I don’t know that it takes guns. If we moved to, say, ranked-choice voting and a multi-party system, the more extreme elements of our country would probably be sidelined.

Did you see the bill introduced the other day?

H.R.3040 - To prohibit the use of ranked choice voting in elections for Federal office.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/3040

I did not. Talk about a blatant attempt to power grab, though. Hopefully it never makes it out of committee.

It still takes them.

You need to present it as a choice: you either bring about ranked-choice voting and a wider range of political parties so that issues can be dealt with peacefully, or, face real consequences for attempts to block the efforts at peace.

And if they feel sufficiently shut out of the political process they'll rely on their guns. If you think the US is immune from insurgent dynamics, please read more widely. I think you'd find it particularly worthwhile to look into the collapse of Yugoslavia, which also had a federal system.

Well, we did have a civil war some time ago! But given the gross imbalance of military capability between the state and the citizen, I’m not worried today about a successful violent overthrow of the USA.

That was equally true in Yugoslavia, and indeed in Afghanistan. I think it's extremely naive to assume the US is immune from this. When I told people 10-15 years ago that I thought the US was ripe for and vulnerable to autocratic political leadership nobody took it seriously either, yet here we are.

A few smaller guns used judiciously will achieve that purpose. You don't need everyone using a tank in a Mexican standoff just to have peace.

glances at the MAD stockpile I’m not sure that is really true, eh?