Gun Ownership Does Not Prevent Tyranny

The false premises behind the belief that widespread private gun ownership prevents government tyranny

Before I begin, I need to clarify that this essay isn’t intended as an attack on Americans, the 2^nd Amendment to the US constitution, or gun ownership in general. I am a gunowner myself. I generally oppose most gun control measures and would like to see them reduced in my native Canada. I myself went through a bureaucratic nightmare earlier this year courtesy of Canada’s anarcho-tyrannous gun control laws. I wrote an entire essay about this experience. I think that the right to bear arms was a good idea when it was written into the US Constitution in the 18^th century and into the English Constitution in the the century prior. I believe firearms are useful for personal self-defense and that firearm sports are great character building activities. Overall, I encourage gun ownership.

This essay isn’t really about guns or gun control, but rather an argument which has been prevalent on the American right (both normie and dissident) for decades and which sometimes spills over into other countries. The argument is that widespread private gun ownership acts as an insurance against government tyranny. In the American context, it is said that gun ownership, ensured by the 2^nd Amendment, would enable the citizenry to overthrow the federal government if it ever were to become tyrannical and violate the constitution.

For the purposes of this essay, I’m going to refer to this idea as the “IAT doctrine” (insurance against tyranny). Thankfully, this is an argument which seems to have gone out of style in recent years, especially on the dissident right. Serious thinkers don’t actually believe that the masses could possibly overthrow the US government by force. Nonetheless, I still occasionally see this argument crop up from time to time. I’d like to both put this ill-conceived notion to rest and look at why the deeper assumptions behind it are incorrect.

The idea of the right to bear arms dates back centuries. I’m not going to get into this broader concept, but rather a more specific argument which is often employed in American politics today. As far as I know, this IAT doctrine became a mainstay in modern American political discourse around the time of the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968. This was when gun control became the divisive issue it is today in the United States. However, in more recent times, it was strongly argued for by opponents of proposed gun control legislation following the Sandy Hook Massacre in 2012. This was the first time I recall coming across this argument. It was around the time I began taking an interest in politics and it was just after the internet had become the predominant medium of political discourse. I’ve also heard it applied to the gun control issue in Canada over the years as well, but it’s far less common than south of the border.

There are two different segments of the right which have at times argued for the IAT doctrine. The first is what we would refer to as the “normie right”. This would include the GOP, organizations like the NRA, and conservative commentators such as Steven Crowder, Ben Shapiro, and Alex Jones. In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre, Jones invoked the IAT doctrine in his infamous tirade on Pierce Morgan’s show in early 2013 in response to Morgan’s call for stricter gun control laws in the US. Proponents such as Jones argue that the United States will remain a free country as long as civilian gun ownership is commonplace.

The second segment of the right which often promotes the IAT doctrine is a more radical and dissident libertarian faction, including groups such as the Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters. These groups usually consider the United States government to already be tyrannical and view private gun ownership as their means of fighting back against said tyranny. There exists some overlap between these groups and white nationalism, but their leadership usually firmly deny such connections. These groups are usually fashioned as some kind of militia and take part in prepping and paramilitary training.

The American Revolution acts as a mythos for those who believe in the IAT doctrine. They point to the United States’ war for independence from Britain as an example of armed citizens overthrowing a tyrannical government. They argue this demonstrates the importance of the 2^nd Amendment today. Proponents also refer to authoritarian regimes of the 20^th century such as National Socialist Germany, the USSR, or Maoist China as cautionary tales of the horror a tyrannical government can inflict on a disarmed citizenry.

Boomer Con Cringe, circa 2012

This entire idea is steeped in Boomerism. You’ll often here those in this camp from the normie right say “America is a republic, not a democracy.” or “Democratic socialism is still socialism.”, but the kind of society they advocate for in opposition to this is usually is something like the America of the 1980s. So, what they support really is just an earlier version postwar liberal democracy. Their idea is that this is what Americans will take up arms in defense of. Staying within the confines of boomerism, the image of tyranny they put forth which they say gunowners will defend against is these regimes from the 1930s. That remains their ultimate evil. There is a ton of boomer con cringe from a decade ago on the internet which can give you some insight into this mindset.

So, why is the IAT doctrine incorrect? First of all, it assumes that all forms of government other than liberalism are inherently tyrannical and that said liberalism couldn’t itself become tyrannical. Secondly, it assumes that all the disorganized masses need make the government beholden to their collective will is easy access to firearms. Lastly, it assumes that, when given the power to impose their will, the masses will always prefer liberalism over any other form of government.

The mythos which the IAT doctrine is based on is totally ahistorical. The American Revolution was possible because some of the most elite members of colonial society decided to revolt against the British Crown and form their own ruling body in opposition. The new Continental Congress was able to garner enough support from the populous and foreign powers like France to supplant the previous regime. Like all revolutions, the American Revolution was from the top down, not the bottom up. It was a new set of elites overthrowing an older one. It was not the result of a bunch of random citizens who got angry at their government one day and just started shooting.

Boomer Con History, Part 1

Not only is believing that these authoritarian regimes could’ve so easily been overthrown by an armed citizenry wrong, it’s also misguided to assume that there must have been an overwhelming desire to do so. Leaders like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had a great deal of enthusiastic support from the people they ruled over. To just take for granted that people would’ve risen up against these regimes given the opportunity fails to understand mass psychology. In reality, the majority of any given society will just conform to the ruling authority, whatever that may be.

There isn’t this instinctual urge within humans to demand liberalism. The masses fervently supporting illiberal political systems is commonplace throughout history. Like the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution in Maoist China. This was a mass movement of citizens (mostly students) taking it upon themselves to persecute perceived enemies on behalf of an authoritarian Marxist regime. A ton of the people were all too happy to go along with what I think is fair to classify as a tyrannical regime. COVID is a much more recent example of the masses going along with government actions which are a flagrant violation of classical liberal principles. We all remember those folks in our lives who ardently supported that form of government tyranny.

While it is true that Maoist China and the USSR had strict gun control laws, it is incorrect to use National Socialist Germany as an example of a government enacting gun control laws in order to impose tyranny. Despite what Obama-era conservative memes still floating around the Internet will have you believe, the National Socialist government reduced Germany’s gun control laws in 1938. They did make more difficult for Jews, who were considered enemies of the regime, to acquire firearms, but they formed only about 0.6% of the total population of Germany at the time. Alex Jones’ claim that “Hitler took the guns!” is false. Firearm acquisition was made easier for the vast majority of German citizens during the National Socialist era. This did not result in an armed uprising overthrowing the government as proponents of the IAT doctrine often claim it would have.

Boomer Con History, Part 2

But rather than speculating about theoretical alternative histories of regimes from the previous century, we should look at the contemporary United States to see if the IAT doctrine holds up. Gun ownership remains commonplace in the United States. So, is it true that widespread private gun ownership prevents tyranny? If we use the vision for the United States upon its founding as a benchmark, I think it’s safe to say that the Founding Fathers would be far more outraged by the current American regime than they ever were under British rule.

At its inception, the Founding Fathers explicitly intended the United States to be a white European society. The Naturalization Act of 1790 stated that citizenship was only to be extended to “free white person(s)… of good character”. However, since the passage of 1965 Hart-Cellar Act, the United States has gone from being 88.6% white in 1960 to 57.8% white in 2020 due to mass non-white immigration. The US Federal Government has also routinely refused to police the country’s southern boarder and crack down on illegal immigration for decades. In addition to demographic change, “civil rights laws” force institutions to favour non-whites over whites and the country’s historical white majority is constantly derided in public education.

US-Mexico Border

As for the US Constitution, the concept of the living constitution has become prominent within the judiciary. This idea posits that the constitution develops alongside society, so it’s meaning can change without formal amendments to the law. In other words, there is no objective meaning of the constitution. It just means whatever the judges who are tasked with interpreting it want it to mean. This, in effect, makes the document meaningless, because those in power will simply interpret it to advance their own political ends. The concept of the living constitution has been used to advance causes such as gay marriage or desegregation, which was clearly not the original intention of those who drafted the document in the 18^th century. So, in the contemporary United States, the constitution is routinely trampled upon.

Rule of law is on the way out in the United States as well. The authorities have taken to selectively enforcing the law to reward those ideologically aligned with the regime and punish those who are considered its enemies. For example, whenever there is a political demonstration, the authorities will stand down and allow the demonstrators to get away with flagrant vandalism, looting, and violence if the demonstration’s goals coincide with those of the government. However, if the demonstration is deemed antithetical to the goals of the government, the authorities will crack down and hit demonstrators with draconian legal consequences.

The ideal of limited government power was a foundational principle at the time of the formation of the United States. However, the US Federal Government has grown to a gargantuan degree in recent decades. Throughout the 1980s, the United States went from being the world’s largest creditor nation to the world’s largest debtor nation. As of 2023, the US National Debt has surpassed $33 trillion dollars. The power of the federal government has greatly increased too. In 2001, the government awarded itself a massive amount of power to spy on the day-to-day lives of ordinary citizens and punish those considered to be a threat with the PATRIOT Act. And let’s not forget how the US government (among numerous governments around the world) was able to put everyone’s life on hold for two years during COVID.

The current Biden Administration has reached banana republic levels of corruption. They are currently attempting to jail former President Donald Trump and several Blue States are trying to have him removed from the 2024 presidential ballot, using the January 6^th Capitol Protest as a pretext. Over a thousand participants in that demonstration have been charged in relation to the event with some receiving sentences of over 20 years in prison. The US government (or “Our Democracy” as refer they refer to it) has reached the point where are simply trying to eliminate their political opponents.

In my opinion, the United States already has a tyrannical government and those who lived throughout most of the country’s history would agree. It took about 60 years for the United States to fall to where it is today. The whole time, private gun ownership was just as widespread as it had ever been in the country. Yet never once did a mass of armed citizens stand up and do something about America’s slide towards tyranny. Instead, what has happened is that more and more ground has gradually been yielded to the point where things which would’ve once been considered absolutely tyrannical have been normalized.

There’s a popular meme among the dissident right that today’s conservatives are simply liberals from ten years ago. Rhetoric about armed citizens from Red America halting the advance of leftist policies by the likes of the GOP or conservative commentators is never taken seriously by the left. The mainstream right will have imbibed whatever it is they are complaining about today a decade later. The left know full well that the IAT doctrine is all bark and no bite. Private gun ownership has never once impeded their conquest of America.

Whenever you hear a right-winger makes a case for the IAT doctrine on social media, it’s common for a leftist to retort that citizens armed with AR-15s are no match for a military with fighter jets, helicopters, and tanks. The conversation then descends into an argument over whether millions of armed citizens or the government would win in a theoretical civil war. This argument is moot. The military would undoubtedly win, not only because they have more firepower, but because it is an organized force with a central command, while gun owners are in no way a unified group, much less an organized one.

To understand why this simply wouldn’t work, you can look no further than the embarrassment that was Propertarian movement. Propertarianism was an ideology created by Curt Doolittle. It was essentially an updated version of libertarianism which extended the recognition of property to rights beyond that which is of monetary value such as culture, borders, families, etc. They also embraced several dissident right-wing concepts like race realism which was often absent from earlier iterations of libertarianism. Propertarianism burst onto the online right scene in late 2018 when the YouTube channel of Curt Doolittle’s hype man, John Mark, went viral overnight.

Curt Doolittle and John Mark

The most alarming thing about the these guys was their rhetoric about an imminent civil war in the United States. They openly declared that not only was a civil war certain to happen, but that the right was going to win. They based this claim primarily on the fact that Red America collectively possesses far more firearms than Blue America. While they didn’t fully embrace the boomerism which usually accompanies the IAT doctrine, they explicitly stated that private gun ownership among the so-called “grassroots right” was the key to overthrowing the Federal Government of the United States.

After a year and a half of growing an online following, Curt Doolittle and John Mark decided it was finally time for Propertarianism to go IRL. They announced an event they called the “Declaration of Reformation” to take place on July 4^th, 2020 in Richmond, Virginia. But they didn’t really organize an event. They just showed up at a rally organized by a 2^nd Amendment “boogaloo” group called the Virginia Knights Militia who had never even heard of Curt Doolittle or Propertarianism before. The assumption of the IAT doctrine, which both the Propertarians and this Virginia Knights Militia undoubtedly subscribed to, is that gun-owners across America would band together to restore liberty if a tyrannical government were ever to rise. But this event perfectly exemplifies why that is never going to happen.

This took place in the midst of the “Summer of Floyd” when BLM ran rampant through American cities from coast to coast. During this summer, the police stood down as rioters torched buildings and assaulted ordinary people in the street, but arrested anyone who attempted to defend themselves or their property from the mob. John Mark spent a year and a half insisting that events like this would spark a reaction from the “grassroots right” which would lead to a civil war and the eventual overthrow of the government.

Yet the “grass roots right” showed up to this rally only to side with BLM and repeat the same anti-white rhetoric which had set the country on fire. They came armed to the teeth, yet didn’t even voice their opposition to the state-backed violence and vandalism sweeping the country, much less actually do anything about it. It goes without saying that these 2^nd Amendment folks with more rounds in their semi-auto magazines than IQ points didn’t spring into action and save Western Civilization. After several incoherent speeches about how not racist they are, these Virginia Knights Militia guys greeted the Propertarians with chants of “white supremacy sucks”.

"Virginia Knight" Mike Dunn proclaiming from the megaphone how not racist he is

When Curt Doolittle got the floor, he proceeded to deliver a nonsensical rant into a megaphone, screaming about a reckoning thousands of years in the making, only to literally wet himself when approached by BLM members. He then explain to them how their manhood was greater than his and handed the megaphone over to a BLM activist gave a speech of his own. Doolittle and many of his supporters even raised their hands in solidarity with him. The entire Propertarian movement collapsed in the days that followed. Curt Doolittle threw his followers under the bus, blaming them for the event’s failure and John Mark, in turn, deleted his entire social media presence.

Curt Doolittle, the same guy who spent years openly calling for civil war on social media

This cringefest perfectly demonstrates the foolhardy nature of the IAT doctrine. The police didn’t even need to engage at all. This small though heavily armed crowd of about 200 or less weren’t even able to hold themselves together without descending into infighting, much less actually pose any kind of threat to an established authority. Now imagine how inept they would be actually attempting to back up their tough talk about armed revolution. The idea that millions of gunowners across America could just spontaneously unify and challenge the power of the Government of the United States is fantasy.

There is, however, another factor to consider with this Propertarian fiasco. I don’t throw around the label of “fed” lightly, but if I ever had suspicions that bad actors were at work within the online right, it was with Curt Doolittle and John Mark. This video by Keith Woods on the implosion of the Propertarianism makes a pretty darn convincing case for this movement having been some kind of honeypot operation. We’ll never know for certain whether Propertarianism was a fed-op or just a really bad idea, but either way, it can tell us something about the IAT doctrine.

If Curt Doolittle and John Mark weren’t feds, but instead just drastically miscalculated the situation in the United States, then the takeaway should be their diagnosis of a solution was severely wrongheaded. If these two were in fact feds (which in this case seems more likely), it tells you that the American state itself is actively promulgating the IAT doctrine. If this is the case, it would mean they want to get the right believe that, not only is a civil war is on the way, but that it would be beneficial.

This might seem a bit strange on the surface. Why would the American state want to give its enemies the idea of overthrowing it? It’s because they know an armed uprising of the masses is never going happen and would have zero chance of success even if it did. The IAT doctrine is also pushed by the GOP and Con Inc., who are just as much part of the system as the left. This idea falls in line with the purpose of controlled opposition, that being to placate the disaffected in order to prevent them from taking effective action against the regime. This would explain why you are much more likely to hear this argument from the phoney right than from the genuine right.

Those who fall for such ill-conceived notions take either one of two courses of action. A small number of them engage in illegal insurrectionary activity and get jailed for the rest of their lives. The vast majority trick themselves into believing they have the power to force the government’s hand if the state ever were to go too far. However, once the government crosses that proverbial line in the sand, they just move the line back and insist that this new line is the breaking point. The net result of both of these is that potential dissidents are neutralized on account of either being imprisoned or being tricked into inaction via a false sense of security.

This doesn't keeps the feds up at night.

Lets look at how well these armed militia groups fared against the government in the wake of the 2021 Capitol Protest. Following the demonstration on January 6^th, eleven leading members of the Oath Keepers and six members of the Three Percenters were charged with sedition. Several have already been convicted and handed lengthy sentences in federal prison. The entire Three Percenters organization has since been dissolved. Now, these are obviously trumped up charges. I don’t believe these guys were seriously involved in a plot to overthrow the US government. However, the state was able to jail their leading members without any resistance. The IAT doctrine is the very foundation of these militia groups. They parade around in tactical gear with semi-automatic rifles, yet they when push came to shove, none of them put their words into action. Nor should they have because actually trying to back up their rhetoric would be suicide.

I need to reiterate that this essay is not intended as a dig against Americans or as an argument in favour of stronger gun control laws. I’m opposed to most gun control still believe that firearm ownership is a good idea for personal self-defense and sport. Rather, it’s to dissuade from ill-conceived notions which result in ineffective forms of political action. Zooming out from the American-centric context of the IAT doctrine, there are two major takeaways from this analysis which are applicable to whatever country you reside in.

Firstly, be highly skeptical of anyone telling you that positive change will require a cataclysmic event such as a collapse or a civil war. Most of the people who push this idea are not federal agents themselves, but simply losers black pilled into destructive nihilism, however, these are the ideas which actual bad actors would want you to believe. That’s why we have the phrase “fed posting”. Since incremental change is impossible according to this line of thinking, those who fall for it are pacified into inaction by the notions that this cataclysm is imminent and that will play out in their favour. Major upheaval or unrest could happen in the future, but that’s not what is going to make things better.

In reality, political change is brought about though a process of metapolitics. Change comes incrementally as new political concepts are absorbed into the broader societal consciousness. For example, Alex Jones claims that the 2^nd Amendment is designed to stop America from becoming like the Soviet Union, yet Jones himself holds views on issues like race which would have been to left of the average socialist from a century ago. Despite screaming his head off about how 1776 will commence again if they come for the guns, Jones will call anyone who shares the Founding Fathers’ vision for America as an explicitly white European nation “a white supremacist”. Jones presents himself as a brave alternative to the mainstream media and has spent years fearmongering about impending communism, but he’ll call anyone who discusses the group which controls most of the mainstream media and which played a pivotal role in the development of communism a “neo-Nazi”.

How is it that a supposed right-winger like Alex Jones now holds views which would not only have been considered leftist, but radically so only a few decades ago? It’s because the left has spent that time incrementally seeping concepts like anti-racism and fear of the racist “Nazi” boogieman into the public consciousness. It didn’t matter how many guns Red America owned. Control over the media proved to be a far more powerful weapon.

And for us, progress will come through a similar process. For example, over the past year, we’ve seen mainstream conservative commentators like Charlie Kirk and GOP presidential hopeful Vivek Ramaswamy openly declare that the Great Replacement is not a conspiracy theory but a deliberate policy. We’ve seen both Elon Musk and Kanye West address the issue of Jewish influence, probably the highest profile individuals to do so since WWII. Now, both of them have been more or less brought to heel, but this still resulted in a massive increase in exposure to this issue. I’m not claiming any of these individuals are necessarily aligned with our goals, but the fact that they are acknowledging these issues is a sign that the public consciousness is shifting in that direction. This is metapolitical change. And this has nothing to do with how many guns people own and it did not require a calamitous event to occur.

Secondly, political change does not emanate from the grassroots, but the elite class. Change comes about when members of the elite class take on these new ideas which have entered the public consciousness and decide to implement them. It doesn’t happen when the people get angry enough at their government and it certainly doesn’t come about through the use of or threat of violence by the masses.

The fundamental flaw of the IAT doctrine is this belief that a disorganized mass of armed citizens could bring about political change through sheer force of numbers and firearms. The reality is that the vast majority of people will always submit to the ruling authority. An uprising only has the possibility of success if there exists an organized counter-elite who they can swear loyalty to.

Monumental historical turning points such as the American, French, or Russian revolutions were not the result of the masses getting angry, rising up, and taking over a country. The ideas these revolutions were based on had been soaking into members of the elite class for years prior, and regime change took place when a new counter-elite was able to wrestle legitimacy away from the elite which preceded them. The Continental Congress was far more pivotal for the American Revolution than militiamen. The National Assembly brought about the French Revolution, not the Sans-Culottes. It wasn’t industrial workers who made the Russian Revolution happen, it was the Bolshevik Party.

So, put to rest any notions you might have had that the masses are going to be the driving force of political change or that some cataclysmic event will change everything overnight. That’s not how it works. In reality, it’s meticulous incremental metapolitical change influencing the elite class that will start to change things in our favour, not stockpiling weapons and staring at maps in our basements.