Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United States

It’s OWN government, not colonial rule.

For white people, that was its own government.
For the people already living here, not so much. But they weren’t the ones with the guns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland was because they wanted a neutral place (i.e., that the Allies would stay out of) that they could secretly store gold and, more importantly, have a place Nazi leaders could slip away to, if the war turned against them. "

The ratlines for the National Socialist German Workers' Party led to South America. See Eva Peron.

This.

If the Nazis could have take Sw easily, they would have.

They realized they could not, given the combination of mountains and weapons everywhere.

Lol yes the German armed forces rolled through all the major armed powers in the world but would have problems invading a small country because of a poorly armed untrained militia and mountains. It would go like this. A few guys shoot at the Germans and the Germans kill their families and destroy the whole town. Your NRA fantasy does not work IRL.

PS all the examples

Say Hi to the Afghans, fool

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:" The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland was because they wanted a neutral place (i.e., that the Allies would stay out of) that they could secretly store gold and, more importantly, have a place Nazi leaders could slip away to, if the war turned against them. "

The ratlines for the National Socialist German Workers' Party led to South America. See Eva Peron.

This.

If the Nazis could have take Sw easily, they would have.

They realized they could not, given the combination of mountains and weapons everywhere.

Lol yes the German armed forces rolled through all the major armed powers in the world but would have problems invading a small country because of a poorly armed untrained militia and mountains. It would go like this. A few guys shoot at the Germans and the Germans kill their families and destroy the whole town. Your NRA fantasy does not work IRL.

PS all the examples

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The far right pro-gun camp insists that they must defend their right to stockpile multiple and highly lethal firearms in the event that they must rise up against a tyrannical government.

As such, can anyone provide an example of a nation, in the distant or recent past, that has drawn on their legal right to own guns to successfully defeat a tyrannical government and install a new, highly functioning democracy?

Usually I like to think that laws are based at least in part on best practices and lessons learned analyses, so just curious if there are any examples we can draw insights from.

Tyrannical governments do not rise to subjugate an armed citizenry.

These days they'd probably be MORE likely to rise up, and their firepower kinda outweighs the advantages of an AK-47.

Name four.

Anonymous wrote:The far right pro-gun camp insists that they must defend their right to stockpile multiple and highly lethal firearms in the event that they must rise up against a tyrannical government.

As such, can anyone provide an example of a nation, in the distant or recent past, that has drawn on their legal right to own guns to successfully defeat a tyrannical government and install a new, highly functioning democracy?

Usually I like to think that laws are based at least in part on best practices and lessons learned analyses, so just curious if there are any examples we can draw insights from.

Talk to meet about gun control when progressives have solved this.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/10/six-shot-less-two-hours-gun-controlled-baltimore/

I’ll wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The far right pro-gun camp insists that they must defend their right to stockpile multiple and highly lethal firearms in the event that they must rise up against a tyrannical government.

As such, can anyone provide an example of a nation, in the distant or recent past, that has drawn on their legal right to own guns to successfully defeat a tyrannical government and install a new, highly functioning democracy?

Usually I like to think that laws are based at least in part on best practices and lessons learned analyses, so just curious if there are any examples we can draw insights from.

Tyrannical governments do not rise to subjugate an armed citizenry.

These days they'd probably be MORE likely to rise up, and their firepower kinda outweighs the advantages of an AK-47.

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

I would say legal gun ownership really wasn't what did it. The army was pretty much in a state of mutiny and the country was in chaos.

The Whiskey Rebellion was, I suppose an attempt to overthrow a tyrannical government (in the view of people in western Pennsylvania), didn't get very far. Or you could invoke the Civil War. OTOH, they lost.

I read a recent column by someone who pointed out that people seem to be FAR less vocal about steps that potentially erode 4th amendment rights or 6th amendment rights. Makes me kinda sorta think the people who are most vocal about upholding 2A don't have much problem over the most likely victims of 4th and 6th amendment violations.

Anonymous wrote:The far right pro-gun camp insists that they must defend their right to stockpile multiple and highly lethal firearms in the event that they must rise up against a tyrannical government.

As such, can anyone provide an example of a nation, in the distant or recent past, that has drawn on their legal right to own guns to successfully defeat a tyrannical government and install a new, highly functioning democracy?

Usually I like to think that laws are based at least in part on best practices and lessons learned analyses, so just curious if there are any examples we can draw insights from.

Tyrannical governments do not rise to subjugate an armed citizenry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The United States

It’s OWN government, not colonial rule.

The brits were our own government at the time of the revolution.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's hilarious that you can't understand the context of the question she is asking. You read at a second grade level.

Also, the examples given of Iran and Cuba that overthrew a tyrannical government? The regimes installed in their place are not successful democracies by any stretch of the imagination.

Anonymous wrote:" The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland was because they wanted a neutral place (i.e., that the Allies would stay out of) that they could secretly store gold and, more importantly, have a place Nazi leaders could slip away to, if the war turned against them. "

The ratlines for the National Socialist German Workers' Party led to South America. See Eva Peron.

This.

If the Nazis could have take Sw easily, they would have.

They realized they could not, given the combination of mountains and weapons everywhere.

" The reason the Nazis didn't invade Switzerland was because they wanted a neutral place (i.e., that the Allies would stay out of) that they could secretly store gold and, more importantly, have a place Nazi leaders could slip away to, if the war turned against them. "

The ratlines for the National Socialist German Workers' Party led to South America. See Eva Peron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The slaves in Haiti used overpowered their oppressive owners.

Did they overpower a government?

Yes. Overpowered the French colonial government and killed most of the rich plantation owners. In India, they did it without weapons.

Once the vast majority of people become so poor and disenfranchised, they resort to revolution by one means or another.

I'm really surprised conservatives are supporting gun ownership for this reason, since they will be the "rich" party being rebelled against, weird flex, but ok. Unless many of these conservatives are getting their info from employees in Russia, then it makes sense.

You ... you think the majority of conservatives or 2A supporters are the elite?

You really, really need to get out of your bubble.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The slaves in Haiti used overpowered their oppressive owners.

Did they overpower a government?

Yes.

They kicked out the French.

Not because they had the right to bear arms though
.
India/Pakistan did it without guns.
MLK did it without guns
Hungary and Czechoslovakia tried it with guns and failed. When they tried it without guns it succeeded.

Go read some history of the civil rights movement, and then come back and tell us if you think MLK Jr would have been as successful as he was without Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and other people and groups willing to seize their rights "by any means necessary."

Even surface historical accounts are littered with suggestions that white people supported MLK because he was more palatable, and with the violence simmering and exploding knew they had to give at least lip service to something. Heck, anti-gun people should be well aware of this because of Reagan, and the NRA's work to try and keep guns out of black hands. It's used as an argument against the NRA! I guess you forget about it when it's inconvenient.