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

[Anonymous]

Can anyone help me understand why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland? Was it because it would have been a nightmare for them to even try, given how armed Swiss citizens were (and are)? TIA!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

She moves the goal posts so often she installed wheels on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia 1917 and the overthrow of Nicholas and Alexandra

and a bunch of children got shot to death in that one, too! Almost like they were in a mall, or a high school!

#MassShootersHaveRightsToo!

It's becoming clear that this thread is just you by yourself, arguing with like ten other people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The military in a foreign country has stricter rules of engagement than cops.

Philadelphia MOVE bombing
Ruby Ridge
Waco

Don’t think for a second that the government won’t put down domestic rebels of any kind (and their kids) if they feel the “need” to. They’re better armed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And did a pretty good job dispatching the Russians before us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The military in a foreign country has stricter rules of engagement than cops.

Philadelphia MOVE bombing
Ruby Ridge
Waco

Don’t think for a second that the government won’t put down domestic rebels of any kind (and their kids) if they feel the “need” to. They’re better armed.

Waco was responded to by Timothy McVeigh, who retaliated in-kind with the ROE the government itself had established at Waco (ie, non-combatants and children were considered acceptable collateral losses). He hit the government back with their own tactics.

You didn’t hear about anymore Waco’s after that, did you?

No, you didn’t.

[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.

We have a democracy. It’s up to the citizens to make sure it works.

The American military is comprised of American citizens who voluntarily signed up to defend the constitution. They will not wage war upon the American people.

However Keep indoctrinating children with your antiAmerican socialist totalitarian bullshit from cradle tobgrave and in a generation that could be different.

[Anonymous]

Waco man, sorry to disturb you, but had a real quick question. Do you know why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland? I'm thinking it was because it would have been a nightmare for them to even try, given how armed Swiss citizens were (and are.) Amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Waco man, sorry to disturb you, but had a real quick question. Do you know why the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland? I'm thinking it was because it would have been a nightmare for them to even try, given how armed Swiss citizens were (and are.) Amirite?

Switzerland is surrounded by mountains! The mountains are why they weren't invaded. Big giant mountains are really hard for tanks to cross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And did a pretty good job dispatching the Russians before us.

Once again. Guess what Afghanistan has in common with Switzerland. Mountains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Russia 1917 and the overthrow of Nicholas and Alexandra

and a bunch of children got shot to death in that one, too! Almost like they were in a mall, or a high school!

#MassShootersHaveRightsToo!

It's becoming clear that this thread is just you by yourself, arguing with like ten other people.

Russia 1917 was a civil war - ie many different armies fighting each other.

[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

SCOTUS disagrees.

Even the anti-gun Giffords law center correctly recites that SCOTUS found an individual right to own a firearm in DC v Heller.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/the-second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/

It doesn't matter what you or I think, its what 9 unelected people in black robes think.

[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

SCOTUS disagrees.

Even the anti-gun Giffords law center correctly recites that SCOTUS found an individual right to own a firearm in DC v Heller.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/the-second-amendment/the-supreme-court-the-second-amendment/dc-v-heller/

It doesn't matter what you or I think, its what 9 unelected people in black robes think.

That doesn't mean it can't be regulated and the opinion isn't conclusive on types of firearms. It also doesn't give a right to import.

[Anonymous]

The slaves in Haiti used overpowered their oppressive owners.

[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."

Yep, mountain warfare is a walk in the park. That's why we've been kicked the Taliban's ass in Afghanistan for 18 years!