A while ago, Marc Randazza posted an article at Popehat arguing that a rebellion against the government was not a good reason to own guns. Basically, the government has artillery, air support, tanks and trained troops; and they're going to roll right over you. Commenters made a number of arguments in response, one of which was that it would be very hard to get troops to shoot their own people.
This is partly true. But the world is replete with examples of government troops firing on civilians, or otherwise squelching revolts with deadly force. Any number of right and left wing dictatorships have done it; the trick is to ensure that the troops see the protestors/rebels as them, rather than us. Religion, ethnicity and politics have all been used, and it helps to associate the dissenters with some evil foreign power. It can be dangerous if the troops in question don't buy the setup; and Syria is a prime example of what can go wrong. A chunk of the early revolt was army units that defected.
But one key question here is numbers. If the number of rebels (and supporters) is so low that a fair vote would be easily lost, then an armed revolt isn't going to help. At best it will just switch which side has taken undemocratic control. It's also very unlikely that the revolt is going to succeed, even if it were armed as well as the government - weight of numbers is going to tell. And to get back to the problem of "firing at your own people", if the rebels are small enough in number it will be easy to find troops who consider them as the bad guys. If the revolt is to get somewhere useful, it really needs to have the support of a majority (or nearly so) of the population.
And then it becomes a question of convincing people of things. Convincing the troops that they are fighting for the good; convincing the non-rebellious part of the population of the same (lest they also decide the government is not worth keeping at such a cost); and convincing the rebels that they are on the wrong side. It's usually counterproductive to quell a rebellion by exterminating half your population.
Bottom line: your troops will only have a problem firing on their own people if they think the rebels are their own people. If the government controls the media, this is going to be extremely hard. Some leakage will always occur, but a government will always have some ability to sweep a few things under the carpet. And the less free the media, the harder it is to see how much is being swept.
I have often seen people say that their second amendment rights protect their first; but the reverse is rather more the case. Without the first amendment, mass oppression (say, confiscation of precious guns) can be done piecemeal. With the first amendment, word spreads quickly and the argument becomes a general one.
I have made the argument before that protecting your rights is easier the more of them you have. The logic of this post is that if you had to defend yourself against encroaching tyranny with only one of them, the first would be more useful to you than the second, as well as being less likely to get people killed.
This is partly true. But the world is replete with examples of government troops firing on civilians, or otherwise squelching revolts with deadly force. Any number of right and left wing dictatorships have done it; the trick is to ensure that the troops see the protestors/rebels as them, rather than us. Religion, ethnicity and politics have all been used, and it helps to associate the dissenters with some evil foreign power. It can be dangerous if the troops in question don't buy the setup; and Syria is a prime example of what can go wrong. A chunk of the early revolt was army units that defected.
But one key question here is numbers. If the number of rebels (and supporters) is so low that a fair vote would be easily lost, then an armed revolt isn't going to help. At best it will just switch which side has taken undemocratic control. It's also very unlikely that the revolt is going to succeed, even if it were armed as well as the government - weight of numbers is going to tell. And to get back to the problem of "firing at your own people", if the rebels are small enough in number it will be easy to find troops who consider them as the bad guys. If the revolt is to get somewhere useful, it really needs to have the support of a majority (or nearly so) of the population.
And then it becomes a question of convincing people of things. Convincing the troops that they are fighting for the good; convincing the non-rebellious part of the population of the same (lest they also decide the government is not worth keeping at such a cost); and convincing the rebels that they are on the wrong side. It's usually counterproductive to quell a rebellion by exterminating half your population.
Bottom line: your troops will only have a problem firing on their own people if they think the rebels are their own people. If the government controls the media, this is going to be extremely hard. Some leakage will always occur, but a government will always have some ability to sweep a few things under the carpet. And the less free the media, the harder it is to see how much is being swept.
I have often seen people say that their second amendment rights protect their first; but the reverse is rather more the case. Without the first amendment, mass oppression (say, confiscation of precious guns) can be done piecemeal. With the first amendment, word spreads quickly and the argument becomes a general one.
I have made the argument before that protecting your rights is easier the more of them you have. The logic of this post is that if you had to defend yourself against encroaching tyranny with only one of them, the first would be more useful to you than the second, as well as being less likely to get people killed.
