Guns Are Needed To Defend Against Tyrannical Governments

The Defense Against Tyrannical Governments Argument is one of the most popular arguments for guns, and it's one many people is absurd. If guns are needed to defend against tyrannical governments, then debating the statistics of gun use is unnecessary, and this argument could justify civilians owning many weapons that are otherwise unnecessary and potentially justify ownership of more weapons than what civilians can currently aqcuire, including a limited ownership of explosives and RPG's. This is also the only legitimate argument against the registration of firearms. I should also note that if it is possible to have a firearm registration and still be able to defend against tyranny, I would be most welcome to this prospect. One of the basic assumptions necessary for this argument is that most people can agree with is that liberty is better than tyrannical rule. For the purposes of this argument, I will assume this is true. Definitions of Potential Tyrannical Threats: External Threat: Governments invading the United States, conquering, and ruling tyrannically. These governments outside tyrannical governments could include tyrannical or democratic governments (a democratic country may rule tyrannically over conquered territory). Internal Threat: The ruling democratic government currently in power becomes tyrannical. Citizen Threat: The citizens of a democratic government revolt and overthrow the current government and replace it with a tyrannical one. Arguments: The first argument against the defense against tyranny argument (DAT for short) is that there is absolutely no possibility the US citizens armed with small arms could prevent a government takeover if they went toe to toe with the US military. The reason this argument fails are because: 1. It is unlikely that the entire US military would side with the potential despot. This faction in the military, supported with the sheer numbers of a civilian militia, could potentially defeat the tyrannical forces. No doubt some citizens would support the tyrannical regime, but in my experience most gun owners are extremely patriotic, therefore numbers will still most likely be on the side of the democratic forces. 2. A citizen militia does not need to be able to match and defeat the tyrannical forces, all they need to do is make it too costly. Over time a citizen militia using guerilla tactics may be able to weaken the tyrannical regime enough to where it will fall apart and defeat itself by internal power struggles or from outside threats, which will (hopefully) eventually lead to a democratic power re-emerging. If the tyrannical government bombs its citizens to near extinction (which may be necessary to defeat the citizen militia), this also could lead to its defeat since it would need the labor of its citizens to support a large standing army, and if too many citizens are killed this would not be possible. Next, let's evaluate the tyrannical likelihood of facing each of the tyrannical threats. External Threat: Warfare is a part of human nature, and to assume that we will always remain at peace is a false prospect. At some point we are all but garaunteed to engage in war and potentially be invaded, especially once we develop countermeasure to nuclear strikes. Granted the US military is extremely powerful, but NO military force is invincible. If enough countries ganged up on the US, our military would fail. In this case you most certainly want your citizens to be as heavily armed as possible, although weapons such as explosives and RPG's could be given away during the invasion and are not necessary for private ownership. Citizen Threat: This is meant to cover Pol-Pot's regime in Cambodia and the rise of Hitler. If a country is democratic but its citizens are not being sufficiently cared for (basically the democratic country is failing economically), I predict tyranny will arise. If you are starving or your family is starving, and a potential dictator comes along and says "I will treat you and your family well and I will respect your wishes, all you have to do is give up your civil rights and follow my commands," people will choose tyranny over liberty. This is especially reflective in Germany, where German citizens (not the Jewish ones) were much better off under Hitler's rule than they were during the democratic government preceding Hitler. If a citizen threat became imminent, I would argue that it would not matter whether or not its citizens were armed to the teeth. If enough people are desperate, they would willingly accept the ruling tyrannical government without (at least very much) civil strife. Internal Threat: This is the most popular tyrannical threat thrown out, and I believe there is more merit here than people give credit. Democratic governments do not randomly become tyrannical, but actually they start becoming more tyrannical during wars and conflicts. In WW2, the Japanese were rounded up into internment camps and forcibly removed from their homes because it was considered "necessary." After 9/11, Bush passed the Patriot Act which permitted the government to legally tap phones without warrants and several other privacy and civil rights violations. This was considered "necessary" to deal with possible terrorist threats. It is during wartime that civil rights and liberties become most threatened, and the more desperate the war the more civil rights will be taken away. It also just so happens that, during wartime, a government would not be able afford a citizen revolt and may ultimately be deterred from becoming utterly tryannical, therefore there would exist a limit to the number of liberties taken away, and ultimately a tryannical government would not become tyrannical because its citizens were armed.