Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

They restrict stuff like anti-tank revolvers because it's "needlessly powerful",

I want to see an 'anti tank revolver'.

Sorry for my hyperbole. I meant any stuff that's needlessly powerful for anything you're allowed to do with it. The only place an ordinary citizen can see, handle and shoot a Desert Eagle .50 is at a shooting club, for example. We're generally not allowed to hunt with handguns either so someone wanting a SW 500 or a 45-70 revolver had better be a collector. It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car. In short, if the only possible application is killing other people (either by being powerful or easy to conceal) we probably can't get a permit. You don't need a DE 50 for IPSC shooting competitions.

I also know I can easily fit a foldable-stock assault rifle under a long coat, but I'm not getting a permit for one.

Spetulhu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

They restrict stuff like anti-tank revolvers because it's "needlessly powerful",

I want to see an 'anti tank revolver'.

Sorry for my hyperbole. I meant any stuff that's needlessly powerful for anything you're allowed to do with it. The only place an ordinary citizen can see, handle and shoot a Desert Eagle .50 is at a shooting club, for example. We're generally not allowed to hunt with handguns either so someone wanting a SW 500 or a 45-70 revolver had better be a collector. It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car. In short, if the only possible application is killing other people (either by being powerful or easy to conceal) we probably can't get a permit. You don't need a DE 50 for IPSC shooting competitions.

I also know I can easily fit a foldable-stock assault rifle under a long coat, but I'm not getting a permit for one.

Which is just government steps to restrict the rights of the citizens.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was done so with the idea that citizens would have access to the same weaponry that the government had. Hence private citizens owning ships carrying cannons and the like. The "needlessly powerful" is just a way to get people thinking it's ok to restrict the rights.

Anything over .50 that isn’t black powder is classified as a “destructive device” and needs to be registered and stamped under the NFA, so we have that in the US too.

Spetulhu wrote:
It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car

Nope. Tried that once with a Trapdoor Springfield. Unless you hit the driver it will not disable an automobile reliably.. However, a 12 gauge loaded with an explosive slug does ok. A Willy Pete round in it does better though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
Anything over .50 that isn’t black powder is classified as a “destructive device” and needs to be registered and stamped under the NFA, so we have that in the US too.

Not quite correct: it has to be made before 1893 (IIRC) or of a type made before then. Meaning that yes, there are 75mm howitzers and machine guns that can be bought and sold without license legally. Regardless of propellant.

For example, there are late 1800's rifles that were made to fire explosive slugs. They hit like a 40mm grenade and are legal to own because Congress set an arbitrary date rather than any sort of examination of the actual weapons.

 djones520 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

They restrict stuff like anti-tank revolvers because it's "needlessly powerful",

I want to see an 'anti tank revolver'.

Sorry for my hyperbole. I meant any stuff that's needlessly powerful for anything you're allowed to do with it. The only place an ordinary citizen can see, handle and shoot a Desert Eagle .50 is at a shooting club, for example. We're generally not allowed to hunt with handguns either so someone wanting a SW 500 or a 45-70 revolver had better be a collector. It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car. In short, if the only possible application is killing other people (either by being powerful or easy to conceal) we probably can't get a permit. You don't need a DE 50 for IPSC shooting competitions.

I also know I can easily fit a foldable-stock assault rifle under a long coat, but I'm not getting a permit for one.

Which is just government steps to restrict the rights of the citizens.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was done so with the idea that citizens would have access to the same weaponry that the government had. Hence private citizens owning ships carrying cannons and the like. The "needlessly powerful" is just a way to get people thinking it's ok to restrict the rights.

This is bullgak. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is that it is there so the citizens can defend themselves against tyranny. So now you are telling me it is really there to protect against pirates and other countries in international waters?

How many private ships do you see with military weaponry out there?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

This is bullgak. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is that it is there so the citizens can defend themselves against tyranny. So now you are telling me it is really there to protect against pirates and other countries in international waters?

How many private ships do you see with military weaponry out there?

Actually they did do those things. A friend of mine actually had an armed vessel permit issued to him, so, one that I can think of. However, in fairness, it was for the Traveling Pirate Museum, so...

Technically any museum ship where the weaponry is maintained in a state of readiness would fall under this too, so any battleship museum would require one.

I always love the people who say they need guns to protect against a tyrranical government. A tyrranical government will just send a predator drone to take out their domestic terrorist group at one of their strategy sessions, aka little Timmy's backyard birthday BBQ.

Skaorn wrote:
I always love the people who say they need guns to protect against a tyrranical government. A tyrranical government will just send a predator drone to take out their domestic terrorist group at one of their strategy sessions, aka little Timmy's backyard birthday BBQ.

Neat concept. How many millions of drones do they have? Not millions? Shame, because one casualty inducing drone strike on US soil to eliminate a dissident would kick off any uprising that I think you're incapable of picturing. So unless you see fleets of Predators being produced wholesale and a massive drone pilot training program, this idea is about as far fetched as the FEMA death camp garbage from years prior.

Skaorn wrote:
I always love the people who say they need guns to protect against a tyrranical government. A tyrranical government will just send a predator drone to take out their domestic terrorist group at one of their strategy sessions, aka little Timmy's backyard birthday BBQ.

In the event of an actual civil war, the government would rapidly run out of ammunition for surgical strike weapons. These type of weapons also require knowing where the target is. The rebels wouldn't be announcing their HQ locations via facebook.

Plus the use of those weapons would rapidly turn anybody on the fence about which side to support over to the rebels. Just remember how much trouble the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are/have given to the US army. Now multiply that by a thousand.

There are about 2 million US service members, and another ~450,000 National guard. The population of the US is about 325 million. Subtracting the members of the armed forces from the population, that leaves 131 civilians per members of US armed forces. Keep in mind that a huge chunk of the US armed forces are NOT combat personnel, roughly 80%. Now most of them are combat trained, but their duties are involved in supporting the actual boots on the ground. If they get forced into combat the overall efficiency of the total army goes way down. So the reality is you'd have each combat soldier needing to police far more than 131 civilians. If we just go with the straight 80% of the US army are support positions, then you have a ratio of 1 Soldier per 663 civilians.

This of course does assume 100% of the US armed forces are 100% behind the government. In reality, some portions of the army would join the rebellion, as would National Guard units of the states which wholesale joined the Rebels. Bases in conservative areas and states would get occupied by rebel forces rather quickly.

Then the loyalist areas would run into another problem. Food. Most food production is located in conservative areas. The cities would get cut off rather quickly, leading to starvation, as our modern infrastructure has almost no food stored long term. Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego would quickly have millions of starving civilians living under martial law.

 Just Tony wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
I always love the people who say they need guns to protect against a tyrranical government. A tyrranical government will just send a predator drone to take out their domestic terrorist group at one of their strategy sessions, aka little Timmy's backyard birthday BBQ.

Neat concept. How many millions of drones do they have? Not millions? Shame, because one casualty inducing drone strike on US soil to eliminate a dissident would kick off any uprising that I think you're incapable of picturing. So unless you see fleets of Predators being produced wholesale and a massive drone pilot training program, this idea is about as far fetched as the FEMA death camp garbage from years prior.

About a far fetched as the fantasy that a "militia" of "patriots" can overthrow a democratically elected government, if said government does something these "militia" doesn't like?

 Grey Templar wrote:
In the event of an actual civil war, the government would rapidly run out of ammunition for surgical strike weapons. These type of weapons also require knowing where the target is. The rebels wouldn't be announcing their HQ locations via facebook.

There are only so many bird sanctuaries in the country, though.

These little discussions that weave into Red Dawn fantasies always remind me of an article that said it best.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

They restrict stuff like anti-tank revolvers because it's "needlessly powerful",

I want to see an 'anti tank revolver'.

Sorry for my hyperbole. I meant any stuff that's needlessly powerful for anything you're allowed to do with it. The only place an ordinary citizen can see, handle and shoot a Desert Eagle .50 is at a shooting club, for example. We're generally not allowed to hunt with handguns either so someone wanting a SW 500 or a 45-70 revolver had better be a collector. It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car. In short, if the only possible application is killing other people (either by being powerful or easy to conceal) we probably can't get a permit. You don't need a DE 50 for IPSC shooting competitions.

I also know I can easily fit a foldable-stock assault rifle under a long coat, but I'm not getting a permit for one.

Which is just government steps to restrict the rights of the citizens.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was done so with the idea that citizens would have access to the same weaponry that the government had. Hence private citizens owning ships carrying cannons and the like. The "needlessly powerful" is just a way to get people thinking it's ok to restrict the rights.

This is bullgak. The idea behind the 2nd Amendment is that it is there so the citizens can defend themselves against tyranny. So now you are telling me it is really there to protect against pirates and other countries in international waters?

How many private ships do you see with military weaponry out there?

Hate to break it to you, but when the country was founded the idea was that the citizens would be the primary defense of the nation not just because they couldn't afford a standing army but because standing armies lead to behaviors that were harmful to a free state. The 2nd Amendment is for defending the nation. Defending from Pirates, French Canadians, the Dutch, Giant robots, Godzilla, take your fething pick.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but when the country was founded the idea was that the citizens would be the primary defense of the nation not just because they couldn't afford a standing army but because standing armies lead to behaviors that were harmful to a free state. The 2nd Amendment is for defending the nation. Defending from Pirates, French Canadians, the Dutch, Giant robots, Godzilla, take your fething pick.

It was also a total reality that there were no elaborate funding apparatus for things like ships and other heavy implements of war. There were no Blackwaters, no KBR, no federal shipyards or anything of the sort at that point.

We've since moved beyond that world and should discuss the merits/demerits of the 2nd amendment, the way most other amendments have as well.

As somebody who experienced the LA riots within blocks of where I lived I'm really glad that my dad and several neighbors were armed at the time as it kept our block from going up in flames while the police and fire departments were completely overwhelmed and unable to respond to anything. You can be in a very urban area with a regular police force and still be left to fend completely for yourself.

A high capacity semi auto rifle is a wonderful visual deterrent that will cause people to reconsider things and back off just by it's presence. If things were to jump off and you need to actually fire you have the ability to deal with multiple threats which is much harder to with single shot rifles, shotguns or revolvers. People have the understanding that as a group they have a chance to rush somebody with a more limited firearm, but when confronted with a high capacity weapon they don't want to deal with that risk and will move on to easier pickings. Many anti gun protesters are quick to say that "you don't need many shots" to defend your home, family or business, which simply isn't true. While riots aren't a frequent thing if you are ever faced with one it's very reassuring to know that you have a weapon capable of being an asset when dealing with that type of situation or any other situation where you are dealing with more than one threat..

The 2nd amendment allows us to defend ourselves when the state or civil services fail to protect us, or are too slow to act, which has happened before and will continue to happen in the future. Our daily lives tend to be pretty conflict free and well organized but discord and mass violence can flare up anywhere and when it does the protection that we take for granted suddenly evaporates and you have have to protect yourself and your family. It's about preserving the ability to take personal responsibility for your own welfare.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
They may indeed, but their gun murder rate is not 30% of the US per capita rate.

Norway has 0.56 intentional homicides per 100,000 people. The United States has 4.88. The US rate per capita is more than 8 times Norway. But then Japan is 0.31, almost half of Norway's again.

While this doesn't prove the impact of gun proliferation on homicides, the countries you offered up do happen to track from most guns to least guns in the same order they track from most murders per capita to least murders per capita, so claiming it as evidence that guns have no impact seems pretty odd.

Instead it's down around Japans. Which bans guns. So,if it's not the number of guns...

Then the cause is something else.

You're missing some really obvious stuff. First, no-one is making the argument that guns alone drive the murder rate. Other factors, such a policing effectiveness, education levels and income equality also impact murder, as they impact overall crime rates.

The second factor you're missing is the nature and type of gun ownership. Norway has a lot of guns but these are almost entirely bolt action rifles and shotguns, due to the country's strong hunting culture. Pistols are mostly sporting pistols. What there are very few of are semi-auto pistols, which just happen to be the weapons used in most murders in the US. Funny that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
Neat concept. How many millions of drones do they have? Not millions? Shame, because one casualty inducing drone strike on US soil to eliminate a dissident would kick off any uprising that I think you're incapable of picturing. So unless you see fleets of Predators being produced wholesale and a massive drone pilot training program, this idea is about as far fetched as the FEMA death camp garbage from years prior.

Trash argument. You've invented a fantasy where the government attack is done without any greater context, such as a situation where civilians have already taken violent actions of their own.

In reality the drone strike would be taking place in an environment where there was already violence, and a resistance effective enough that federal government isn't confident of approaching the scene with conventional ground based forces. In that context the idea that a drone strike would be some enormous rallying call for resistors is nonsense, as it requires a very high level of resistance in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
In the event of an actual civil war, the government would rapidly run out of ammunition for surgical strike weapons. These type of weapons also require knowing where the target is.

Another trash argument. First up you've made an assumption that government would need precision weapons for every single resistance fighter, completely ignoring that such weapons don't need to kill every single person in the enemy organisation, but are used to dismantle the structure by taking out essential command personnel. You've also assumed that government can't locate key targets, despite witnessing a decade of US operations in the ME where they have been used to take out those exact kinds of targets.

These two awful arguments get at the core of a key fact about the pro-gun faction. Because these guys want their guns in order to be able to fight their government if needed, so you'd think they'd have a pretty good idea about how such fighting started and how it was won and lost. And yet they post argument like these latest two efforts, which are just silliness to be honest.

It's like if someone told you they went running every evening to build their fitness, because they want to be a professional tennis player. Fine. But if they go on to explain that fitness is a very important part of being ready to hit the fuzzy thing with the bat, then after explaining the fuzzy thing is called a ball and the bat is called a racquet, you would probably start to suspect that while it's good they go for a run and build their fitness, it pretty obviously has nothing to do with tennis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but when the country was founded the idea was that the citizens would be the primary defense of the nation not just because they couldn't afford a standing army but because standing armies lead to behaviors that were harmful to a free state. The 2nd Amendment is for defending the nation. Defending from Pirates, French Canadians, the Dutch, Giant robots, Godzilla, take your fething pick.

You might not have noticed, but despite all that talk the US now has a standing army. Quite a big one.

Obviously it’s part of a greater conflict, a conflict on such a scale that no army on earth could win without resorting to nuclear weapons. Precision weapons are pretty useless in a war like that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Obviously it’s part of a greater conflict, a conflict on such a scale that no army on earth could win without resorting to nuclear weapons. Precision weapons are pretty useless in a war like that.

That's not even close to being true. A resistance movement can be 1% of the population, 10%, or it can be 90%. And depending on the nature of the resistance org and the conflict it produces, it could have a ratio of 1 fighting man for every 10 supporters, or it could be 1 to 100. Then we need to consider if that resistance is locally concentrated or dispersed, each of which has strengths and acute weaknesses. And that movement could have very hierarchical structures, or it could be highly dispersed.

All of that impacts what operations can defeat that resistance movement, with most conflicts being likely resolved a long time before you reach the point of needing nukes to do it.

So I'll say it again, when people who want guns so they're ready in case they have to fight their government then start posting stuff like 'no army on earth could win without resorting to nuclear weapons', well while they might genuinely believe their guns are there to help them just in case, their remarkable lack of knowledge about how and why resistance movements are fought proves the real reason is nothing to do with being ready to fight a revolutionary war.

 Just Tony wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
I always love the people who say they need guns to protect against a tyrranical government. A tyrranical government will just send a predator drone to take out their domestic terrorist group at one of their strategy sessions, aka little Timmy's backyard birthday BBQ.

Neat concept. How many millions of drones do they have? Not millions? Shame, because one casualty inducing drone strike on US soil to eliminate a dissident would kick off any uprising that I think you're incapable of picturing. So unless you see fleets of Predators being produced wholesale and a massive drone pilot training program, this idea is about as far fetched as the FEMA death camp garbage from years prior.

LMFAO! You assume they'll tell you when the black hat is on. They'll just smear it all over the media that incompetent domestic terrorists accidentally blew themselves up and that authorities are looking into leads to other cells. People will ultimately believe it because it's a much more convenient story to believe as it doesn't require them to do anything. Really you only have to do that to the troublesome ones though, chances are they'll just round people up at night with strike teams in an APC. Hopefully you're armed to take one of those out, otherwise it's just one more dangerous terrorist contained. If you are armed like that, they'd probably just use the drone.

You assume that all outlets will report the lie. You assume that all gun owners who are armed explicitly in the potential defense of freedom will advertise. You also assume that the government can outrace social media. The only assumption I make is that the US government currently doesn't have NEARLY the infinite resources or manpower... sorry, personpower to deal with every armed citizen in the country rising up against it if it became tyrannical. You also assume every military person would follow an unlawful order, which is woefully wrong.

Skaorn wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Skaorn wrote:
I always love the people who say they need guns to protect against a tyrranical government. A tyrranical government will just send a predator drone to take out their domestic terrorist group at one of their strategy sessions, aka little Timmy's backyard birthday BBQ.

Neat concept. How many millions of drones do they have? Not millions? Shame, because one casualty inducing drone strike on US soil to eliminate a dissident would kick off any uprising that I think you're incapable of picturing. So unless you see fleets of Predators being produced wholesale and a massive drone pilot training program, this idea is about as far fetched as the FEMA death camp garbage from years prior.

LMFAO! You assume they'll tell you when the black hat is on. They'll just smear it all over the media that incompetent domestic terrorists accidentally blew themselves up and that authorities are looking into leads to other cells. People will ultimately believe it because it's a much more convenient story to believe as it doesn't require them to do anything. Really you only have to do that to the troublesome ones though, chances are they'll just round people up at night with strike teams in an APC. Hopefully you're armed to take one of those out, otherwise it's just one more dangerous terrorist contained. If you are armed like that, they'd probably just use the drone.

Yeah, "war on Terror". That's why some find the patriot act (and the surrounding security theater) to be less than patriotic.
But let us talk about the Militia for a moment. The Militia is a community level organization that is directed by the state. As such currently an extension of the States National guard, as the state gets to appoint the Militia officers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"I joined the Militia and all I got was this stupid belt buckle"
Joke for all you civil war fans

Spetulhu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

They restrict stuff like anti-tank revolvers because it's "needlessly powerful",

I want to see an 'anti tank revolver'.

Sorry for my hyperbole. I meant any stuff that's needlessly powerful for anything you're allowed to do with it. The only place an ordinary citizen can see, handle and shoot a Desert Eagle .50 is at a shooting club, for example. We're generally not allowed to hunt with handguns either so someone wanting a SW 500 or a 45-70 revolver had better be a collector. It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car. In short, if the only possible application is killing other people (either by being powerful or easy to conceal) we probably can't get a permit. You don't need a DE 50 for IPSC shooting competitions.

I also know I can easily fit a foldable-stock assault rifle under a long coat, but I'm not getting a permit for one.

Funny thing is - a .50 desert eagle puts out less muzzle energy than a 5.56mm (which is just a high velocity .22). These are not powerful weapons.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

They restrict stuff like anti-tank revolvers because it's "needlessly powerful",

I want to see an 'anti tank revolver'.

Sorry for my hyperbole. I meant any stuff that's needlessly powerful for anything you're allowed to do with it. The only place an ordinary citizen can see, handle and shoot a Desert Eagle .50 is at a shooting club, for example. We're generally not allowed to hunt with handguns either so someone wanting a SW 500 or a 45-70 revolver had better be a collector. It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car. In short, if the only possible application is killing other people (either by being powerful or easy to conceal) we probably can't get a permit. You don't need a DE 50 for IPSC shooting competitions.

I also know I can easily fit a foldable-stock assault rifle under a long coat, but I'm not getting a permit for one.

Funny thing is - a .50 desert eagle puts out less muzzle energy than a 5.56mm (which is just a high velocity .22). These are not powerful weapons.

Though transfer of that kinetic energy of a .50 AE vs. a 5,56x45mm into a target is usually more devastating thanks to the larger impact diameter, less overpenetration and usually more malleable bullet, if I'm not completely mistaken. Disregarding that "tumbling bullet" thingy that apparently happens in some 5,56x45mm rifles.
In the end, both large-bore handguns and the vast majority of rifles are very dangerous, with the difference that rifle caliber weapons have more hunting applications than large-bore handguns, I guess. I don't claim to be an expert.

 Just Tony wrote:
You assume that all outlets will report the lie. You assume that all gun owners who are armed explicitly in the potential defense of freedom will advertise. You also assume that the government can outrace social media. The only assumption I make is that the US government currently doesn't have NEARLY the infinite resources or manpower... sorry, personpower to deal with every armed citizen in the country rising up against it if it became tyrannical. You also assume every military person would follow an unlawful order, which is woefully wrong.

All the government needs to do to prevent such an uprising is maintain the outward appearance of democracy. As long as that facade is maintained, violent response will be viewed incredibly harshly. Hell, even Che Guevara said that you could only begin an armed revolution when any illusion of democracy was removed. Until that point you will have an incredibly hard time gathering support as people will still want to act within the democratic system. Like how Mugabe held onto power for decades without there being any armed revolution which deposed him.

And just have the police carry out the raids on the subversive elements. Many gun owners will fall in line to protect the cops as they had to shoot first so they could go back home to their families.

 Witzkatz wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

Spetulhu wrote:

They restrict stuff like anti-tank revolvers because it's "needlessly powerful",

I want to see an 'anti tank revolver'.

Sorry for my hyperbole. I meant any stuff that's needlessly powerful for anything you're allowed to do with it. The only place an ordinary citizen can see, handle and shoot a Desert Eagle .50 is at a shooting club, for example. We're generally not allowed to hunt with handguns either so someone wanting a SW 500 or a 45-70 revolver had better be a collector. It won't stop a tank but it might stop a car. In short, if the only possible application is killing other people (either by being powerful or easy to conceal) we probably can't get a permit. You don't need a DE 50 for IPSC shooting competitions.

I also know I can easily fit a foldable-stock assault rifle under a long coat, but I'm not getting a permit for one.

Funny thing is - a .50 desert eagle puts out less muzzle energy than a 5.56mm (which is just a high velocity .22). These are not powerful weapons.

Though transfer of that kinetic energy of a .50 AE vs. a 5,56x45mm into a target is usually more devastating thanks to the larger impact diameter, less overpenetration and usually more malleable bullet, if I'm not completely mistaken. Disregarding that "tumbling bullet" thingy that apparently happens in some 5,56x45mm rifles.
In the end, both large-bore handguns and the vast majority of rifles are very dangerous, with the difference that rifle caliber weapons have more hunting applications than large-bore handguns, I guess. I don't claim to be an expert.

I'm simply making this point.
Someone claimed that a .50 pistol is unnecessarily powerful. However - it's still weaker than what is considered to be a very weak rifle calbre. Penetration is typically considered a good thing for a round also (though it can mean less energy transferred to the target) it also means it it can penetrate body armor and other obstructions on the way to the target.

All this talk of armed insurrection against a tyrannical American government got me thinking. Has there ever been a successful citizen's uprising, without the aid of a foreign government?

What I find interesting about the fantasies of holding off the government is that more than likely the people that have them will be on the side of the government if things took a turn. The wistful dreaming seems based around some overt evil government when the reality will be far less obvious.

 feeder wrote:
All this talk of armed insurrection against a tyrannical American government got me thinking. Has there ever been a successful citizen's uprising, without the aid of a foreign government?

I can't think of any that were successful and didn't receive aid. There are plenty that would have succeeded with or without that aid.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:
As such currently an extension of the States National guard, as the state gets to appoint the Militia officers.

No. . . it IS the national guard.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All this talk of armed insurrection against a tyrannical American government got me thinking. Has there ever been a successful citizen's uprising, without the aid of a foreign government?

I can't think of any that were successful and didn't receive aid.

That's where I'm at. Can you imagine any other nation on earth willing to oppose the American government in event of an ACW 2?

There are plenty that would have succeeded with or without that aid.

I don't know about that. Perhaps the various popular revolts in the various banana republics?

 feeder wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 feeder wrote:
All this talk of armed insurrection against a tyrannical American government got me thinking. Has there ever been a successful citizen's uprising, without the aid of a foreign government?

I can't think of any that were successful and didn't receive aid.

That's where I'm at. Can you imagine any other nation on earth willing to oppose the American government in event of an ACW 2?

Well thats kinda the point of the 2nd amendment. That any future Civil war wouldn't need foreign aid. The purpose of the 2nd is that the citizens be armed to the extent that they can fight back. Plus the side benefits of defense against criminals and dangerous critters.

And yeah, I can think of several countries that would gladly smuggle in weaponry. Russia and China just to name two.