The French resistance fought against a puppet regime controlled by the Germans. That’s a war between nations, not private citizens vs their own government.
The Russian revolution didn’t happen because private citizens owned guns. The military joined the protesting citizens, which became a pivotal moment that doomed the monarchy.
The Tamil rebellion in Sri Lanka escalated into a long civil war marked by heavy civilian casualties and displacement. The rebels were eventually defeated by the military.
I don’t know of one single historical example in which private citizens have, by guns, defeated their own government and military.
The term “democide” does in fact apply to de facto governments. But there are other examples like the American Revolution, the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, or the Zapatistas of Mexico.
But even if it wasn’t successful, like the Warsaw ghetto uprising, citizens had a fighting chance and retained their dignity and honor against much superior forces. They knew it wouldn’t be successful, but it’s better than being murdered in cold blood.
?? The position I just outlined, and gave justification for, is more extreme than the question you’re putting to me. Of course I don’t think civilians should have all the same weapons as the military, for the reasons already given.
Because firstly the level of threat is much greater, and secondly because a centralized military can be regulated.
Note that it doesn’t mean no lines drawn either – I mentioned sarin gas – that’s prohibited for civilian and military use. So there’s nuance in the military sphere too.
But let’s talk about the civilian sphere first, as that’s the OP. Do you think it should be trivially easy to buy grenades, or a technical, say, and do you accept that the number of spree kills, terrorist kills, accidental deaths will massively increase?
I don’t think it should be easy to buy grenades. I’m not sure if it will increase the number of spree kills, terrorist kills, accidental deaths, etc. It will certainly increase the number of grenade deaths.
Officers of a government aren’t endowed with special abilities upon becoming employed there, so that’s why I wonder how we as citizens can reserve for officials the monopoly of violence, while denying ourselves the exact same thing.
It goes the same for whoever is regulating the military or controlling the guns. Given that war and democide has been the greatest source of violent deaths in human history, I still have wonder why you believe that level of danger is an acceptable price for society to pay.