• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      22 days ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        22 days ago

        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.

        • Որբունի@jlai.lu
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 days 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.

      • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        22 days 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.

        • Arbiter@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          22 days 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.