I also know people with this view, but I do judge them for it because its pragmatically nonsensical. It made sense back in the age of muskets when well-regulated colonial militias could enforce the will of the colony (and when colonies got together, they could even hold their own against a major European power, albeit one located across an ocean).
These days, nothing individuals (or even groups of individuals) can acquire holds a candle to what governments (the US being a world leader in this regard) are equipped with, so there is no endgame for gun ownership as a means of defense against one's government.
> These days, nothing individuals (or even groups of individuals) can acquire holds a candle to what governments (the US being a world leader in this regard) are equipped with, so there is no endgame for gun ownership as a means of defense against one's government.
Even back in colonial times, your single musket was no match for the hundreds of muskets and handful of cannon that the government was equipped with. If the government wants to kill you -specifically- then it's going to do that.
As a defense against tyranny, firearm ownership is effective in the same way that putting your valuables in a safe is effective. Neither are an absolute defense, but both raise the level of effort required from the attacker.
For example, regardless of whether you think there actions were reasonably justifiable, the conflict between the Bundys and the BLM would have gone _very_ differently had the Bundys not been armed. They would have absolutely been quietly steamrolled by the government: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff>
FedGov could have rolled in tanks, helicopters, or jets to eliminate the Bundys with zero friendly casualties, but that was a cost that they were entirely unwilling to pay.
Again. If the USian government really wants to get you or your people, specifically, you cannot (and have never been able to) stop them. They've more money and men and materiale than you could ever hope to accumulate. This has pretty much always been true.
We did not have a problem killing hundreds of thousands of them, and the US military would be significantly less "careful" suppressing an actual American rebellion.
>US military would be significantly less "careful" suppressing an actual American rebellion.
I think that's very wrong. The second point, is that around 44% of US households are armed. That's a couple hundred million. The only hope the army would have of suppressing them is if half of the US households assisted the army.
If it was an actual popular uprising, the army would be absolutely incapable of stopping it.
I never argued it made practical sense. I was making a point that, when Biden goes on TV after a shooting and kind of hints at the idea people should give up their guns, they might if they felt like they could trust their government more than they currently do.
It's a big ask for people who almost have a religious belief in the right to bear arms to give them away.
Stories like this one, and countless others, including the poor treatment of whistleblowers are why we Americans can't have nice things.
These days, nothing individuals (or even groups of individuals) can acquire holds a candle to what governments (the US being a world leader in this regard) are equipped with, so there is no endgame for gun ownership as a means of defense against one's government.