So should we allow citizens to possess nuclear weapons to ensure they cannot be oppressed by their nuclear-armed governments? If not, why not?

Can someone give me a number of the amount of deaths over the last century because of mass shootings? — yatagarasu

According to this, there were 1,077 since August 1st, 1966 (in the United States).

However, it's worth noting that this figure only includes cases where "four or more people were killed by a lone shooter (two shooters in a few cases)".

A better figure to consider is the total number of firearm homicides. According to this, there were 1.5 million gun deaths between 1968 and 2014, and in 2013 33% of gun deaths were homicides. I don't know how typical this proportion is, but assuming it's average, that gives us a figure of 495,000, or 10,760 a year. That's a bit lower than the 13,000 figure given here – I guess this latter figure just uses recent years, and the rate has gone up?

And, of course, this is just fatalities. There's going to be a lot of non-fatal gun assaults too. According to this, "for every one person killed with guns, two more are injured". Assuming (perhaps a big assume) that the death-to-injury ratio is consistent across causes (assault, suicide, accident) and years, that gives 990,000 non-fatal gun assaults (although this is the same source that gives a figure of 13,000 deaths a year, and so this might be a liberal figure).

So as a rough estimate, the total number of victims from gun attacks between 1968 and 2014 is 1,485,000.

I wonder how this compares to the number of lives saved/injuries avoided by civilians owning guns.

So should we allow citizens to possess nuclear weapons to ensure they cannot be oppressed by their nuclear-armed governments? If not, why not? — Pseudonym

Huh. Well, first of all that would be very unrealistic. haha But if it were possible I would be definitely be for it. It would be the ultimate threat towards an oppressive regime. The biggest point of having guns is to have some semblance of force to oppose the governments as well as the uncertainty by having those guns available and of unknown amounts within the population. The same would be true of nuclear weapons but to an even greater degree. They would be a collective threat and would not be owned by individuals, just as the military is a group threat, so is the nuclear threat.

Huh. Well, first of all that would be very unrealistic. haha But if it were possible I would be definitely be for it. It would be the ultimate threat towards an oppressive regime. The biggest point of having guns is to have some semblance of force to oppose the governments as well as the uncertainty by having those guns available and of unknown amounts within the population. The same would be true of nuclear weapons but to an even greater degree. They would be a collective threat and would not be owned by individuals, just as the military is a group threat, so is the nuclear threat. — yatagarasu

Then you just get someone like today's mass shooters who decides to detonate a nuke for whatever awful reasons they have for doing what they do.

You're not thinking this through at all.

Thank you for your research and numbers! : ) That is roughly what I have. I don't know how you could estimate the amount of people saved. I'm sure there are some numbers out there but I would be hard pressed to verify them. I would say my points and questions still stand as is. Even on the high end and with everything totaled in it is still much less than even the low end estimates of alcohol or tobacco, not to mention other causes annually.

Then you just get someone like today's mass shooters who decides to detonate a nuke for whatever awful reasons they have for doing what they do.

You're not thinking this through at all. — Michael

I mentioned it would be a group threat just as a militia is and not something that is under private ownership, so that would be a non issue.

I mentioned it would be a group threat just as a militia is and not something that is under private ownership, so that would be a non issue. — yatagarasu

Then can we say the same about guns? No private ownership.

Then can we say the same about guns? No private ownership. — Michael

That would be nice but the threat in the militia comes from the anonymity and presence in the population. If it exists as a public "resource" the government would never allow it and if it did it would be much easier to eliminate and manipulate by the vary government it would try and oppose.

That would be nice but the threat in the militia comes from the anonymity and presence in the population. If it exists as a public "resource" the government would never allow it and if it did it would be much easier to eliminate and manipulate by the vary government it would try and oppose. — yatagarasu

OK, so then the same can be said about nukes.

You're not being very consistent.

OK, so then the same can be said about nukes.

You're not being very consistent. — Michael

Really? You are going to compare widespread gun ownership to GROUP ownership of nuclear warheads? Can you not see that they are worlds apart in scale and not fungible? Every person can own a gun and it be a group force. A group can own a nuclear warhead and have the same threat but no individual would own it. For guns to be effective they have to be owned individually because they do not operate like nuclear weapons do.

They simply can't be compared so there is no point of inserting them into a debate vs guns. And most importantly they are completely impractical as I said above.

If group ownership of a nuke is sufficient then why isn't group ownership of guns sufficient? Store the guns in whatever secret place it is you store your nuke. Then, if there's a credible threat, the people can collect their guns (and threaten to use the nuke).

But really, this is all nonsense. Nuclear weapons in the hands of ordinary folk? That's the worst idea I've ever heard.

If group ownership of a nuke is sufficient then why isn't group ownership of guns sufficient? Store the guns in whatever secret place it is you store your nuke. Then, if there's a credible threat, the people can collect their guns (and threaten to use the nuke). — Michael

Fair points. So would it be a fund where we add guns to it in support of protecting ourselves from the government? I just don't know how it would be organized and if you could trust those in charge from betraying the citizens. It seems much more feasible just to give private ownership and to organize it like that then to trust you could hide or trust anyone to keep those guns just in case you need them. But yes, I stand corrected, if that were possible I would be ok with doing that as an alternative ( no private ownership and just a collective fund ).

It sounds really bad but if there were a way to get the government to fear its citizens it would be that. haha (stares intensely)

How would one realistically overthrow an oppressive government in the 21st century? Is the modern United States government really scared of a few people with firearms, given the immense power and scope of their military might? Why are we ignoring both the technological advances made with guns and the advances within the security of society from militias to modern police and emergency services? How many countries feel the need to have laws protecting guns in order to protect the population from the government?

To add to this: if you're that concerned about the government taking away citizens' rights, then don't vote for people who want to take away your rights. You live in a democracy after all, so don't elect authoritarians.

In a related thread on guns (yesterday), I said:

The political block that is most dangerous in the politics of gun-control is the one which holds that The People need to be armed to protect themselves from a malignant, freedom suppressing Federal Government. The Armed Militias see the Feds rolling into town and Marshals forcing them to be vaccinated against measles, taking away their independence, their property rights, their children, their women, their reproductive organs, and their guns. — Bitter Crank

AND, right on cue, here you are!

So, I don't know how serious you are about this. Maybe you're just being provocative. But there are people running around out there who are not merely being provocative.

"The government coming to get us" has been a leitmotif of a deranged (paranoid) subset somewhere out on the far right wing for a good share of our history. It isn't clear to me exactly what happens to people that they think this way. Harsh toilet training? Siblings snatching their toys away from them? Brain infections? Worms?

So, come in, lay down on the couch, and tell me about your innermost thoughts.

I would be very worried about a culture and society that feels the need to defend itself against its democratically elected government through the use of guns. Primitive collective paranoia seems at play here. I'd like to think we have evolved from the cave-man mentality to know that logic, debate, laws, democratic voting system etc have more power than violence.

How would one realistically overthrow an oppressive government in the 21st century? Is the modern United States government really scared of a few people with firearms, given the immense power and scope of their military might? Why are we ignoring both the technological advances made with guns and the advances within the security of society from militias to modern police and emergency services? Then can we say the same about guns? No private ownership.
— Chany

I would assume by using force? What other way is there? Currently a quarter of Americans own guns, approximately 81 million people. The American military stands at about 1.5 million so even a tenth of those people protesting at different times around the country would be pretty alarming. The success of their revolution isn't really important, it's the causalities involved. Would the government be able to imprison or kill such a large amount of people to maintain power? How would that look to the rest of the world? What about those that aren't fighting? Wouldn't they scream out in horror making the oppressive governments control of power even harder to maintain? In this world of social media and cameras? No doubt they would probably lose the war. But at the very least America would have the people and enough guns to force the hand of their government. No other country could come close and would be easy to control in our current climate.

How many countries feel the need to have laws protecting guns in order to protect the population from the government? — Chany

Not many. That is why the founders of America were so ahead of the curve. Making sure those values stand the test of time and the test of authoritarian leaders is something they payed close attention to. Something other countries completely missed out on, either for not seeing the importance of it, or because they are corrupt. Lets be real, what government would want to make sure it's quest for power could be threatened by their citizens by establishing those laws? lol

To add to this: if you're that concerned about the government taking away citizens' rights, then don't vote for people who want to take away your rights. You live in a democracy after all, so don't elect authoritarians. — Michael

I agree but you are really underestimating their ability to manipulate the narrative, and the law to control their voters. Gerrymandering, excessive lobbying, control of media and narrative through ownership of monopolies. This takes time and doesn't happen overnight, and now guns are being threatened? The only reasonable way to stand a chance against an ever growing federal government? We don't live in a democracy. I would call it a plutocracy. The fact someone like Donald Trump can get into office should tell you the state of the media and how money has corrupted any form of representative democracy we ever had.

"The government coming to get us" has been a leitmotif of a deranged (paranoid) subset somewhere out on the far right wing for a good share of our history. It isn't clear to me exactly what happens to people that they think this way. Harsh toilet training? Siblings snatching their toys away from them? Brain infections? Worms? — Bitter Crank

It should be a part of everyone's inner monologue when it comes to trusting a government this big with every facet of our lives. I really enjoy your comments by the way and I agree with you at least 99% of the time. I just can not understand why you are ok with trusting a government growing this big but you can't stand the control corporations have over our lives and the respective effects they've had on wages in America and opportunity. I have studied and lived through enough at only 25 to know that neither of those entities should be trusted. Which one is worse with power is questionable to me. But in America it isn't. If you are on the left it is the Corporation, on the right the government. Like they aren't literally the same thing in different attire. At the end of the day they are humans and they want security and power. So no, I'm not being provocative, I am asking as a person. Why do you trust the government so much to not have any way to protect the people from said government?

I was only a child when my parents were forced to relocate to the states because of the Bosnian war. I know have volatile and pointless it is to fight against those in control. Fight or don't eat, they told my father. That is what humans do. They have done it throughout history in every part of life. From the American revolutions, to France, across the Mediterranean in Egypt, all the way to early Korea during the times of the Joseon/Ming Dynasties (China). Governments that just did what they wanted, conscription at the hands of select few, controlling the citizens lives. It's sickening. So what happened to "us"? History happened. Only in America could the question of which one is trying to control you be a reality. Everywhere else in the world it's always been both. No wonder they are so cozy with each other in American politics. They have and will always be best of friends. Very nice couch by the way. :^)

I would be very worried about a culture and society that feels the need to defend itself against its democratically elected government through the use of guns. Primitive collective paranoia seems at play here. I'd like to think we have evolved from the cave-man mentality to know that logic, debate, laws, democratic voting system etc have more power than violence. — CuddlyHedgehog

I just see it as the reality. I would love a world where logic, debate, laws, democratic voting system dominates but we haven't evolved that much. The fact we still have wars is testimony to that. Like I said in my initial post, the sword is still probably the only true power we have when everything comes down to it.

Why do you trust the government so much to not have any way to protect the people from said government? — yatagarasu

That is a fair question. My answer has to be somewhat equivocal and lengthy.

I do not think the federal government (the level we are talking about) is an unalloyed good. On the one hand, the government pursued an extremely and existentially dangerous atomic weapons program from 1942 to the present. The federal government has pursued a series of "limited" conventional wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan towards no clear and achievable purpose. They have also pursued a policy of destabilization and interference in Central and South America (for instance, in 1973 supporting Pinochet's violent coup against President Allende in Chile). They have interfered in Middle Eastern political affairs since the 1950s (like, assisting in the overthrow of the democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, considered to be the leading champion of secular democracy and resistance to foreign domination in Iran's modern history, then installed the "crowned cannibal" Shah of Iran, Pavlavi).

The federal government has been something of a corporate adversary at times -- such as in the progressive era (early 1900s) when it broke up the giant corporate trusts. At times the federal government has regulated corporations energetically, and at times it has done very little. Generally, the federal government has been a friend of the corporate establishment.

On the other hand, the federal government finally began acting to promote the civil rights of black Americans, starting in 1954. At the same time Federal Housing Administration (FHA) continued a formal policy of economic discrimination against black people.

The federal government is primarily responsible for funding many social services, such as Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Disability Programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Assistance, some welfare programs, and so on.

The saving grace of the federal government is that Congress and President are elected. They can be replaced by the people--theoretically at least. The Supreme Court isn't elected, and is pretty much there for the lifetime of its appointed judges. The "permanent government" -- the civil service and the military establishment -- are somewhat independent of Congress and the President. This is both good and bad.

So, some actions of the government are good, some actions are bad. It's a mixed bag.

The PRIMARY reason to NOT plan on resisting the federal government by force, is that the federal government has overwhelming resources for violence at its disposal. Most central governments possess the means to suppress their population's discontents. That's just part of the deal of having governments that are capable of defending the nation against foreign aggression: they can also defend themselves against domestic aggression.

So far, our federal government hasn't often found it necessary to engage in combat with citizens in the streets. State and local governments have, however, found it necessary, convenient, or both.

Only in America could the question of which one is trying to control you be a reality. Everywhere else in the world it's always been both. No wonder they are so cozy with each other in American politics. They have and will always be best of friends. — yatagarasu

If I have more hostility towards corporations than toward government, it is because I interact with corporate entities much more often than with government agencies. Plus, while the government is theoretically the servant of the people, corporations are more openly predatory. What saves the corporations from being even worse than they are, is that they are competing with each other. This alone has helped keep them from being overly aggressive. Except when they achieve monopoly status, then its a different story.

Before the American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, the Bell System, was broken up by the government in 1982, it was a very reliable but inflexible company. A joke about AT&T was "We don't care; we don't have to." They were the only telephone company that served the whole country and provided long distance and local service in most areas. They owned the telephone on your desk. They had no competition: they were a protected monopoly. If you didn't like their service, you could just do without telephone service altogether.

I think what people dislike about the major institutions in their societies is their being too big, too inflexible, too unresponsive, too inaccessible, too bureaucratic, too authoritarian. The central government; the Church; the corporations; the military; the civil service; one's city, county, and state governments; universities, and so forth can all be unfriendly, and alienating.

Modern societies have tended towards being unfriendly and alienating as they have grown in complexity and size. This applies to governments at many levels, corporations (especially large ones), systems (like markets), religious organizations--all kinds of large institutions in a society.

Feeling hostility, fear, and loathing towards one, several, or all institutions is really a perfectly normal human response. It's actually desirable that people not love these huge, distant, unresponsive, uncaring institutions.

Unfortunately, and it is unfortunate, huge populations require huge service establishments, whether they be governmental, corporate, military, religious, or educational. If one wants to avoid falling into existential despair, anomie, alienation, pervasive hostility and fear, and all that bad stuff, one has to find friendly local community--and that is fortunately possible. Difficult at times, but possible.

Every citizen armed isn't going to solve any of our problems, because the most dangerous attacks on your personhood won't be in the form of armed assault. It will be more insidious, bureaucratic, omnidirectional, insubstantial. Shooting at it won't help. There will be no specific target to hit.

Thank you for your response. I really appreciate it and don't mind it's length at all. : )

With that said. I liked the examples you gave of the government. In the same way corporations aren't all bad and they do bring quite a bit to the table. I've been on the positive side of government as a child and I can say that without it I'm not sure my parents could have survived in a new country, not knowing the language. It was just enough to help us make it by until I was able to attend university and help them.
And overall I feel more negatively towards the corporation but I just find it strange that most don't seem to have any worries when it comes to the government. It continues to grow even as it takes on more and more debt. It has involved itself in so many proxy wars over the years that it's hard to remember whose side they are even on anymore... And for me I've seen a trend towards removing anti-trust legislation and taxes have dropped dramatically on those corporations since right after the Great Depression. Thank goodness for the checks and balances but my biggest issue is the money slipping into the government. It is effectively undermining the vote of the citizens as those same citizens argue who is at fault, just as the talking heads want.

In my other post I responded to the idea that technological advancements would crush any resistance. I agree that it would be impossible to deal with a military that is so expansive and powerful but I wonder if this would be worth it from the point of the view of that government. Social media would be huge nowadays and would at the very least alert the rest of the world to what the American government is doing. The force applied to government would be in a last case scenario regardless. I never meant as something like, "I'm upset my taxes are this way. REVOLUTION". It's more like, Brave New World is coming and they have systematically (through bureaucracy and the like), taken away the basic rights we have for their benefit, and there is no option but to fight. Then it would be really nice to have guns, whether or not they are effective is another story. I was just asking if those lives lost now are worth the possible ability to prevent that Brave New World. I am very concerned about the inevitability of that world in the future. If corporations are kept in check via completion (competition that seems to be fading day by day), and the government is held in check by it's establishments (3 branches). What happens when the citizens are too much of weight or no longer viable means of income. A world where AI has replaced a good % of humans. We know what happens in 3rd world countries when the GDP does not derive from it's citizens. It is absolute hell for those citizens and they are effectively useless to those in power.

Maybe it's a mute point. Maybe not having guns would lead to the same results. Then I would truly feel horrible for the future victims of shootings. But in the off chance it gives the citizens a chance to combat a authoritative government those ~13,000 lives yearly from gun violence will look minuscule in comparison... That is a risk I'm not sure of but that I'm willing to take. Which is terrible to say but nonetheless feel would lead to a more utilitarian end. We should try and reduce the chance of the incidents of course, through other means. More mental health facilities, security, lessen the stigma on mental disease, and increase the standard of living for the citizens but we probably aren't fixing the issue completely.

Finally, I wanted to thank you again for the history you injected into your post and the observations about the reason many dislike those large scale institutions, as well as the thoughtfulness of your post. Everything you said was spot on. It would probably take months to even get a pencil if you asked the government to do it. : / Trying to find the community you mentioned is really important and it has eluded me for most of my life. Even at university or work. As I look at the world now it feels even more apparent that the nihilism is creeping up on me. It just feels like humanity is headed down the wrong path and I am lost in that thought. Anyways, I've went on long enough. >_> Hope you are well!

I am well. Thank you. And you -- are you and your family also well?

I would encourage you to avoid nihilistic thinking. Granted, it can seem like there are too damn many things going wrong in the world. But what we worry about usually becomes selective, and we start picking out the worst-case-scenarios to think about. Not a good idea. Bad for your mental health, and it doesn't help.

In the middle of everything that seems to be going wrong, there are also things that are going right. Good things happen to people--not all the time, not enough, the deserving get overlooked, but it just isn't all bad. Even Government, Banks, and Big Corporations do good things. Target, for instance, had blueberries on sale for $3 a pint, a couple of weeks ago. From Chile--yeah, I know--very unecological, air freight from Chile to Minnesota; but they were very good.

Brave New World is a good book. If you have not read it, you might want to read 1984, too. It's a grim book, but it will provide you with lots of rhetorical fuel for future posts. George Orwell was a very good writer. He wrote several books which are not novels that are enjoyable writing. The Road to Wigan Pier and Down and Out in Paris and London are two that I read and enjoyed. The subject matter is the depression of the 1930s and British domestic policy, but Orwell is just such a good writer its enjoyable to read. (I suppose you need to be in the right mood, but that's true of every book.) He worked in several kitchens in Paris during the Great Depression, and described how the restaurant staff hated the people who were buying the fancy food they prepared. Someone in the kitchen not infrequently spat on the food before sending it out to the dining room.

The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin is a science fiction novel that is (among other things) about a society organized along a strict anarchist model. It's a good story on its own, but her development of the society is quite thought provoking.

You might like the writing of James Howard Kunstler. He is... what? An environmental critic? He wrote a series of novels, one A World Made By Hand which is about survival after some sort of apocalyptic event, when electricity and oil products disappear. A History of the Future and The Harrows of Spring are two additional novels in the series. He also wrote The Long Emergency and Too Much Magic: Wishful Thinking, Technology, and the Fate of the Nation. The last two are about what a post peak-oil future means.

Here's a question, would you even want to live in an apocalyptic dystopian world where there is armed struggle between the citizenry and government in an anarchic state of "anything goes" regarding weapons? At that point, the structures of civilization itself has lost, and it is doubtful it will be a good world worth trying to thrive in anyways. So the argument that guns will play a role in some apocalyptic end game against a tyrannical government seems like a dead one from the start.

Also, as some posters suggested, the government has tanks, nuclear weapons, large-scale missiles, and you name it. You think your assault rifles or other pitly firearms matter much to that? The Founders had muskets and cannons- that was it. What would they say with modern weapons? Would they possibly say the idea of a competently armed citizenry is ridiculous in the face of military grade weapons that have been stockpiled since WWI in the US Government?

Thirdly, your premise that the only reason for the 2nd Amendment was a tyrannical government is false. One of the main reasons was actually much more nefarious. Southerners, especially in places like Virginia, were suspicious of the new federal government's formation of a standing army. They thought that if there was a federal army, they might take away the local militias. Now, why did many southerners want local militias? Because the slaveowners were reliant on regional volunteer militias to keep the slave population from revolting. These slaveholders did not want the government interfering with their ability to control their slave population. James Madison, a Virginian himself, the primary drafter of the Bill of Rights, knew this concern, and it was a factor in the prominence of this amendment.

Maybe @Bitter Crank can comment on this too.

Another point is that I think large corporations and their pet governments are much more concerned about a computer literate populous than an armed one. Warfare, come the apocalypse will be carried out on computer as much as the battlefield.

What Bitter Crank can add is that southerners were opposed to centralization. When railroads were introduced in the early 19th century, southerners didn't want to build railroads that would be part of trans-state systems, even if the states were their southern neighbors. So, they built short lines, mostly within states, not crossing state boundaries. This was a problem when the Civil war began. The UnionNorth had built centralized, more effective railroad systems, which helped them greatly.

Southerns long practiced a kind of local self-sufficiency. They practiced do-it-yourself justice (quite often lynchings). The are anti-federal government, more likely to be anti-black, anti-working class (even if they are southern trailer trash). Guns play into the picture, because if you are going to resist the state, you need to be armed. And here the state could just as well be the state, county, or city as the federal government.

Where does this come from? Two sources: The first contribution was by the Cavaliers who settled in the south, set up the plantations, established the social hierarchy. They were kind of a lawless bunch. The second was the plantation system, which created micro-states on the land. The owner of the plantation was lord and master to the slaves and everybody else.

Southern society was, by and large, organized along quite different lines than the agrarian or industrial north.

So the argument that guns will play a role in some apocalyptic end game against a tyrannical government seems like a dead one from the start. — schopenhauer1

Indeed.

Why do you trust the government so much to not have any way to protect the people from said government? — yatagarasu

Unsure where you stand politically, but wanted to co-opt this statement to illuminate the hypocrisy of some Conservatives, who, on one hand want to increase military spending, yet simultaneously promote the second amendment as a bulwark against Government, on the other.

I would assume by using force? What other way is there? Currently a quarter of Americans own guns, approximately 81 million people. The American military stands at about 1.5 million so even a tenth of those people protesting at different times around the country would be pretty alarming. The success of their revolution isn't really important, it's the causalities involved. Would the government be able to imprison or kill such a large amount of people to maintain power? How would that look to the rest of the world? What about those that aren't fighting? Wouldn't they scream out in horror making the oppressive governments control of power even harder to maintain? In this world of social media and cameras? No doubt they would probably lose the war. But at the very least America would have the people and enough guns to force the hand of their government. No other country could come close and would be easy to control in our current climate. — yatagarasu

Alright, let's go into detail of why this is scenario does not make sense.

In order for a government to function, it requires the de facto (matter of fact) consent of an overwhelming majority of its population. By de facto consent, I mean that one must, no matter how begrudgingly, accept the authority of the government. The laws and institutions that comprise the government must both be recognized as the legal authority of the land and its citizens must accept, to some degree, the basic legal authority of the government. One could find the government completely morally bankrupt at a conceptual level, but so long as one accepts the government as the law of the land and generally follow rules, you consent to the government. The part about not accepting the entire government's rules is rather important for two reasons. Everyone has a gripe with the government and certain laws, but respects the authority of said laws anyway. I do not think the electoral college should exist, as the entire system is screwy and seems to serve no purpose but to serve as an unnecessary fail-safe against the masses, but I accept when the president is elected to office, even if said president only won via the electoral college.

When one establishes oneself as a open, democratic society, it means that overt uses of unjustified violence are not approved of and risk losing de facto consent. Fear of violence only works on marginalized and socially dismissed sections of society. You cannot use overt violence in a democracy without some sort of justification that can stand to a basic degree of public scrutiny. The threat of an overt police state with North Korea levels of oppression is so minimal that if it ever reaches that point, the guns will not help much anyway.

So, we really have two options: overt violent authoritarian government who gains consent primarily through direct fear or subtle maniplulative government that gains consent through acceptance. If the government ever decided to become, say, a dictatorship and rule primarily through fear, they would cease to really care about public opinion. They would still have limits, but I doubt that North Korea really cares about how the outside world views it or how its citizens fear it, so long as they can gain general acceptance. At this point, armed resistance would have to engage in such asymmetric warfare that I doubt having a handgun that the government probably knows about anyway is going to help.

Much more likely, the government would simply normalize the oppression. It would not be obvious. It would most likely be years in the making and involve shifting public opinion, at least enough to make it accepted as just a part of life. You make the majority either agree with the oppression or accept the oppression as a valid mode of life. One of the potential upsides of a democracy is that power and paradigm shifts tend to produce less violence because the responsiblity is always ultimately placed on the population. This means that people are going to be more accepting of political victories and, more importantly, that governments have a legitimate reason to squash violent resistance. It becomes hard to justify your cause by shooting up an army base when you can just use democratic institutions to enact change. The government does not need to worry about human rights violations when the party in question is has a gun and is shooting at people.

So, either you have guns and are overwhelmed by a government that doesn't care, or the government would make anyone who rebelled with a gun appear as a criminal. If the population reached the point that no one cared if the government was oppressive, then you already lost, and no amount of rifles, shotguns, and handguns is going to change that. The best safeguard against tyranny is a system of checks and balances and a population that cares enough about rights that a government is worried to cross those boundaries. The amount of support a rebellion would require is about the same amount to vote someone else in.

Not many. That is why the founders of America were so ahead of the curve. Making sure those values stand the test of time and the test of authoritarian leaders is something they payed close attention to. Something other countries completely missed out on, either for not seeing the importance of it, or because they are corrupt. Lets be real, what government would want to make sure it's quest for power could be threatened by their citizens by establishing those laws? lol — yatagarasu

I don't want to go super in-depth in terms of history, but I tend to think the framers of the Constitution get more credit than they deserve. Some of them wanted a stronger federal government, but political realities prevented them from doing so (Hamilton had to play politics just to get people together to draft the Constitution). They put many measures in place that were barriers in-between elected officials and the people they represented (senators were not originally elected by the people directly and the Electoral College for the presidency). Hell, they didn't even protect your basic rights. The Bill of Rights was designed to limit the federal government and protect the states; it did not apply to the people themselves at the state and local level. The 2nd Amendment wasn't incorporated and guaranteed at the state level until the 21st century!