Occasionally, one hears in 2nd amendment discussions that ordinary people need to have the right to bear arms so that they can fight back if someone tries to take over the country. I can’t think of one such incident, but then I’m no historian.
The question is, therefore: has a population armed with legal weapons ever resisted a takeover, overthrown an oppressive government, or something similar?
Please do not discuss the 2nd amendment in this thread, not even to say that you support the 2nd amendment but not for the reason above. I know it’s far from the most common reason.
The thinking is fallacious, armed citizens are no much for a modern army especially one led by a ruthless dictator. An example would be in Iraq, which under Saddam Hussein had at least a comparable rate of gun ownership to the US, perhaps even more (though the UN arms embargo against Iraq may of effected the avaidabilty of guns).
Uncle Bill
The Afghanistani populace had the Stingers supplied by the USA. To me that is not a “legally armed” populace in the sense that “Stinger” missiles are strictly regulated. If they had not been invaded by Russia, I highly doubt the poulace would have had Stingers.
Also, if Russia really wanted to take over Afghanistan and wanted to be totally ruthless, they could have continually dropped “fuel-air” bombs and possibly even nuclear weapons and the armed populace would have responded with what?
Well, weren’t the original American ‘army’, especially at the start of the Revolutionary War, equipped essentially with their own weapons (I’m talking of the various irregular and militia formations)? Weren’t they generally militia units for the most part, until a regular army was formed and raised? And didn’t they ‘resist’ the greatest empire on earth?
Granted, in order to win the Americans had to create regular army formations…but the militia units DID resist the British and were certainly a factor.
Afaik the weapons they personally owned were legal.
The problem with this arguement is that its difficult to come up with examples for this because so few societies are fully armed ‘legally’. Especially in Europe, gunpowder type weapons have always had limited access to normal civilians. So, if you want to broaden things from ‘legal’ to just ‘an armed populus’ then you will get more examples…like the Iraqi, Viet Cong in Vietnam and Afghani during the Soviet invasion. Certainly they aren’t self armed…they are armed by outside forces or by the previous regime (in the case of the Iraqi), but it certainly shows that an armed population CAN resist even a world power.
In addition to those great examples of Afganistan, Vietnam, and the American colonies( in both 1775 and in 1812), I would certainly add Texas rising up against Santa Anna’s Mexico, and gaining independence back around 1836 or so. Texas is one of the best examples of common citizens armed with their own previously legally owned private weapons defeating an organized and experienced and well trained invading army.
The Confederate states of America, overwelmingly outnumbered, also managed to resist for 5 years before being defeated, with lots of southern soldiers using their own weapons, although, admittedly, they lost in the end, they gave quite a scare and threat and extremely heavy casulties to the yankees in the first few years of their attempted independence. If the south had relied instead on a long protracted guirilla warfare strategy( as Vietnam did) instead of going head to head with artillary, they might have lasted longer and even gained their independence after a decade or two of resistance( e.g. it took Vietnam many decades to finally win independence).
I dont think we need to get into a debate of what is legal or not legal, since one of the reasons the Americans and Texans were rebelling, was because of new gun control measures trying to be installed by the British and Santa Anna, most military takovers are started by disarming the populace, and discussions of the right to bear arms should be on another thread.
Back in the days of the bow and arrow, didnt the Swiss archers defeat invaders coming into Switzerland with their own private weapons also? What about English bowmen and Knights, didnt they ever accompish anything against agressors?
Uncle Bill
You say we need to define “legal” weapons. What we need is a clarification of the OP. In the case of Afghanistan, for example, what was the status of private weapons ownership prior to 1979?
Perhaps the OP should apply to a populace using privately-owned weapons that were obtained prior to a government takeover, an invasion, etc.
Quoting from the first paragraph: Occasionally, one hears in 2nd amendment discussions that ordinary people need to have the right to bear arms so that they can fight back if someone tries to take over the country.
It would be stretching things to say that Afghanistan was able to repel the Soviet invaders because the Afghani constitution allowed the existence of an armed citizenry.
Quoting from the second paragraph: The question is, therefore: has a population armed with legal weapons ever resisted a takeover, overthrown an oppressive government, or something similar?
To some extent this could apply to North Vietnam, if you want to include the fact that the armed citizenry is being supplied with weapons from an external source.
That was my intention. Perhaps I wasn’t too clear.
My view exactly.
The source of supply is not all that interesting; it’s whether the weapons were legal or not. If the people behind the takeover made weapons illegal, the weapons still count as legal if they’re used resisting the takeover.
Well, there was the period during World War III when a group of American high school students, led by Patrick Swayze, held off the invading Soviet/Nicaraguan armies in the Rocky Mountains.
Considering that both the American Revolution and Confederates had organized armies led by officers from other armies (Washington himself had been a British officer, von Steueben, Kosciuszko, Lafayette, etc. … CSA had scores of officers who graduated West Point) I think these are poor examples. Heck, the Yorktown victory was largely possible due to direct intervention from the French.
And then there’s the citizenry of Springfield who, through legal private weapon ownership, has since the town’s founding kept the King of England out of their face.
What about Cuba? Didn’t the people rise up with Castro and free the country from the tyranny of the US installed puppet covernment?
It seems the fact that a populace can obtain the resources to overthrow a govt pretty much negates the legality/illegality arguement.
Hmmm. I see I’ve got it backwards. But isn’t to overthrow the govt effectvely the same as to resist a takeover?
Peace,
mangeorge
Hm, how about the war of 1812? granted from our point of view we were a legal country…but Britain still considered us recalcitrant rebels=) they even continued pressganging our sailors into their navy.
So, what you are looking for are examples of citizens of non-nations who own their own fire arms legally and have successfully fought off a ‘military takeover’ without the use of any kind of organization at all and who didn’t use anyone at all with prior military experience? Well, why didn’t you just say so in the first place??? Nope, can’t think of examples that meet your completely acceptable requirements.
I was thinking this was turning into a debate, but with these requirements its a factual answer after all.
-XT
p.s. What has any of this to do with the right to bear arms and the 2nd ammendment? I don’t recall it saying anywhere that citizens using their own arms in defense of the homeland weren’t allowed to organize…in fact, isn’t there some pesky clause about militias or some such??
I think there’s a huge difference between raising money through taxation in order to support a full-time army who are drilled by experienced military officers over a period of months or years and a “well-armed citizenry.” I would further speculate that the CSA was the former, and, say, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising was the latter.
Having part of the French fleet pull up at a convenient time to aid your Prussian-trained, full-time, paid (poorly and not in a timely manner) army also strikes me as a bit out of the bounds of run-of-the-mill “well-armed citizenry.”
I just re-read the OP, xtisme, and it’s pretty clear to me that that’s exactly what’s being asked. Has the personal possession of guns ever defended a country from takeover, or ousted a sitting government. That is a fairly popular arguement among pro-gun folks.
At least that’s my read on it.
It looks like the answer (to the OP) is no, at least not in the spirit of the arguement.
Still, an armed populace is an excellent way to make an invading army leave sooner rather than later. Look at Iraq. Why do you think that the Bush Administration is so determined to hold Iraqi elections in January, no matter how unrealistic that might be? It’s because they want to get some kind of quasi-legitimate government set up, so they can get the hell out of that country.