We seem to actually agree on most things here.
We’re both in agreement that it’s cool if everyone gets rid of their guns simultaneously, if that’s somehow possible.
We’re both not cool if the government gets rid of their guns first, because domestic terrorists will rise up.
The only disagreement seems to be that I’m also ok with the citizens being disarmed prior to the government being disarmed, and you are not.
I would also find a scenario where the citizens are disarmed, and the government is never disarmed, as preferable to the current status quo. You clearly are not.
The threat you are worried about, a military dictatorship, a police state, the end of democracy, these are real threats that we are all concerned with in the US and elsewhere. Even Bill Clinton of all people is worried about it, and he said so yesterday.
But those threats already exist today. We have plenty of guns today. Are guns the reason we haven’t lost democracy yet? No. No amount of guns in the hands of the citizens can do anything to protect democracy in the year 2022. Citizens having guns is not the reason we haven’t been successfully coup-ed yet. Us getting more guns in the hands of citizens will do nothing to change the coup calculus. Those would-be autocrats who want to end democracy are not being held back by thoughts of armed citizens. Their methods can not be countered with guns. Even if we all load up on guns and ammo, it will not matter. Whether democracy is protected or not will not be determined by guns in the hands of citizens.
If we disarm all the citizens, but leave the government armed, will those threats exist? Yes. They will exist exactly as they do today. The only difference is that we will all be safer and more prosperous with less guns out there.
I would go on to say that I believe that having more guns in the hands of the populace, regardless of which citizens have them, actually increases the risk of losing our democracy. Perhaps that is why anti-democratic forces in the present era are pro-gun, where as historically they have been anti-gun? I have no evidence for this, but the logic goes something like this. If there are more guns, there are more shootings. That leads to more fear of crime, societal upheaval, and unrest. Those feelings in a democracy lead people to vote for more conservative tough on crime candidates while democracy still exists. And if fear persists, it can lead to people actually being totally ok with something like martial law being declared. Less guns, less death, less fear, less chance of that happening. I have no numbers to support this last paragraph, though. Just a logical train of thought that is somewhat slippery slope-ish.