Quantcast
  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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    Reminiscing the Rockies
    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
     
  2. slicknickns

    slicknickns Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    118
    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

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    11
    Location:
    oakdale mn
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,368
    - 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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    2,213
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    3,345
    Location:
    Phoenix, Arizona
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    357
    Location:
    Sterling, Va
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2006
    Messages:
    164
    Location:
    Washington State
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Arkansas
    They'd be called "terr-ists" today.
     
  10. Hoppy590

    Hoppy590 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    MA :(
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    MA :(
    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

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    349
    Location:
    Western MA
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2006
    Messages:
    118
    nobody on this website would have the balls to go through with violently resisting a gun confiscation.
     
  16. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Arkansas
    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 Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2006
    Messages:
    4,277
    Location:
    MA :(
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2006
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Maryland
    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 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Bah, I resisted gun confiscations in D.C. and Chicago. I'm still here!:neener:
     
  21. bowfin

    bowfin Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Messages:
    553
    Location:
    Nebraska
    /*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.
     
  22. Jenrick

    Jenrick Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,749
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    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
     
  23. 'Card

    'Card Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,506
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    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.
     
  24. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    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.
     
  25. DogBonz

    DogBonz Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,068
    Location:
    NJ
    What about the Battle of Stalingrad

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page