How would you make America a dictatorship?

[Ed Anger]

I'll be a storm trooper.

[11B4V]

I'll be a storm trooper.

Brown or White??

[Ed Anger]

Whichever allows me to beat the shit out of hippies

[11B4V]

Fidel might disagree with Raz too, but that's a stretch.

[HisMajestyBOB]

It depends on what kind of dictatorship you're talking about. Is this something like Stalinist Russia, like modern China, or like North Korea? Or a weaker dictatorship where you have one party rule and a strongman, but various other factions (army, Church, regional governors) still have significant influence and power?

[11B4V]

You'd have to get rid of the masons/Jews/lizards.

What did the mason's do to you.

[Razgovory]

It depends on what kind of dictatorship you're talking about. Is this something like Stalinist Russia, like modern China, or like North Korea? Or a weaker dictatorship where you have one party rule and a strongman, but various other factions (army, Church, regional governors) still have significant influence and power?

Not thinking of a totalitarian dictatorship.  An illiberal democracy would work.

[Lettow77]

 The inability of a minority of the states to form army institutions and win a drawn-out war fought with traditional means against the balance of the united states and the pre-existing federal military apparatus doesn't have relevance here raz.

Please no bully

[Ideologue]

Add one line to the Constitution, making any Article I officer's election subject to presidential approval.  That would do it; it is difficult to conceive how to do it without changing the Constitution in some fashion.

The idea that the president could nominate themselves to a SCOTUS is pretty great (though it wouldn't immediately make the U.S. a one-person dictatorship unless all the other justices died ).  Can federal elected officials hold state office as well?  Having the presidency and the governorship of 50 states would go a long way to streamlining administration.

[Eddie Teach]

The idea that armed citizenry could stop the government has was questionable in the 18th century.  It was proven wrong in the 19th century and weapons and logistics have become more complicated since then and out of the reach for citizenry.  Even well armed and trained militias in Iraq failed to stand up the US army.

They outlasted the US army and have scored many devastating victories against the Iraqi army.

[Razgovory]

Ah, so you are saying we won in Iraqi and Afghanistan. Good show and thanks for that.

They would have to gain control of nearly all the military. Not going to happen.

No, actually they don't need control of the military.  The civil war proved that.  Can you show me one engagement at company level or above where American forces were defeated and overrun in either Iraq or Afghanistan?

The right wings nuts would not retain their guns under a dictatorship. So, no, they wouldn't like it.

   Oh, you were serious.   You must have swallowed the NRA's "Hitler took all the guns" statements hook line and sinker.  People privately owned guns in Germany under Hitler.  People privately owned guns in many South American dictatorships.  Hell, people had guns in the Soviet Union.  People in Iraq prior to the US invasion had guns.  An armed public doesn't do much to stop a dictator.  Hell, lots of dictators encouraged the ownership of guns.

I could have swore a bunch of hillbillies did just that in the late 18th century. It was called the American Revolution.

Yeah, not quite.  The American colonists didn't drive the British out with their squirrel guns.  They were armed with French guns and French powder.  When Militia fought they tended to run away a lot.  Often they threw their guns down to move faster.  Take a look at how many soldiers were at the siege of Yorktown and from what army they were from and you can see who beat the British in that war.  Unfortunately the idea that Militia could fight a war crystallized around early battles like Bunker Hill (which was actually a defeat), Concord and Lexington (which was also a defeat).  Still in that period it was at least plausible that militia could fight against regular army.  Military kit was simpler then so there wasn't so huge a divide between private weapons and army weapons.  Today, that's just not the case.  Even a well armed militia have nothing to retaliate against artillery or aerial attack.  They would be totally outclassed in vital areas like logistics and communication and would have little defense against armor or mechanized troops.  Hillbillies with AR 15s menace the government about as much as a sixth grade softball team menaces the St. Louis Cardinals.

[Razgovory]

The inability of a minority of the states to form army institutions and win a drawn-out war fought with traditional means against the balance of the united states and the pre-existing federal military apparatus doesn't have relevance here raz.

Please no bully

The United States demonstrated an inability to form army institutions and win a drawn-war fought with traditional means against the balance of the confederacy for a several years. The idea that local militias of gun owning citizens could stand up against the Federal government was tested most thoroughly in 1861-1865.  It proved a failure.

[11B4V]

Ah, so you are saying we won in Iraqi and Afghanistan. Good show and thanks for that.

They would have to gain control of nearly all the military. Not going to happen.

No, actually they don't need control of the military.  The civil war proved that.  Can you show me one engagement at company level or above where American forces were defeated and overrun in either Iraq or Afghanistan?

The right wings nuts would not retain their guns under a dictatorship. So, no, they wouldn't like it.

   Oh, you were serious.   You must have swallowed the NRA's "Hitler took all the guns" statements hook line and sinker.  People privately owned guns in Germany under Hitler.  People privately owned guns in many South American dictatorships.  Hell, people had guns in the Soviet Union.  People in Iraq prior to the US invasion had guns.  An armed public doesn't do much to stop a dictator.  Hell, lots of dictators encouraged the ownership of guns.

I could have swore a bunch of hillbillies did just that in the late 18th century. It was called the American Revolution.

Yeah, not quite.  The American colonists didn't drive the British out with their squirrel guns.  They were armed with French guns and French powder.  When Militia fought they tended to run away a lot.  Often they threw their guns down to move faster.  Take a look at how many soldiers were at the siege of Yorktown and from what army they were from and you can see who beat the British in that war.  Unfortunately the idea that Militia could fight a war crystallized around early battles like Bunker Hill (which was actually a defeat), Concord and Lexington (which was also a defeat).  Still in that period it was at least plausible that militia could fight against regular army.  Military kit was simpler then so there wasn't so huge a divide between private weapons and army weapons.  Today, that's just not the case.  Even a well armed militia have nothing to retaliate against artillery or aerial attack.  They would be totally outclassed in vital areas like logistics and communication and would have little defense against armor or mechanized troops.  Hillbillies with AR 15s menace the government about as much as sixth grade softball team menaces the St. Louis Cardinals.

#1 Not the statement you made. Quit deflecting.

#2 Name them that allows the same level of ownership as currently in the US.

#3 Again I stated the 18th century off your comment. The CA started as....what....Militia.   

[Tonitrus]

The problem with Raz's argument is that it presumes any revolution would be fighting a fully-capable U.S. military.  Unless the presumed dictatorship were very subtle, and enjoyed massive widespread support...there is a fair chance that many in the military would support the revolution (a lot of it probably fits well in that redneck-hillbilly category). 

The ACW comparison is also flawed, in that both sides had (in their own views, at least), pretty substantial, region-based support of their ideals.  Opposition to a  theoretical U.S. dictatorship is likely to be far more splintered, widespread, and geographically diverse than the north-south divide.

[Razgovory]

I don't get your first statement.

The second one is somewhat murky because it reflects governments in different time periods, but I'll give it a go.  Mexico had a right bear arms in it's first Constitution.  It was not exactly effective in staving off dictatorship.  Hitler liberalized the gun laws in Germany (guns were heavily restricted in the Wiemar Republic in large part to keep the Nazis from overthrowing the government. 

Saying the continental army started out as Militia is misleading.  It started out as a national effort that allowed militia officers and men to enlist in a national army.  It was always a standing army, not a militia.  When the war ended, the army disappeared.  When it was again discovered that militia failed to meet the military needs of the country a new army was created.  The US would go through this process a few times.

Now, can you stop being stupid?