←back to thread

628 points nodea2345 | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.032s | source
Show context
nvahalik ◴[] No.21125093[source]
> Imagine if the US suddenly had a dictator

This is why we have the second amendment. And the constitution as the thing to which office-holders swear allegiance to rather than to "the party" or "the president".

replies(26): >>21125127 #>>21125139 #>>21125892 #>>21126027 #>>21126073 #>>21126084 #>>21126204 #>>21126397 #>>21126398 #>>21126638 #>>21126890 #>>21126892 #>>21127286 #>>21127513 #>>21127874 #>>21127880 #>>21128227 #>>21128793 #>>21129412 #>>21129418 #>>21129526 #>>21129658 #>>21130063 #>>21130220 #>>21131181 #>>21131653 #
Fezzik ◴[] No.21126073[source]
I always find this sentiment a little silly - if the US President went in to full dictator mode and had the support of the military, do you really think a militia of armed citizens would be anything but gnats against the windshield of the United States Armed Forces? And if s/he did not have the support of the Armed Forces, it would not be a very effective dictatorship and you would not even need guns for a rebellion. I truly do not get it.
replies(45): >>21126088 #>>21126117 #>>21126119 #>>21126144 #>>21126159 #>>21126160 #>>21126165 #>>21126171 #>>21126173 #>>21126175 #>>21126182 #>>21126186 #>>21126219 #>>21126220 #>>21126294 #>>21126330 #>>21126331 #>>21126370 #>>21126377 #>>21126378 #>>21126426 #>>21126440 #>>21126450 #>>21126487 #>>21126517 #>>21126799 #>>21126947 #>>21127039 #>>21127190 #>>21127208 #>>21127264 #>>21127378 #>>21127491 #>>21127495 #>>21127510 #>>21127657 #>>21127816 #>>21128112 #>>21128474 #>>21129036 #>>21129097 #>>21129146 #>>21129149 #>>21129991 #>>21131323 #
bhupy ◴[] No.21126088[source]
The US (with its support of the military) has been at war in the Middle East for nearly 2 decades now with insurgents.

The argument is not that a rebellious citizenry will necessarily win a war, it's that it will draw out a bloody civil war so long and so expensive as to be a form of mutually assured destruction, the risk of which acts as a check in and of itself.

replies(8): >>21126327 #>>21126458 #>>21126479 #>>21126676 #>>21127250 #>>21127355 #>>21129224 #>>21129536 #
josephdviviano ◴[] No.21126327[source]
The fact is that the dictator would still win. The rebellious citizenry would live a life of absolute misery, just as those in the middle east do.

The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles. If there was ever a true US dictator, the 2nd amendment would mostly be used by the oppressed to rob, attack, and oppress one another.

replies(19): >>21126423 #>>21126473 #>>21126626 #>>21126634 #>>21126639 #>>21126827 #>>21126856 #>>21127066 #>>21127138 #>>21127307 #>>21127532 #>>21127651 #>>21127792 #>>21128127 #>>21128569 #>>21128715 #>>21129560 #>>21129613 #>>21129886 #
daenz ◴[] No.21126856[source]
>The 2nd amendment made a lot of sense when weaponry consisted of horses and rifles, not computer-guided missiles.

Let me make sure I understand your basic premise: the ability to defend yourself against a tyrannical dictatorship made sense until the government developed better technology, now it's pointless so just give up your guns?

Aside from being completely contrary to the American spirit of defending yourself from tyranny, it's based on the bogus premise that the advanced military technology can be used effectively against its own people. Where is the military going to fire those "computer guided missiles?" Into every rural home and every urban apartment window of everyone they suspect has guns, with thousands of civilian collateral casualties? Are tanks and fighter jets going to roll in and level entire economic hubs like cities? Are they going to destroy their own infrastructure? Are you envisioning "the rebellion" would set up a nice neat base in some remote location for the military to aim its tech at? Do you think the real men and women of the military would follow orders to destroy its own hometowns and families? How long before regional coups? How big do you think the US military is, relative to the armed civilian population? You are also aware that soldiers and police wear recognizable uniforms, while "the rebellion" doesn't?

I don't think you've thought this through.

replies(8): >>21127161 #>>21127367 #>>21127408 #>>21127512 #>>21127583 #>>21127678 #>>21128415 #>>21129314 #
UnFleshedOne ◴[] No.21127512[source]
Not everyone who has guns, but everyone who resists. Even worst tyranny has some public support usually. And if people who tend to have guns are more inclined to support your flavor of tyranny (because you purpose-built it that way), you side step most of those problems.
replies(1): >>21129177 #
1. munk-a ◴[] No.21129177[source]
> Even worst tyranny has some public support usually.

Tyranny always has public support. The evil wizard lord of a kingdom scenario has never and will never occur in reality - someone despised by everyone cannot come into power... That doesn't mean the tyrant has the majority of public support, but I'd find it hard to believe any tyrant has less than 30% when coming to power.

replies(2): >>21129633 #>>21130548 #
2. dmurray ◴[] No.21129633[source]
Someone despised by everyone can come into power when they are born into it. King John of England is a common example, though I don't know how historically accurate.

That said, your point is important and something many people don't seem to understand: those foreign leaders we in the West like to describe as tyrants, dictators, despots, strongmen, etc, are generally at least popular at home, and often adored.

replies(1): >>21130235 #
3. munk-a ◴[] No.21130235[source]
I don't really accept King John as a counter example. I'd revise my statement above to clarify that only someone with popular support can usurp power - unpopular monarchy can inherit power either because (1) the monarchy as an institution is more regarded than individual monarchs (2) once seizing power a tyrant can usually reduce their popular support and retain that power - the same holds for institutions of power, so the monarchy might not be popular but enough power is gained from and invested in it's continuance that no one wants it to go away[1]. John also may have been a desirable monarch because he was initially a useful idiot and managed to ride luck to transform that initial investiture of some power into a stronger reign.

Lastly, popular support is from the factions, not the people - in medieval europe most of the people had no factional representation politically, all the power had been entirely concentrated in the various estates.

1. See Lord Vetinari in like every discworld book ever.

4. samus ◴[] No.21130548[source]
The Nazis started their power grab in earnest after the arsoning of the Reichstag. Even before that incident, public opinion was actually already firmly against the communists. To this day there are debates on who exactly arsoned the Reichstag, but it was suspiciously convenient for the Nazis so they could blame the communists. Soon after this incident, laws were passed that effectively abolished the constitution and granted the Nazi the power they required to establish their rule.