What's new
By:

Texas school shooting

One Brow said:
With no outside help?

The original (sarcastic) post:
Because tyrants habitually get overthrown by private citizens with guns. And get replaced by wonderful, benevolent, freedom-loving dudes.

What are the examples of tyrants being overthrown by private citizens with guns?
Click to expand...

I don't care about anything Dutch says. But as an aside, I can understand the mentality of resistance against tyranny with the purpose of retaking the country. And I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.
 
Siro said:
I don't care about anything Dutch says. But as an aside, I can understand the mentality of resistance against tyranny with the purpose of retaking the country. And I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

Nor would it be such a cut and dry situation. Especially here.
 
One Brow said:
If the initial goal was "effective guerilla war" instead of "overthrow tyrant", I would have agreed with DutchJazzer's post.
Click to expand...
to defend against enemies. so they effectively defended themselves. for example in venezuela you really dont have rebels they have been nuetered to think they cant fight back. trust me from my own history living in a military dictatorship i have seen what guns do! without guns i might not have bene here today some government thug would have gunned me down.
 


some hate speech coming from a minority. if i get banned for this the mods are racist. wont suprise me if i get banned! becuase youtube demonotized it
 
Siro said:
But as an aside, I can understand the mentality of resistance against tyranny with the purpose of retaking the country. And I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility.
Click to expand...

Couple of things here.

First, we gotta differentiate between military occupation by a foreign force and brutal dictatorship. I was talking about the second one. It's one thing for a guerrilla to exhaust the will of a foreign country to occupy your country and quite another to overthrow a tyrant who can't just "go home" and forget about it. These are two very different situations. Tyrants generally don't go easily, and that difficulty seems to increase the longer they've been in power and the more people they've killed or imprisoned.

Second, modern tyrants not only tend to command the loyalty of the security apparatus, but generally have also gotten the power through that loyalty. Just about any coup you can think of in the past 30-40 years has been accomplished either by the army, or by someone who had strong support of the army. Likewise, situations where tyrants have been brought down generally divide into two categories. Most common one is that they lose the loyalty of the security apparatus who then brings them down and sometimes actually turns the country over to a democratically elected civilians. The other one, which seems to happen more in places like Eastern Europe, is that mass protests lead to undemocratic governments falling.

What does not happen is armed private citizens banding together and then using their handguns to somehow defeat the security apparatus and restore/introduce democracy. That's actually ludicrous to even consider. Look around the world. Assad has an army. It may not be much of an army, but they have tanks, they have officers, they have weapons that in no country in the world are available to private citizens. The only reason the opposition has been able to do as much as they have(though they're still going to get crushed and lose and all of this will have been in vain) is because they've gotten weapons from the outside and because they have managed to seize some of Assad's arsenal through defections of the Sunni Arab part of the security apparatus. You can't take cities with handguns and hunting rifles and you certainly can't defend them with handguns and hunting rifles.

Personal arms will not help you if you can't either get a foreign country involved or the army and the police to come to your side. And they can't help you make those two happen, either. It's just a red herring, really, the whole argument that you having a gun is some kind of a bulwark against tyranny. It ignores the cold, hard reality of the modern world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
also overthrowing a tyrant in a 3rd world country is easy as pie.

the problem is the people have no idea of what liberty is. no idea about 3 brnaches of government. so then you yourself become a dictator. they need a strong man.

so guns are not just the deterrent, but also the lifestyle about liberty. liberty meaning you have freedom of speech. right to arm yoruself. speedy trial, innocent until proven guilty,. these left wing socialist countries have been eating away at this idea.

is it worth it to voerthrow a govenrment in venezuela? maybe maybe not. i know lots of venezuelans,. some just think there needs to be another government but same system. others believe the whole diseased system is wrong. so maybe if someone gets to shoot maduro, nothing would change. but maybe some smaller towns and city can claim independence. 1 town introduced its won currency. but didnt go far enough.

i hope you kinda understand what i am trying to say about this.

in a way the minority who has the knowledge of guns and overthrowing tyrany wont bother, because the country will remain a ********. so you protect yoruself. but if a large portion of the population beleives in ideals of a republic with inalienable rights. it might be worth it risking your live to completly overthrow tyrany! basically you have to be slefish in the instance if the masses are ignorant of the principles of liberty
 
ar15-21.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top