1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

History question: Civilian guns vs government

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by wacki, Oct 11, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wacki

    wacki Well-Known Member

    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

  2. slicknickns

    slicknickns Well-Known Member

    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.
  3. mauser7

    mauser7 Member

    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.
  4. Rembrandt

    Rembrandt Well-Known Member

    - 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.
  5. jlbraun

    jlbraun Well-Known Member

    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:
  6. Geronimo45

    Geronimo45 Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. crucible

    crucible Well-Known Member

    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.

    A much more detailed article here:http://www.jpfo.org/athens.htm
  8. Fn-P9

    Fn-P9 Well-Known Member

    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.
  9. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Well-Known Member

    They'd be called "terr-ists" today.
  10. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Well-Known Member

    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.
  11. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Well-Known Member

    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
  13. tuna

    tuna member

    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.
  14. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Well-Known Member

    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.
  15. slicknickns

    slicknickns Well-Known Member

    nobody on this website would have the balls to go through with violently resisting a gun confiscation.
  16. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Well-Known Member

    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.
  18. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. ozwyn

    ozwyn Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. El Tejon

    El Tejon Well-Known Member

    Bah, I resisted gun confiscations in D.C. and Chicago. I'm still here!:neener:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page