Is there any evidence that guns prevent tyranny?

[Dissonance]

@doorhinge

One of the Yamamato statements is “unsupported by other evidence”.

:rolleyes: In order for it to be unsupported by other evidence it sort of has to be supported by the first evidence. Of which there is none. Because it is an unsubstantiated claim. This can’t actually be that difficult of a concept to grasp.

@doorhinge

The Japanese 14th Army was formed to invade, conquer, and occupy the Philippines. The guerrillas, which included civilians, increased in number thru out the occupation. The guerrillas were not exclusively pre-surrender or escaped military.

How funny, I thought I said “Equally I hope you’re not going to say Philippine guerillas since they were based on the pre-war Philippine army and supplied and directed by the US during the war.” Hmm, hey look, I did. A little hint for you, you might want to look up the definitions of ‘based on’, ‘supplied’ and ‘directed’. Based on doesn’t mean exclusively formed from. By the way, your link doesn’t work, but you might note that “In all, some 260,715 guerrillas in 277 guerrilla units fought in the resistance movement as organized, armed, and tactically employed units" does not armed civilians make.

[doorhinge]

@Dissonance

:rolleyes: In order for it to be unsupported by other evidence it sort of has to be supported by the first evidence. Of which there is none. Because it is an unsubstantiated claim. This can’t actually be that difficult of a concept to grasp.

How funny, I thought I said “Equally I hope you’re not going to say Philippine guerillas since they were based on the pre-war Philippine army and supplied and directed by the US during the war.” Hmm, hey look, I did. A little hint for you, you might want to look up the definitions of ‘based on’, ‘supplied’ and ‘directed’. Based on doesn’t mean exclusively formed from. By the way, your link doesn’t work, but you might note that “In all, some 260,715 guerrillas in 277 guerrilla units fought in the resistance movement as organized, armed, and tactically employed units" does not armed civilians make.

The link still works just fine for me. You might try searching for the information below.

American involvement in the Filipino resitstance movement on Mindanao during the Japanese occupation, 1942-1945.
A thesis presented to the Faculty of the U.S Amy Command and General Staff College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Military Art and Science.
by
LARRY S. SCHMIDT, MAJOR, USMC
B.A. The Johns Hopkins University, 1966
M.A. The Johns Hopkins University
School of Advanced International Studies, 1970
Just in case you might be confused, these items would be considered “arms” under the 2nd’s “right to bear arms” (“arms” are not limited to muskets, ball, shot, powder, flints, shotguns, rifles, revolvers, or pistols) -
barong - a large two-handed sword of the Moros
kris ý Moro wavy-edged knife
paltik - homemade shotgun fashioned of pipe, wood, wire and a nail
suyoks - sharpened bamboo stick placed in ground for a trap

First there was an occupation followed by civilian resistance and unsurrendered military resistance. There were numerous pockets of resistance thru out the islands. Small groups joined to make larger groups and SOME of those groups had military leadership. Radio communication was lost with Allied command for months and yet the resistance fighting continued.

The civilians originally fought with the arms they owned. Rifles, knives, pistols, swords, and their bare hands. There were more civilians fighting the Japanese than military personel.

As far as your dictating what examples I may use, you’ll first have to explain how your own self-importance has any influence over me.

[EditorGina]

There are 300 million guns in the US, and we have the USA Patriot Act, NSA spying, and torture at Guantanamo.

I think that’s probably a strong enough argument that when tyranny arrives, it’s invited in for tea, and the gun owners, if they even recognize it as tyranny, sit on their hands because they’re actually terrified of government, rather than government being afraid of them.

[sweat209]

@Shalmanese

One of the beliefs commonly held by Americans who advocate for broader gun rights is that broad based gun ownership is an effective tool in resisting tyranny. Is there evidence to support this assertion?

It seems like China, Russia & Cambodia were all awash with guns when the respective tyrants took over.

I think 100 years ago or more so. Now the military is is like comparing Lion to small puppy.

A civil war is unlikely these days at least in first world countries.Any civil war in the US the army would be called in and nothing you can do.

The US right for guns will not stop tyranny what will is democracy.

[Sitnam]

@EditorGina

There are 300 million guns in the US, and we have the USA Patriot Act, NSA spying, and torture at Guantanamo.

I think that’s probably a strong enough argument that when tyranny arrives, it’s invited in for tea, and the gun owners, if they even recognize it as tyranny, sit on their hands because they’re actually terrified of government, rather than government being afraid of them.

I have been on the edge of my seat for these past two years waiting for the answer. Thank you, I can sleep well tonight.

[BrainGlutton]

@sweat209

IA civil war is unlikely these days at least in first world countries.Any civil war in the US the army would be called in and nothing you can do.

True – unless we ever reach a situation like Russia in 1917, with soldiers shooting or simply ignoring their own officers.

[HurricaneDitka]

@sweat209

A civil war is unlikely these days at least in first world countries.

I agree.

@sweat209

Any civil war in the US the army would be called in and nothing you can do.

Why do people think that the military would fall in lockstep behind the .gov if the .gov had done something so egregious to get some substantial number of citizens to start shooting at it? If something enrages people enough to get tens of thousand or millions to take up arms against their political leadership, I suspect a portion of the military will also join in on the side of the enraged citizens.

Also, I would argue that our history over the last decade or so has shown that the US Army does not actually possess some magical ability to handily defeat insurgencies or guerrilla actions at will.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

If you want to know how guns would affect tyranny, then I would suggest pointing to a few oppressed populations and ask yourself if arming them with AR-15s would change anything. I suspect the answer is yes, at least in some cases. But I don’t think we will ever need guns to overthrow tyranny in America and I don’t think most of these guys crying “FREEDOM!!!” would ever take up arms against tyranny as long as they were still getting ESPN.

I saw a TV show the other day where some dude was preparing for the federal government invasion of Alaska. He seemed dead serious and he was ready willing and able to take on the US military and go down in a blaze of glory. He lived in a city that was near Juneau Alaska so he thought that he might see tanks rolling down his street one day. The thing is Juneau is a city of 30,000 people and if you are using a city of 30,000 people as a reference to where YOUR city is then noone gives a shit about your city unless it has oil.

Virtually all the guys who would actually take up arms to fight tyranny live in places that tyranny has no interest in.

[PhillyGuy]

@rat_avatar

200+ years of peaceful transfers of power is evidence the balance of powers is working fairly well.

By my count, there have been 146 years of peaceful transfers of power, with the last violent one in 1865, or later if you count wars with native Americans.

Contrast with Canada, where the last violent transfer of power was in and around 1759, or Britain, where I’d say the last violent transfer of power was in 1688.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Virtually all the guys who would actually take up arms to fight tyranny live in places that tyranny has no interest in.

This is an interesting claim. In the eyes of the Branch Davidians, tyranny took an interest in them, despite living in a relatively isolated location. The same is true of Randy Weaver. I can’t readily think of a much more isolated, uninteresting, and out-of-the-way location than Ruby Ridge, Idaho, except perhaps “Justus Township” outside of Jordan, Montana, where the Montana Freemen lived.

I guess my point is this: if our current federal government, which most of us would think of as not particularly tyrannical, was willing to assemble a force of 200+ agents in Bunkerville, Nevada over unpaid grazing fees, what makes you think a more-tyrannical or coup-empowered one would shrink from using force for even more asinine reasons in even more obscure locations (assuming more obscure locations can even be found)?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@HurricaneDitka

This is an interesting claim. In the eyes of the Branch Davidians, tyranny took an interest in them, despite living in a relatively isolated location.

Yeah, that’s not tyranny.

The same is true of Randy Weaver.

This neither.

I can’t readily think of a much more isolated, uninteresting, and out-of-the-way location than Ruby Ridge, Idaho,

nor this

except perhaps “Justus Township” outside of Jordan, Montana, where the Montana Freemen lived.

Nor this

This was the state exercising police power to enforce laws passed by elected officials.

This is about as tyrannical as putting Wesley Snipes in jail for tax evasion or busting down a drug dealer’s door to arrest him.

I guess my point is this: if our current federal government, which most of us would think of as not particularly tyrannical, was willing to assemble a force of 200+ agents in Bunkerville, Nevada over unpaid grazing fees,

I’m really not sure what is tyrannical about that.

what makes you think a more-tyrannical or coup-empowered one would shrink from using force for even more asinine reasons in even more obscure locations (assuming more obscure locations can even be found)?

Because when tyranny comes, it won’t be interested in a few criminals living on the outskirts of civilization. Thats not called tyranny, thats called law enforcement (or at least its what we call it when they do it to black people)

[HurricaneDitka]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yeah, that’s not tyranny.

I know you don’t think it’s tyranny, that’s why I said, “in the eyes of …”. I’d also add that Timothy McVeigh thought it was tyranny.

@Damuri_Ajashi

Because when tyranny comes, it won’t be interested in a few criminals living on the outskirts of civilization.

I don’t think this is accurate either. Does North Korea say, “eh, forget it, they live way out in the sticks, so it’s not worth the trouble.”? Did the Nazis leave the Jews in the countryside alone because they lived in the countryside rather than in town?

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

I’d also add that Timothy McVeigh thought it was tyranny.

I think this is the first time I’ve heard ‘oh yeah?!? well TIM MCVEIGH agrees with me!!!’ as an argument! Does the Unabomber also agree with you? How about abortion doctor assassins?

[HurricaneDitka]

@iiandyiiii

I think this is the first time I’ve heard ‘oh yeah?!? well TIM MCVEIGH agrees with me!!!’ as an argument! Does the Unabomber also agree with you? How about abortion doctor assassins?

I wasn’t arguing “hey, he agrees with me, so I’m right”. I was pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that different people have different ideas of what tyranny is.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@HurricaneDitka

I know you don’t think it’s tyranny, that’s why I said, “in the eyes of …”. I’d also add that Timothy McVeigh thought it was tyranny.

I don’t think this is accurate either. Does North Korea say, “eh, forget it, they live way out in the sticks, so it’s not worth the trouble.”? Did the Nazis leave the Jews in the countryside alone because they lived in the countryside rather than in town?

@HurricaneDitka

I wasn’t arguing “hey, he agrees with me, so I’m right”. I was pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that different people have different ideas of what tyranny is.

I don’t think we should use a subjective definition of tyranny when we talk about second amendment rights. Tyranny, in the second amendment sense, does not exist in a functioning democracy. The second amendment is not there so that people can break the law and then resist arrest with deadly force.

When I see our democracy breaking down, I will take this talk of tyranny a bit more seriously.

[iiandyiiii]

@HurricaneDitka

I wasn’t arguing “hey, he agrees with me, so I’m right”. I was pointing out, perhaps too subtly, that different people have different ideas of what tyranny is.

Sure, but Tim McVeigh’s thoughts on it should be used as an example of how not to think.

[ExTank]

@PhillyGuy

By my count, there have been 146 years of peaceful transfers of power, with the last violent one in 1865, or later if you count wars with native Americans.

Contrast with Canada, where the last violent transfer of power was in and around 1759, or Britain, where I’d say the last violent transfer of power was in 1688.

Even during the Civil War, the U.S. Presidential Elections and Inaugurations took place as per usual by law in that time and place. The dispute wasn’t over the Presidency; it was over who was/was not going to be part of the U.S.A. any longer.

Even if the south had won, there was still going to be a U.S.A.; just considerably smaller than before. There would still have been a President, a Congress, and a Supreme Court.

None of the Indian Wars so much as threatened the presidency; at best, they had an impact on who was going to be president, not whether there was going to be one, or whether or not someone was going to impede the transfer of power through election and inauguration.

[IntelliQ]

Being armed is a decent deterrent. Not foolproof but better than lying down.

Doesnt matter how you phrases the question, in terms of one on one - or many more…basics are the same. Tyranny by one or many, who cares, it’s all the same.

If a cite need be requested I humbly request a live demo (on you) to illustrate the point. I’ll use rocks you get none.

[pfft2lind]

1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1929 The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938 Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million “educated” people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

But. . .we trust our government emphatically. That could never happen here!

[handsomeharry]

If you read about the Russian Revolution, you will find that the actual Bolsheviks had control of the guns/armories in, uh, whatever city the main action took place. Can’t remember-Moscow? Petrograd? Can’t even come close to remembering. Read the book about 4 years ago. However, the city council was controlled by the Bolshies; the history that I read pointed out that they had collected/confiscated all of the military’s rifles, in the name of 'freedom/the Revolution/something", but, were only distributing them to the Commies.
So, maybe gun freedom may not disable a tyrant, but, it can surely help establish one.

Amusingly, trading one tyrant for another, Castro helped overthrow an alleged tyrant (haven’t read up enough to comment on Batista). Where would Castro have been without guns?