This. If you are deliberating between several precautions that avert the same catastrophe, stop deliberating - just use all of them. Having to pick between precautions is only a problem if they are conflicting somehow, or if you have a limited "budget" - and neither is the case here.

As in, independent judical system, I would presume. Eg in the US, I believe, the president can put his guy as a supreme judge, but cannot remove him and cant really tell them what to do. On the other hand, in Russia, every time a major case happens, somewhere, a law school graduate shoots their brains out, as everything they learned in those years gets publicly humiliated and disregarded at a whim of crooks in power.

Read the username on the picture. The "rights" discussed are the right to own guns.

But here's the thing, a tyrannical government doesn't let the opposition out of jail. Curtailing rights is a dumb way to look at things because that doesn't happen.

Consider the January 6th insurrectionists. Should any one of them be allowed to own a firearm? No. It's not tyrannical to think that.

Should they be allowed to vote? Yes.

Should they be thrown in prison forever? No.

Rightwing black and white definitions are stupid, don't fall for them. It's not "always the case" that someone losing a right is sufficient for a tyrannical government.

Navalny shouldn't have been thrown in prison in the first place. It wasn't his loss of access to guns that made it possible for Putin to murder him in prison.