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."
Anonymous wrote:
Anyway a better question is... what dictatorial regime didn’t first disarm the citizenry before imposing murderous totalitarianism?
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).
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."
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.
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?
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!
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?![]()
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).
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
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
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.