childlike way of analyzing the issue. You ham-handedly postulate a specific scenario where resistance is futile by definition, and then ask what the point of resistance is. You're answering your own question and allowing for no possibility of discussion.

  • 1 year ago

    The US army would ground to powder any civilian dissent with tanks, artillery, poison gas and fighter jets.

    Didn't work that way in Vietnam did it?? The US Army was beaten badly in that conflict. What makes you think that couldn't happen here in the US??

  • Mrsjvb
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    welp, a bunch of guys with a mish mash of rifles managed to get hold their own against one of the best equipped and trained armed forces on the planet back in the 1770s.

    go find the movie Red Dawn. its dated, but illustrates just exactly how a few troublemakers can prevail against the full might of a nation's military.

  • Daniel
    Lv 7
    1 year ago

    A bunch of guys with AK-47s and some homemade explosives have been causing plenty of trouble for the 'full might' of Soviet and NATO forces for 40 years.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.