ElvisL1ves, quit threadshitting. Dropping one-liners that say no more than “nuh uh” into the discussion is not a valid debate technique. You have established that you do not believe any action would legitimately inspire or justify armed revolt. Fine. We have seen your position. If you cannot support it with logic and evidence, then refrain from popping into the thread for no reason other than to repeat your denial.
[ /Moderating ]
Part of the current violent extremist threat in the US is the direct action anarchists. They aren’t exactly a fan of the government having the power it requires to regulate firearms. It’s more a trash the entire constitution position than a position on a specific amendment.
They’ve been involved with the Occupy movement and Black Lives Matter.
Now, it has to be understood that while it is often provided as a reason for blah blah don’t take are guns ; it’s a demonstrably false premise. To whit : the Whisky Rebellion. Not only was The Government more than happy to quash self-appointed militias fighting against a tyrannical government ; George Washfuckington hisself curbstomped them, to the applaud of all at the time. Do bear in mind, the Whisky-ers were taking up arms on exactly the same grounds the Founding Fathers themselves ostensibly did, i.e. “the taxes are too damn high and we don’t have enough representation to fight it out in Parliament”* ; while the Founding Fathers were put in the exact same role as the British monarchy, i.e. saddled with debt incurred during a war fought to defend the interests of a passel of ungrateful sonsabitches, and out of further/quicker options to raise capital.
So the next time some joker mouthes off that they need guns to prevent an overtaking of the freedom-loving US by some self-important, violent jackbooted thugs ; enlighten them : it’s already happened. OMG it’s been happening all along ! :eek:
The hell are you talking about, Willis ? Care to cite some ?
That’s a bit of an exaggeration. The truth, as usual, is a lot more muddled.
The excise on spirits was not a mere inconvenience; in the western counties whiskey was widely bartered in lieu of money, of which there was an extreme shortage. In effect, the federal government was taxing their money- AND demanding payment in hard gold or silver, from the people least likely to have any, in order that the merchants of the coastal cities wouldn’t be cut off from foreign trade.
The rebellion began as tax resistance, with federal agents sent to collect the tax being either captured or driven off. A considerable amount of negotiation took place, with a local referendum narrowly approving peaceful arbitration. However, given the volatility of the situation, some confrontations did result in the exchange of gunfire and some deaths
Determined that a show of force would help ensure that the negotiations went favorably, Washington and Hamilton led a militia force into western Pennsylvania. Insufficient numbers voluntarily answered the call to muster; a draft had to be put in place, which caused further riots and resistance. It never came to a pitched battle between Washington’s forces and the rebels; the rebels scattered rather than face a large organized force. Only about 25 people were accused of treason under federal law, only two were convicted and both of those were pardoned by Washington himself. Other rebels were convicted under civil law for various criminal offenses such as arson.
Although technically a victory for the federal government, it was hardly a curb-stomp battle. As a practical matter, collecting excise taxes in the western counties remained extremely difficult. And the reluctance of the population to help suppress rebellion proved a strong check on a federal government that at the time had little independent armed force. Moreover, over the long term the rebellion put paid to a hard-line position the Federalists had held: that since the Federal government was duly elected by the agreed upon procedures, the people supposedly then had NO right to protest its actions, outside of voting differently in the next election. The freedom of assembly and right to petition were upheld, and in return the populace accepted that political action within the system was more likely to produce favorable results than rebellion. As a last note, the whiskey tax was repealed when the Federalists were voted out of office in 1801.
In fact, both then and after a characteristically American pattern has emerged with regard to armed insurrection: the government insists that law and order be restored- but THEN it takes the hint that it better address the grievances that caused the uprising in the first place. Unlike most governments that have ever existed, whose response to uprising has traditionally been “Hang the dogs!” And that may well indeed be because an armed populace’s discontent has to be taken more seriously than an unarmed one.
So, pretty much like the American Revolution, then ? 'cause despite the hullaballooh, the British never really collected those “intolerable” taxes on tea or enforced them stamps wot it had acted. And the Boston Massacre was 1) not deliberate and 2) not, in fact, a massacre.
However… 
Compare and contrast with the Bundy thing(s), where the Fed. government makes not move at all to restore order, then does nothing much to change things 
The two examples I gave actually happened. And have been ignored for some odd reason, maybe because a) they actually happened and b) had armed resistance taken place things may have been much different* and probably a lot better.
I am not sure how much more linked to reality you can get.
Slee
*I don’t know if the likelihood of armed resistance working was high, but sometimes fighting a fight you don’t expect to win is the right thing to do.
If everyone “did the right thing” only when it was convenient, it would be called “doing the convenient thing”.
They’ve been ignored because, well, they didn’t end well. The Warsaw Ghetto uprising for example was a heroic, admirable, spirited act of resistance… and also a bloodbath that barely inconvenience the Nazis, inasmuch as they were already thoroughly fucked at the time but hey, while Stalin waited for the last Jew to get killed at least he wasn’t shelling them any more !
Turns out that minorities with guns are still minorities - outnumbered and out-gunned by definition. So, bit of a downer, that.
Even more outgunned than before, in fact - since a theoretically higher gun ownership among Jews in Nazi Germany would have to also mean higher gun ownership among an antisemitic general populace.
True, but if it comes to it, guns allow a beleaguered minority to put a higher price on their lives. Sometimes a higher price than a majority is willing to pay. The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. ascribed his very survival to the fact that the people he stayed with were heavily armed, and the whites who would have lynched him knew it.
Can you list 10 examples for us?
Galactic Republic?