History question: Civilian guns vs government


PDA






wacki
October 11, 2006, 10:40 PM
The 2nd amendment was made to keep the government in line. At what points in history has civilian arms actually worked vs a government?

The revolutionary war probably counts.

However, these are the times where it has 'failed':

In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1928 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill and other who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956, Cambodia, established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated

http://www.gunowners.org/op0434.htm

If you enjoyed reading about "History question: Civilian guns vs government" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
slicknickns
October 11, 2006, 10:45 PM
this stuff gets kinda annoying after a while.

if the united states government was serious about gun confiscations, i serious doubt the average american gun owner and the average THR poster would have the balls to get into a gun battle over defending his rights to own firearms. i doubt he/she would be willing to kill an ATF/national guardsman/LEO/or military personal in that type of situation.

Second, did you know that in Saddam's Iraq, guns were very easy to get LEGALLY. Saddam even sent boys to shooting schools.

mauser7
October 11, 2006, 10:57 PM
Yes, if you were a member of "HIS" tribe, or at least a member of the correct sect and loyal to Sadaam, you could have just about any firearm you wanted. Sort of like being a Mobster, Multimillionaire, Movie Star or Democrat in California or New York.
But Mohamid help you if you were a Kurd, Swamp Arab or the wrong sect.
And usually arms in civilian hands prevents problems with governments. At one time in if you were Swiss and wanted to vote you had to show up armed and ready to fight. It is one of the reasons the Nazi's in WWII didn't mess with the Swiss. It would have been to costly for what they would have gotten.

Rembrandt
October 11, 2006, 11:21 PM
At what points in history has civilian arms actually worked vs a government?

- L.A. riots where armed store owners defended their businesses when local law enforcement refused to enter the area.

- Local gun shop provides arms to poorly equipped P.D. during the California great bank shoot out.

- Armed New Orleans shop owners fend off bad guys when local, state, & NG fail to arrive in a timely manner.

jlbraun
October 11, 2006, 11:21 PM
Imagine if we had a similar system to the old Swiss one.

In order to vote, you would have to present at the voting center a rifle of at least 1000 ft-lbs muzzle energy to signify membership in the militia. :evil:

Geronimo45
October 11, 2006, 11:33 PM
Russian revolution. Lenin and friends. Trotsky. They kicked out the Czar.

French revolution... I guess. Though it was probably more numbers than weapons... and I don't know that they had many weapons at first.

Probably a lot of things in South America... though the military was involved in a lot of it.

crucible
October 12, 2006, 01:29 AM
At what points in history has civilian arms actually worked vs a government?

Our Revolutionary War definitely counts, and further, civilian arms were the equal of, and in some cases, superior than the standard military arms of the time (a fact that did not escape our founding fathers).

Later on in our own country again: 1946, Athens, Tenessee.

Athens, Tennessee: The uprising was led by ex-GIs recently returned from battle, to discover dishonest election tactics and corrupt and crooked local government. Having seen first-hand, Tennessee blood spilled and Tennessee lives lost in the battle for freedom, these patriotic veterans weren't about to knuckle under to the special interests. Certain insiders, for their own profit and benefit, had taken control of the small community of Athens, a town of about 7600 people.

The violence started on election day when a poll watcher was attacked and thrown through a glass door. The town folks, already agitated, became incensed. They went home and returned with pistols, shotguns and whatever weapons they could lay their hands on. The incumbents and "insiders" had recruited extra deputies from neighboring cities and counties but they were no match for the now armed and angry citizens of McMinn County. Sheriff Pat Mansfield and State Senator Paul Cantrell, along with others, fled the scene. Twenty-five deputys retreated to the jail which was surrounded and fired upon by the civillian army.

At 4:00 A.M. the next morning, the "25" surrendered their arms and came out with hands up. Although a cry went up to "hang 'em", cooler heads prevailed. The "25" were taken to the edge of town, stripped naked and told not to come back.

The upshot was the incumbent and "insider-clique" were out. The slate backed by the citizens and supported by the GI patriots was officially certified victorious by State authorities in Nashville.

Thus, a new sheriff, trustee, register of deeds, circuit court clerk and county court clerk were seated (3 Democrats, 2 Republicans). All were new, all were honest and freely elected. The year was 1946. In 1948, a city council / county commission form of government, one of the first in the state of Tennessee was created. Athens prospered and grew and today has more than doubled in population.

A much more detailed article here:http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm

Fn-P9
October 12, 2006, 01:58 AM
Ruby Ridge and Waco TX sadly come to mind. Ruby Ridge was more or less a victory depending on how you look at it. It showed the US (only if you know all the backround) that the government is sometimes wrong in its ways and not the supreme "ruler of freedom". Waco I supposed resisted for awhile but Bradley fighting vehicles and Abbrams are more than some people can fight.

on the other hand, they shot the Bradley with a barret .50 cal and it ran away.

Keith Wheeler
October 12, 2006, 09:57 AM
The slate backed by the citizens and supported by the GI patriots...

They'd be called "terr-ists" today.

Hoppy590
October 12, 2006, 11:43 AM
sadly i argee, any resistance or percieved resistance to the government is labled "terrorism". manual of arms will become "terrorism material" things like the original Anarchist Cookbook( the one about guerilla warfare, taken mostly from Army and Spec.Forces manuals) are seen as evil and excuse the phrase. "Columbine"

Iraq has showed us that normal joes can and do defeat abrams and bradleys, it just takes the fight to a new level.

how ever we as americans lack the rallying point the Iraqis/muslims share. the slow dismantlement of our freedoms serves to blind us, through time, to our subjegation. many of you grew up buying arms through the Sears Catalog. i never lived in that age, and was shocked to find out it used to be that easy. no forms in double. no "safety" courses. no fees, no fingerprints, no laminated license from the .gov.

Joe Demko
October 12, 2006, 11:48 AM
At one time in if you were Swiss and wanted to vote you had to show up armed and ready to fight. It is one of the reasons the Nazi's in WWII didn't mess with the Swiss. It would have been to costly for what they would have gotten.

The Swiss were far too valuable as a compliant trading partner and financier, ostensibly neutral, to do something foolish like make them a conquered territory. The German Nazis were often quite clever.

Hoppy590
October 12, 2006, 11:53 AM
The Swiss were far too valuable as a compliant trading partner and financier, ostensibly neutral, to do something foolish like make them a conquered territory. The German Nazis were often quite clever.

except that whole russia thing. and the panzers on june 6th. and the ME262as a bomber.... ya the german command were smart. hitler just makes horrible decisions

tuna
October 12, 2006, 12:05 PM
I'm glad someone already posted about Athens. I think the most surprising thing of that story is that all 5 politicians elected (won't bother with the parties) were HONEST.

I don't think we could find 5 honest politicians in one state, let alone one small town. Maybe I should find a small town to move to, and meet a better class of people.

Joe Demko
October 12, 2006, 12:20 PM
except that whole russia thing. and the panzers on june 6th. and the ME262as a bomber.... ya the german command were smart. hitler just makes horrible decisions

See, the truth on the Germans is that sometimes they made good decisions WRT their military goals, sometimes they made poor ones. You listed a number of poor ones. Their decision to utilize Switzerland as banker and trading partner was a good one. They were able to import resources, through Switzerland, that would have otherwise been unavailable, until quite close to the end of the war. The Swiss "turned" on the Germans only when it became clear that they were going to be crushed AND being informed by the US, Great Britain, et. al. that severing trade relations with Germany would be a really good idea for Switzerland in the post-war environment.

slicknickns
October 12, 2006, 01:20 PM
nobody on this website would have the balls to go through with violently resisting a gun confiscation.

Keith Wheeler
October 12, 2006, 01:23 PM
I think there are plenty of folks here who would violently resist if they felt "the end" was happening.

The problem is that they would be in the minority, and they would happen one at a time. As each of these "lone wolves" was picked off, nobody else would come to their aid. In fear or disregard to the truth most gun owners would merely say "but they were criminals, or crazy".

Individuals would fight. "People" wouldn't.

Hoppy590
October 12, 2006, 01:26 PM
slicknickns nobody on this website would have the balls to go through with violently resisting a gun confiscation.

any armed individual resistance would be pointless. any armed group resistance would be imposible. we could never gather, we could never rally, march on washington or anything. the only "resistance" we could do would be a "molon labe" situation. centralize in an area and refuse to play by the rules. just go on with our lives. may i suggest we take, utah, florida, alaskaand vermont. as those seem to be the best RTKBA in thier areas.

Cosmoline
October 12, 2006, 01:44 PM
if the united states government was serious about gun confiscations, i serious doubt the average american gun owner and the average THR poster would have the balls to get into a gun battle over defending his rights to own firearms. i doubt he/she would be willing to kill an ATF/national guardsman/LEO/or military personal in that type of situation.

It's standard anti rhetoric that gun owners will be helpless against a tyrant state. And it's true that if they use artillery and jets you really have little defense. But then again, if you force the tyrant state to show its true face by using high explosives from F-16's against its own civilian populations, you've accomplished something very important. Moreover, even if only a million of the 100 million or so US gun owners actively fight confiscation, it will cost the state so much money and time as to make the program impossible. Look at the millions spent trying to disarm a single isolated group at Waco. A federal confiscation plan will also create enormous federal/state tension and spur noncoperation and interference if not outright revolt. Look how well the war on drugs has gone, even with extensive local cooperation and a general sense among the citizens that drugs are bad news.

Also, consider the fact that very few LEO's ever have to deal with armed, sober and skilled riflemen who are trying hard to kill them. Thankfully, most of the dangerous situations they encounter involve unthinking, emotional and usually stoned or drunk nutcases. The gangstas they have shootouts with don't undersand ballistics or how to hold a firearm. You can run through the exceptions, from James Cantwell to the Miami shootout to the recent slaying of those mounties. They speak for themselves, and they remind us: Do not underestimate the power of the rifle. One trained rifleman with a brain tumor killed 15 people and wounded 31 others in a single incident before he was stopped. And don't assume that high tech drones or smart bombs will be able to neutralize armed resistance. Lord knows they didn't work for us in Vietnam, and lord knows they're not working for us in Iraq. Moreover, if it came down to a draconian military-backed confiscation scheme it wouldn't be a matter of having to shoot local LEO's. They'd be neutral or on our side of the fence.

The anti dogs KNOW THIS, but they need us to give up any hope of ever being able to resist, as gun owners in Australia and the UK did long ago. Then it becomes a simple matter to confiscate arms. You convince people they have no other option. Confiscation can only work with a compliant, law-abiding population that thinks it has no other choice--that it has no way to fight the wall of authority. And it's true, from the outside the law looks like an endless brick wall. But when you get around on the side you see it's just a big sheet of paper. The state and its edicts only have the power we give it. As the founders discovered, the power has never come from the King with all his military might. Or the feds, for that matter.

ozwyn
October 12, 2006, 01:46 PM
if we could put a couple hundred thousand pro-gun protestors (signs, no weapons) on the streets of DC, New York and LA we wouldn't need to.

Politicans are as a rule lacking in principles outside whatever they think will get them elected. Make gun rights and the repeal of restrictive laws a popular issue, show them the people willing to march, flip the system on its head.

the anti-gun forces have brainwashed the parties into thinking pro-gun is a small minority issue, and the politicians have responded. Put some numbers in the streets and the polls and we can have a lot more impact than a dozen ruby ridge events.

Make both parties kiss our rears for a change.

El Tejon
October 12, 2006, 01:57 PM
Bah, I resisted gun confiscations in D.C. and Chicago. I'm still here!:neener:

bowfin
October 12, 2006, 02:02 PM
/*nobody on this website would have the balls to go through with violently resisting a gun confiscation.*/

...and how is it that you know this? I don't believe we have even met, so I find it quite presumptuous that one claims he could take the measure of hundreds of men and women he doesn't even know.

Jenrick
October 12, 2006, 02:12 PM
As an LEO I might add:

Quiet a few of us in a lot of different areas would be resitant to enforcing a ban/confiscation program anyway. I'm speaking on moral grounds, not on the getting shot at grounds. A citizen taking a political stand with well researched legal precedents etc I would give a lot of leeway, and work with.

Someone putting rounds at me for attempting to do my job is going to have the favored returned. I understand that some may feel it's their duty to defend their firearms ownership to the death. However actively trying to kill me, means I'm going to return the favor. Calmly talking, having a legal response prepared etc. will probably mean you get to keep them (since the brass hates legal entanglemants), and will keep officers like myself on your side.

-Jenric

'Card
October 12, 2006, 02:23 PM
i serious doubt the average american gun owner and the average THR poster would have the balls to get into a gun battle over defending his rights to own firearms.nobody on this website would have the balls to go through with violently resisting a gun confiscation.
Cute. Were you planning to post the same nonsense a third time in this thread if no one had taken the bait after your second attempt? If you're going to be a troll, at least try to be good at it. A good troll will make his first post so inflammatory that he'll get a rise out of people without having to repeat himself.


As far as resisting governments is concerned... a full-blown armed revolution of the populace is only part of what's important about the 2nd Amendment. In my opinion, a more important aspect of it is the knowledge, in the mind of every law enforcement officer and government employee, that every citizen they encounter might be capable of resisting them with lethal force. That's a pretty big deal, when you think about it. A built-in method of checks and balances that (with isolated exceptions) helps keep things on a footing with a degree of mutual respect.

Look at it this way... if you're just your average beat cop and you get ordered to kick in some citizen's door at 3AM and drag them off to jail or something... if you know in the back of your mind that Joe Citizen has the potential to blow your head clean off when you come through that door, then you're not gonna be too thrilled with those orders, are you? In fact, you're probably going to resist those orders unless you're given a damned good reason for carrying them out. You might even take it upon yourself to find some other way to work things out with Joe Citizen. See, institutional resistance is a powerful controlling factor on the influence of those in authority. As long as the police fear us just a little bit, then an important balance is maintained that might not be there otherwise.

WayneConrad
October 12, 2006, 02:25 PM
Keith Wheeler has got it correct.

The playbook looks like this:

WHO

Make sure it's criminals you are picking on. Nobody likes criminals. When you run out of criminals, change the law to make more.

WHERE and WHEN

Scatter your confiscations... I mean, criminal arrests... around both geographically and in time. If the police converge on an entire neighborhood to take all the guns... I mean, to arrest the criminals... it provides a locus for resisters: a cause, a place, and a time. Be diffuse. A tree can be chopped down. But how do you resist the wind?

HOW

Come in the night with flash-bangs. Or arrest the criminal out in public, or at work, then get a warrant to allow you to enter the residence and take the guns. The war on some drugs has been great practice for this. The reality is that when the window breaks or the door comes off its hinges, I'm 10 seconds from being in handcuffs (or dead, should I resist with force). I ain't Rambo. Are you?

SPONTANEOUS UPRISING?

A spontaneous uprising seems like a winner. No coordination is necessary--just the nearly simultaneous decision of the citizenry to act.
But you better pick the right time to get your rifle and march... if your neighbors didn't pick that time as well, it's just individual resistence and you'll be arrested like the criminal you are. If it's just a few individuals, then it's just a small terrorist cell, quickly squished.

In any case, just keep picking on criminals, slowly, and the citizenry will never become scared enough to risk their lives in an uprising.

ORGANIZED RESISTANCE

The obstacles and objections to organized resistance are just as daunting, if not more so. In any case, I don't think I can even speculate on it without becoming a suspected terrorist. I'd rather not. Oh, and the government has been getting something of an education about that in Iraq.

OH, AND BY THE WAY

Not all revolutions end up with the results desired by those who started it. I'm willing to bet that few do. There are many outcomes other than "constitutional republic restored."

POLITICS?

I can't see any other answer to this bind than politics. Keep fighting the political fight, as hard as you can. And no matter how hard and hopeless the political struggle for liberty may become, I suspect that taking up arms would be a more difficult trial.

DogBonz
October 12, 2006, 02:28 PM
Although there were troops there, the vast majority of the Russians who fought were civilians. Many of them were those who were too old or young for military service. The famous name that came out of this battle was the sniper Vasilij Grigoryevich Zajtsev, who was not a military sniper, but a good’ol mountain boy who could shoot well. The majority of the others were old men and women, and children who picked up rifles and using sniper like tactics, held off a battle hardened group of Germans. It is true that the Germans were out numbered probably running low on supplies, and may have been battle weary, but these were some of the best, most experienced troops that Germany had

The truth is that a determined, armed populous can hold off invading forces.

DogBonz
October 12, 2006, 02:46 PM
It's standard anti rhetoric that gun owners will be helpless against a tyrant state. And it's true that if they use artillery and jets you really have little defense. But then again, if you force the tyrant state to show its true face by using high explosives from F-16's against its own civilian populations, you've accomplished something very important

This brings up the biggest unknown. In our 1000+ channel direct TV, high speed internet, everybody with a video camera is a reporter world, how many people would sit idle while the US government rained smart bombs on its own civilians? How many soldiers would fire upon their own country men? How many soldiers, pilots, policemen, etc would defect to the other side (the right side)? The Federalies can attack a small group of religious cult members with impunity because most people consider them whacko’s or nut jobs, but I seriously doubt that Americans would sit silent if a large number good hard working people were being fired upon by military personnel.

But, the worst thing is that the second that we (Americans) start fighting among ourselves, we become instantly vulnerable to attack and/or invasion from any of our numerous enemies.

OK OK I’m done… I’m taking my tinfoil hat off and take a nap. Sorry guys too much coffee.:D

Joe Demko
October 12, 2006, 02:51 PM
Vasily Zaitsev served as a Junior Lieutenant in the 1047th rifle regiment of the 284th rifle division of the 62nd Army at the time of the battle of Stalingrad. He was a military man and not some Russian version of a good ol' boy with a rifle takin' on them furriners.

junyo
October 12, 2006, 02:56 PM
At what points in history has civilian arms actually worked vs a government?Depends on what your definition of worked is. If by worked you mean removed the government by sheer force of arms, rarely. If by worked you mean significantly altered the political/social situation or forced major concessions from the ruling power, fairly often.
Iraq and Vietnam demonstrate that you can consistently lose on at the tactical level, and yet win at the strategic level purely with a handful of guns and some clever infowarfare. The peaceful civil rights movement of the 60's was significantly helped by being the more palatable alternative to the more militant groups. Darn near every colonial power that decided that putting down the revolution of the week wasn't worth an outpost in Whogivesacrapswana. The Palestinians, who've bombed and murdered their way to being recognized as a state.

Keith Wheeler
October 12, 2006, 03:03 PM
At what points in history has civilian arms actually worked vs a government?

And, in addition to junyo's reply, the Afghans against the Soviets.

But you've got to keep in mind, that those few cases where "the people" have been able to successfully defeat their government, there was a rich, powerful, well armed backer of "the people". From the American Revolution to the Soviet-Afghan war, for "good ol' boys" and farmers to defeat a government, it takes the backing of another government.

Deanimator
October 12, 2006, 03:52 PM
From 1929 to 1953 approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Actually, most of the victims of the Soviet system WEREN'T dissidents. In fact, most of them were fanatically loyal to the Soviet system. Most people don't understand the Stalinist system. Guilt or innocence were totally irrelevant. Stalin was at best indifferent to discovering real plots against himself, nevermind the Soviet State. Rather he took a much more proactive approach. Instead of trying to find people actually opposed to the system, he simply set out to create such a culture of paralyzing fear in society that people would be too consumed with dread and paranoia to even CONSIDER opposition to the system. To this end, he reduced matters of life and death to the level of a parking ticket quota. He issued to regional NKVD officials, monthly "norms" for the arrest of "spies", "saboteurs", etc. Those who failed to meet their assigned quotas were themselves at risk of being fed into the system. People were too busily engaged in a futile attempt to deduce the nonexistant "rules" of the system in the name of their own survival to given a moment's thought to "dissent".

Deanimator
October 12, 2006, 03:55 PM
if the united states government was serious about gun confiscations, i serious doubt the average american gun owner and the average THR poster would have the balls to get into a gun battle over defending his rights to own firearms.
1% of gunowners could totally eliminate the BATFE. In the event of an attempted anti-constitutional coup and forced disarmament, I estimate at least 3% of gunowners would take direct action.

nomadboi
October 12, 2006, 04:33 PM
French Revolution.
Bastille stormed, heads rolled.

Correia
October 12, 2006, 04:43 PM
slicknickns, aren't you a teenager?

I knew everything when I was a teenager too. Luckily we didn't have the internet then, so I wasn't able to demonstrate to the entire world how smart I was.

This sucker is done.

If you enjoyed reading about "History question: Civilian guns vs government" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!