Who in history has used legal gun ownership to defeat a tyrannical government?

[Anonymous]

Invading Switzerland? By Hitler? Peaceful annexation was more likely, but there wasn't time for it due to losses and possibly because because Hitler saw Swiss Germans are still Germans and their lands were included in textbooks during his regime as part of Great Germany. They had no need to invade, and even if they did, they would have been greeted with flowers!

[Anonymous]

The Second Amendment doesn't mean what the gun nuts think it does. Why isn't this brought up in a legal setting more often?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

[Anonymous]

Freedom of the Press has proven to be more dangerous than the right to bear arms. The pen is mightier than the sword. Guns and ammo don't shoot themselves. People shoot them. People are easily influenced and manipulated by the press and now, social media (re: Cambridge Analytica / FB). Propaganda is the weapon of the most dangerous minds throughout history. Russia is doing it now and will continue to do it, because we are so susceptible. if you plot the data, the rise of social media and the rise of mass shootings occur over the same time periods. So perhaps, we should all think about solutions that work, not those that might seem convenient. It is probably time to regulate these sites more heavily

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Were the guns used and uprising done during these revolutions primarily by private citizens, or was it primarily done by the military? I am unclear on this. Looking at present day gun ownership laws by country, it looks like most of these nations have very restrictive gun laws. I’m not trying to be snarky here but really trying to learn whether there have been instances that a primarily citizen-based uprising, aided entirely by guns, has overthrown its own government and military (which is usually controlled by the government) and gone on to install a successful new state.

It's hilarious that you constantly have to narrow the scope so as to invalidate the examples being given.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedom of the Press has proven to be more dangerous than the right to bear arms. The pen is mightier than the sword. Guns and ammo don't shoot themselves. People shoot them. People are easily influenced and manipulated by the press and now, social media (re: Cambridge Analytica / FB). Propaganda is the weapon of the most dangerous minds throughout history. Russia is doing it now and will continue to do it, because we are so susceptible. if you plot the data, the rise of social media and the rise of mass shootings occur over the same time periods. So perhaps, we should all think about solutions that work, not those that might seem convenient. It is probably time to regulate these sites more heavily

How do you secure the freedom of the press? In what fantasy land will an oppressive government with their armed thugs plan to storm a newspaper publisher and turn around dejected after reading a sign that says: "Freedom of the Press!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Second Amendment doesn't mean what the gun nuts think it does. Why isn't this brought up in a legal setting more often?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

Legal analysis from Marketwatch?

[Anonymous]

The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland in WWII is because it would have been a nightmare for them to even try, given how armed Swiss citizens were (and are).

Whomever posted this (above) is a class-A idiot. A really low-information type. Belly laughs on this part, especially "would have been a nightmare for them to even try."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Second Amendment doesn't mean what the gun nuts think it does. Why isn't this brought up in a legal setting more often?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

Legal analysis from Marketwatch?

And get your eye-rolling emoticon ready for the next (no-doubt-soon-to-come) mass shooting. Oh well! These things happen! Republicans for More Mass Shootings!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Second Amendment doesn't mean what the gun nuts think it does. Why isn't this brought up in a legal setting more often?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

Legal analysis from Marketwatch?

And get your eye-rolling emoticon ready for the next (no-doubt-soon-to-come) mass shooting. Oh well! These things happen! Republicans for More Mass Shootings!

What, embracing faux-intellectual constitutional analysis from Marketwatch is going to prevent the next mass shooting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Second Amendment doesn't mean what the gun nuts think it does. Why isn't this brought up in a legal setting more often?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

Legal analysis from Marketwatch?

And get your eye-rolling emoticon ready for the next (no-doubt-soon-to-come) mass shooting. Oh well! These things happen! Republicans for More Mass Shootings!

What, embracing faux-intellectual constitutional analysis from Marketwatch is going to prevent the next mass shooting?

NOTHING is going to prevent the next mass shooting, or the other after that, or the one after that... (repeat steps 1-3 as necessary)

Republicans for Slaughter! A-Massacre-A-Week! NRA4Ever!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this day and age, no citizen militia— no matter how many military assault rifles it amasses, could challenge the U.S. military employed by a tyrannical federal government. It’s ludicrous to think otherwise.

And even if an armed citizenry overthrew the government, what makes anyone think that the result would be democracy? People who come to power through force usually choose to stay in power through force. One tyranny would replace another.

The Afghanis are doing a pretty good job of repelling us. The US citizenry have way more guns and way more combat trained people to use them. You act as if the government is going to launch fighter planes or drop atomic bombs in response to civil unrest. Armed resistance worked for a while for the Black Panthers and there weren’t even that many of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland in WWII is because it would have been a nightmare for them to even try, given how armed Swiss citizens were (and are).

Whomever posted this (above) is a class-A idiot. A really low-information type. Belly laughs on this part, especially "would have been a nightmare for them to even try."

That was me and I know for a fact that you are the typical gringo who's clueless of history and geography outside your little bubble.

[Anonymous]

The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland in WWII is because it would have been a nightmare for them to even try, given how armed Swiss citizens were (and are).

Classic! It's like something from an old Seinfeld episode or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Anyway a better question is... what dictatorial regime didn’t first disarm the citizenry before imposing murderous totalitarianism?

What is "none of them", Alex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland in WWII is because it would have been a nightmare for them to even try, given how armed Swiss citizens were (and are).

Whomever posted this (above) is a class-A idiot. A really low-information type. Belly laughs on this part, especially "would have been a nightmare for them to even try."

Are you going to provide any specifics, or just talk bullshit?