On removing government.

[Audley Strange]

Precisely.

[Jason]

the last case of government falling to armed insurrection we've had has been was the Orleans monarchy, after the 1848 riots...

Ignoring the fact that several governments have been toppled by armed insurrections since 1948

If you don't mind, I'd rather not ignore this fact. Would you list these governments you speak of detailing the years they were 'toppled', how the 'insurrection' in each was armed, what support they had (both internal and external), the balance of military power between these insurrectionists and the established government including a timeline detailing any influx of support for the insurrectionists or withdrawal of support for the government and so forth?

If you're trying to establish the validity of an armed citizenry as a deterrent to tyrannical, oppressive or otherwise untenable government I wish to see these examples whereby the armed citizenry by its own power of arms overturned the established government. Put simply, where it was done without foreign interference or aid.

[Hermit]

If you're trying to establish the validity of an armed citizenry as a deterrent to tyrannical, oppressive or otherwise untenable government...

That is not at all what I am trying to establish. On the contrary, I cited several countries where governments fell due to insurrections that were basically unarmed, and where regime change had occurred without any, or at least without significant armed confrontations, or even the threat of them. Please reread my previous post with that in mind.

[Seth]

That's all very well and good Seth, but of what import is a government ban on arms of any sort to a revolutionary? Or is it your contention that such bans are actually effective in preventing the import and distribution of arms on a large scale?

Of course they can be effective, particularly when combined with close border controls. East Germany is a prime example of how disarming the populace leaves them subject to predation by the government. In such cases the only hope for revolutionaries is foreign intervention and supply, such as in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. Otherwise, rebellion against tyranny becomes very difficult, very costly in human life, and is a prolonged guerrilla war rather than a decisive overthrow of a tyrant. Our own history demonstrates the cost in terms of human life and misery in overthrowing a tyrant who is better armed and equipped than the revolutionaries. Washington's army was naked and starving at Valley Forge while the British were well-supplied by ships from England.

In my experience, restrictions and prohibitions are ultimately ineffectual. Those who wish to arm themselves have little trouble doing so. The imposed legalities of a tyrannical government are justly dismissed Martin Luther King wrote "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws". What is a law prohibiting the populace living under brutal and tyrannical government from procuring the means to effect change if not unjust?

Yes, it is possible to rebel against tyranny even when poorly armed, but the whole point of having an armed populace is to prevent tyranny in the first place by keeping the ultimate power to determine who is in control of the nation firmly in the hands of the People, not the government.

It seems to me that many citizens of the United States of America are all too quick to tout their precious right to bear arms with little consideration given to the practicality of the course of action it would imply. Civil rebellion, or revolution as it comes to be called if successful or popular, on its own without the support of the military or the support of the military of one or more foreign nations is doomed to failure. They lack the training, leadership, materiel and resources of a standing army and would simply be cut down in swaths by the well trained, equipped and supplied forces of the government they are rebelling against.

Not really. First of all, the way our military is compartmented is specifically designed to limit the size of the domestic standing army that is under the direct control of the central federal government. Our military is primarily comprised of the organized militias of the several states (National Guard and State Guard forces) that are under the control of the Governor of the state, not the President or Congress. Our standing federal army is actually quite small compared to our population, something like 1.5 million soldiers. This is quite deliberate and is founded on the notion that neither a Governor of a state nor a military commander of a state or local militia unit is going to obey an order to march troops from one state to another to support tyrannical and unconstitutional actions at the order of the central government.

And you grossly underestimate the power and capabilities of the unorganized militia (the armed citizenry) by assuming that they would be doomed to failure without foreign military assistance. More than half the population of the United States is armed, as compared to a very small percentage of, say, Polish Jews during WWII. And yet the Polish Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto managed to hold off the might of the Nazis for quite a long time. Ultimately they lost, but you must keep in mind that they were very poorly armed to begin with and were surrounded by the Nazis. That is not the case in the United States, where armed citizens vastly outnumber the standing army that is at the command of the President. You may choose to believe that an armed citizenry is ineffective, but history proves you to be incorrect in that assessment.

You also ignore the fact that unlike many armies that pledge their allegiance to the person in charge, our military pledges its allegiance to the Constitution and to the People of the United States, not to the President or Congress, and it is highly unlikely that our federal military commanders would obey unlawful and unconstitutional orders to repress and attack American citizens within our borders at the orders of a despot or tyrant. Without clear constitutional authority to act against Americans militarily, our soldiers, from the top down, have full authority to refuse to go to war with the citizenry.

It's a comforting security blanket, but the notion that an armed citizenry is in anyway a guard against despotism and tyranny was outdated over one hundred years ago.

Hardly. Remember, it takes only one armed and dedicated patriot willing to die for his country to remove a tyrant, much less 150 million of them. We've lost a number of Commanders in Chief that way already.

The danger posed to tyrants by an armed citizenry is so grave that the first thing any tyrant tries to do is disarm the citizenry. That attempt is in fact one of the primary indicators of a despot and a tyrant; the attempt to control and remove effective military arms from the hands of citizens. It's a hallmark of tyrants and therefore makes them very easy to identify, which in turns makes them easier to remove from power quickly.

But I don't mind at all that you underestimate the power of an armed citizenry, because that's, as Sun Tsu says, is a fatal mistake.

[Seth]

That's one of the ideas behind people having their own stuff, yes.

I am aware of the American constitution but it was written in a different era. The thought of American citizenry taking up arms to overthrow their government in this day and age is simply ludicrous.

It is to slaves, but then that's not at all surprising. Most slaves cannot even imagine their own liberty, much less imagine taking it for themselves by force against their masters, as your argument so amply demonstrates.

To free men however, the thought of not being prepared to defend their own liberty is simply ludicrous. I know what the trigger for armed rebellion is for me. It's a very simple and clear line that once crossed by the government will set me against it with deadly force, and I'm fully prepared to go to war against tyranny and despotism should it be necessary to do so, and to die as a patriot if that is what's required. And I'm hardly alone.

[Seth]

I think so unlikely as to be off the scale. And I don't buy Seth's view that an armed citizenry makes it more likely or more successful. The French, as a good example, have often taken to the streets and essentially overthrown their governments as you know. The British are also, despite an everyday sort of conformity and very anti-authority at their core and an uprising of the sort we are talking about are at least as likely in either country as in America...which is of course to say very unlikely as things stand.

No it's not. The Brits are all slaves and cowards and will never rise up against their masters. They will whine and complain, but ultimately they will tug their forelocks and bend a knee to whomever has the power to lord it over them. That's how they've been raised for thousands of years, and they have neither the tools nor the will to rise up and kill their oppressors because it's been bred out of them over hundreds of generations. Every Brit capable of insurrection has already left England and come to the United States more than 200 years ago.

[Seth]

Also, the question I was dealing with, viz : Rum's reaction to Seth's conceit that an armed citizenship can seriously contribute to the removal of obnoxious governing bodies or people, specifically excludes the cases of government removal by peaceful protest.
Not that such an event is impossible, but it is not the side of the question we're talking about at the moment.

Which is why I have raised it. It's a useful consideration in light of Seth's views in regard to the right to bear arms as a necessary prerequisite to bring down governments by its own peoples.

I never said it was a prerequisite to making a change in government, I said it was an essential bar against tyranny and the ultimate recourse for the citizenry when all peaceful attempts have failed.

This is not to say that there are not peaceful means which may be successful in redressing grievances and removing tyrants, but in the end, when a tyrant refuses to cede power and bend to the will of the people the ultimate form of redress is armed insurrection, and armed insurrection is much, much easier and effective when the citizenry wishing to rebel against a tyrant is armed.

I'd think it's hard to disagree with that fact, which is one of the primary considerations of the Founders in creating the Second Amendment.

[Hermit]

That's all very well and good Seth, but of what import is a government ban on arms of any sort to a revolutionary? Or is it your contention that such bans are actually effective in preventing the import and distribution of arms on a large scale?

Of course they can be effective, particularly when combined with close border controls. East Germany is a prime example of how disarming the populace leaves them subject to predation by the government.

East Germany is also one of several examples of the populace ridding itself of a government without the use of a militia, or even the threat of one.

I must say, you are quite entertaining when you hop on one of your hobby horses, Seth. There's always a lot of colour and movement when you do. Pity there's nothing else much of the time.

[Seth]

That's all very well and good Seth, but of what import is a government ban on arms of any sort to a revolutionary? Or is it your contention that such bans are actually effective in preventing the import and distribution of arms on a large scale?

Of course they can be effective, particularly when combined with close border controls. East Germany is a prime example of how disarming the populace leaves them subject to predation by the government.

East Germany is also one of several examples of the populace ridding itself of a government without the use of a militia, or even the threat of one.

I must say, you are quite entertaining when you hop on one of your hobby horses, Seth. There's always a lot of colour and movement when you do. Pity there's nothing else much of the time.

Wrong again. East Germany was freed by the direct military intervention and protection by the United States and NATO forces, which kept the Soviet Union at bay for all those years, maintained an uneasy peace, and eventually drove the communists into the ground through superior military force and economic power. Without the decades-long presence of US forces in Germany and our nuclear deterrent threat, East Germany would still be behind the wall, along with the rest of the Soviet vassal states, and probably the rest of Europe including the UK. You're welcome, by the way.

And since many of the US soldiers deployed in West Germany and elsewhere were members of the various militia (National Guard) units of the United States, it was precisely militia preparedness and action that lead directly to the freedom of East Germany.

It was Ronald Reagan who stood at the Brandenburg Gate and said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall," a statement, backed by US military and economic might, that triggered the peaceful, military-protected surrender of East Germany's totalitarian government.

But while it endured, it was a prime example of how effective disarming the populace, which was part of the post-war surrender by the Nazis, worked for the Soviet Union there and everywhere else its hegemony was in power.

Had the Germans not been forcibly disarmed by Hitler and by the Allies due to their own belligerence, they would have fought the Communists and likely kept them out of Berlin and the rest of Germany. As it was, the Soviets walked right in and took over where Hitler left off, and nobody said a thing because Germany deserved to be humbled.

Turned out to be a very bad idea for the US to ally with the Soviets, and it cost a lot of money and blood to defeat them in the end, but politics makes strange bedfellows, none more strange than the Communist sympathizing in the US prior to WWII.

Joseph McCarthy was right, and he is and will remain an unsung hero of the United States for his staunch defense of freedom and his tenacious opposition to Communist spies, infiltrators and fellow-travelers in the US in the 50's.

Sadly, the Communist threat is even greater today than it was, with a Communist sympathizer if not outright Marxist inhabiting the White House, and a Congress filled with Marxist sympathizers and Quislings.

[Robert_S]

Commies? Who wants the means of production turned over to the proles or their political representatives?

No, what's happening is just the same old corruption that happens in a capitalist or mixed economy.

What I fear is that a military coup will someday be demanded by the people who are so horribly offended by the idea that the bubble up method of spurring the economy works better than the trickle down.

[amused]

[Audley Strange]

Sadly, the Communist threat is even greater today than it was...

You know that sounds preposterous, but I agree with you on this part. Yes the threat is greater, mostly because of the actions of plutocrats who have so corrupted the normal political process that the only viable alternative brand to capitalism is going to rear it's ugly head along with some pernicious alternatives.

Capitalism in action = sour grapes from the masses = collectivisation.

That's why it's called revolution, it's just a fucking wheel that goes round and round and round.

[Hermit]

That's all very well and good Seth, but of what import is a government ban on arms of any sort to a revolutionary? Or is it your contention that such bans are actually effective in preventing the import and distribution of arms on a large scale?

Of course they can be effective, particularly when combined with close border controls. East Germany is a prime example of how disarming the populace leaves them subject to predation by the government.

East Germany is also one of several examples of the populace ridding itself of a government without the use of a militia, or even the threat of one.

I must say, you are quite entertaining when you hop on one of your hobby horses, Seth. There's always a lot of colour and movement when you do. Pity there's nothing else much of the time.

Wrong again. East Germany was freed by the direct military intervention and protection by the United States and NATO forces, which kept the Soviet Union at bay [Snip]

Read again. Slowly: "East Germany is also one of several examples of the populace ridding itself of a government without the use of a militia, or even the threat of one." So: No armed insurrection. No militia.

As for US and NATO forces keeping the Soviet Union at bay for all those years, you've got to be joking. The Eastern Block was controlled by the Soviets for decades. It's peoples rid itself of their control country by country through popular and peaceful insurrections. No militias played a role.

[amused]

Fucking christ in the ass, why do we even give these gun nuts and their 'armed citizens aren't sheeples' stupidity anything except a good beating around the kidneys until they piss blood? True, that wouldn't be entirely civilized, but maybe animals should be treated as such?

[MrJonno]

There is absolutely nothing more doomed to failure than civilians thinking they can overthrow the military via armed conflict. Absolutely guaranteed way of being completely slaughtered by a professional army. Now unarmed protest may also be costly and fail but there is at least there is a chance it might cause the army to join you.

If you are shooting at your military they arent going to care about the wrongs and rights of the regime they are just going to kill everyone.

You only have to look at the recent revolutions in Egypt (army support), Tunisia (army support), Libya (partial army support + NATO airforce) compared to Syria (little army support and a complete slaughter).

Your 3 main options in an oppresive regime are

a) adapt and try to survive (most common solution)
b) emmigrate
c) stand in front of a tank and hope the driver doesnt run over you