Comment by marcosdumay 3 days ago
> Even though there isn't a single moment in history they can point to that's similar
In US history, maybe. But you can look at the raise to power of almost any dictatorship, you'll find the same exact concep of cleptocrats taking unrestricted access to whatever entity used to fight them.
Hum... How do you propose people hold their representatives accountable after elections are made dysfunctional (or stop entirely)?
And that's a honest question. I don't think even guns are an answer to that. I don't know anything that works.
This is a common belief in the US, and it has one obvious weakness: what if most of the people with guns are happy about an authoritarian government, since they feel like they are the "in-group", and they hate the "out-group" anyway?
I mean, the erosion of civil rights in the US has gone on for some time, and the argument that guns would prevent it is constantly proved wrong. As long as there's lip service to free speech, and more importantly, the right to bear arms, it seems that all other rights can be trampled on with impunity.
Trump is someone who prioritizes political convenience over ideological consistency. If it served his goals, I wouldn’t be surprised if he found a way to disarm opponents while ensuring his loyalists remained armed. This kind of selective enforcement is not unprecedented in history—authoritarian leaders often secure control by disarming opposition groups while maintaining force among their supporters.
For example, in 1933, after coming to power, the Nazi regime implemented firearm restrictions that disproportionately impacted political opponents, such as communists and Jewish citizens, while allowing pro-Nazi paramilitary groups to remain well-armed. Similarly, in modern autocratic states like Venezuela, the government has imposed strict gun control while arming loyalist militias. The pattern is clear: when a leader seeks to consolidate power, they often weaken the opposition’s access to weapons rather than banning them outright.
Even if large numbers of civilians were armed, that alone wouldn't be enough to stop an authoritarian shift. The U.S. military possesses overwhelming firepower, intelligence capabilities, and infrastructure to suppress resistance. If the military backed Trump fully, any opposition would likely be crushed. But more importantly, authoritarianism doesn’t usually arrive through sudden, dramatic force—it seeps in gradually. A slow erosion of rights, institutions, and norms makes it difficult for people to recognize the turning point until it’s too late. By the time armed resistance seemed justified to most, it would be disorganized, reactionary, and likely ineffective.
> But more importantly, authoritarianism doesn’t usually arrive through sudden, dramatic force—it seeps in gradually. A slow erosion of rights, institutions, and norms makes it difficult for people to recognize the turning point until it’s too late.
It's totally correct from my own life experience seeing authoritarianism built, but fortunately Trump is 78 years old and he dont have 20 years to slowly build his authoritarian regime in US.
> But you can look at the raise to power of almost any dictatorship, you'll find the same exact concep of cleptocrats taking unrestricted access to whatever entity used to fight them.
Good point.