Which is great. Intellectual property is innovation-stifling cancer. I'd certainly rather China have the tech to make all those EVs than leave the West to hoard it.
That's more due to the lack of new technology these days. AI aside most modern engineering is incremental improvements to existing technology—that's the innovation everyone is doing.
That'd only make sense if this was a total investment thing, but it's not. America is investing at a higher rate yet China is getting more returns. Who started first is irrelevant here.
I think Jackson was more of a precursor/canary in the coalmine than the start of the process, since the American system of government basically stayed at equilibrium for a little over a century after that until it started fraying at the edges with Nixon.
Problem is: It's not that MAGA wants to be in charge (though that's a thing too); it's that Trump needs to be in charge. First so he (not just MAGA, he) can become the fascist dictator of his dreams, but also so he can avoid prison. Remember, Trump already has charges for which he's going to prison as soon as he's out of the presidency. Trump is too demented and too incompetent to play a "power behind the throne" type of game with a puppet president, so his personal ambitions will never materialize unless he's the one in charge. He simply can't afford to be a lame duck president, and we already know he's a (more or less; Trump doesn't actually believe in anything) fascist who has no qualms about overturning democracy.
Two bucks from me that he'll launch a coup of some sort if he doesn't get his way in the midterms. Or that enough democrats will capitulate that he'll get his way anyway, whichever is closer.
The majority of Americans with guns do like what the government is doing though. Gun ownership is well over double for Republicans and they currently strongly support ICE and many other abusive domestic policies.
Uh... therefore?
Please point out an armed revolution that wasn't just wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control.
I'm not sure how that's relevant here. Most revolutions tend to be about wealthy people using humans as pawns in their struggle for control, but also: Yemen, Syria, Iran, Cuba, Russia, China, Mexico, Ireland*2, decolonization in general. There's also two Frances (1830, 1848) but those are more iffy.
The majority of Americans do not like what the government is doing, as seen from its approval rating, but also armed revolution usually doesn't happen by killing away everyone who disagrees with you.
They're not resisting a government that has entered the information warfare age, where every police station has SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters.
Except heavily armed populaces have resisted SWAT gear and tanks and helicopters before, but also: Even just forcing escalation to such methods is a win for the rebels/resistance/etc. There's a reason even oppressive governments don't jump straight to tanks and helicopters when they have a revolution that hasn't quite devolved into civil war. Besides, there's no guarantee the people manning the tanks and helicopters are going to be willing to fire into crowds. In a revolutionary scenario the government's grip on its armed forces tends to be shaky at best, and doing things like whipping out tanks to put down rebellion tends to alienate people who might've supported it otherwise. Hell, sometimes governments just give up instead of going through all this. Obviously armed revolution (which doesn't necessarily mean civil war) isn't foolproof, but the hurdle to winning isn't as big as people around here seem to think, since the very fact that such a thing is happening means there's a sympathetic cause that will make some fraction of the army/police/etc not want to fight.
I'm talking about Americans that don't like what the government is doing (there's a lot to criticise the American right for, but unwilling to act they are not). There's plenty of gun ownership among American liberals.
You can't assume a correlation from one data point. If it's the guns, then that'll show up in data from other countries too. When's the last time you heard of a mass shooting in Yemen?
I mean obviously, but with popular will you'll want everything to give your cause an edge—hence the guns. It's possible to have popular will and still fail, so factors that give the rebellion (or just plain old resistance, see: Black Panthers) an edge are going to be necessary. In recent history, the Houthis definitely benefited from having guns when they rebelled against the then-government.
I'll never understand why people keep saying I'm Mrdown.
Edit: Oh it's not "people" it's just you. Still, why Mrdown in particular? Like what's the thought process here?