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:

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 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:

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 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.