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.

 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?

Depends on the definition of aid, I suppose.

If we just mean direct combat aid (such as supplying air cover, fighting personnel etc.) then the Cuban Revolution would qualify.
If we mean any action taken to weaken the government of the country undergoing a revolution, then I don't think so.

The armed forces of the Batista regime were weakened by an arms embargo imposed by the USA, cutting them off from replacement parts for their aircraft, among other things.
But the actual fighting was pretty much all done by the Cuban people. If the Batista regime had air power throughout the conflict then it might not have resulted in the victory of the revolutionaries as they would have been much more vulnerable when moving out of their main strongholds to capture the cities in the final days of the war, to say nothing of what effect increased aerial surveillance could have had.

 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?

The revolutionary war in the states almost qualifies - that war revolution succeeded a lot more due to weather than the french though.

It's not like aid should be ruled out. As in a fully armed populace to support a resistance is a good place to start when asking for help from foreign governments.

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

What interest would authoritarian states like Russia and China have in restoring a strong American Democracy?

They might smuggle in the sort of weapons that could prolong conflict, but not win.

Xenomancers 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?

The revolutionary war in the states almost qualifies - that war revolution succeeded a lot more due to weather than the french though.

It's not like aid should be ruled out. As in a fully armed populace to support a resistance is a good place to start when asking for help from foreign governments.

I have a hard time thinking of nations that would be interested in allying with an insurrection that could meaningfully resist the American military. Maybe some kind of British-French-German-Japan coalition?

I doubt it.

 feeder wrote:

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

What interest would authoritarian states like Russia and China have in restoring a strong American Democracy?

They might smuggle in the sort of weapons that could prolong conflict, but not win.

Xenomancers 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?

The revolutionary war in the states almost qualifies - that war revolution succeeded a lot more due to weather than the french though.

It's not like aid should be ruled out. As in a fully armed populace to support a resistance is a good place to start when asking for help from foreign governments.

I have a hard time thinking of nations that would be interested in allying with an insurrection that could meaningfully resist the American military. Maybe some kind of British-French-German-Japan coalition?

I doubt it.

I thought I was going to stay out of this, but here we go:

The government would have to keep the countries infrastructure intact, so they can't bring their biggest weapons to bear. You won't see bombing runs, or armored companies running down the streets of Philadelphia (not that I would complain about it at the current moment). None of this even accounts for a percentage of military personnel that will refuse orders to put down the rebellion. Our armed forces swear to uphold the constitution, not the government, so its entirely possible to have a massive schism within the military.

So yeah, its entirely possible that a second revolution would be won. If we will ever reach that point, only time will tell. Odds are it will involve the Bundys, though.

 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?

Yes.

The most notable one being the Battle of Athens in 1946.

The Dorr Rebellion in 1842 could be called a long term success even though it failed to enact change in the short term.

In a similar fashion the Battle of Blair Mountain in 1921 was a short term defeat of the United Mine Workers in West Virginia but highlighted the plight of the miners and laid the groundwork for union gains under the New Deal a decade later.

While the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s was successful there were numerous attempts at armed rebellion such as the Glenville Shootout in 1968 and incidents of armed/violent resistance like the 1969 Greensboro Uprising.

It's also notable that within a few years of winning our War for Independence the newly formed Federal government had to deal with Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts which played a large role in calling the constitutional convention to replace the Articles of Confederation and the Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania that directly challenged the newly formed Federal government's powers of taxation. The second amendment was proposed and ratified after the government had to put down Shays Rebellion and was kept unaltered after the Whiskey Rebellion was quelled. The governing politicians of the time didn't see an armed populace as a detriment or threat to the country even after thousands took up arms against the government.

The second amendment has always been about empowering the populace to be capable of self reliance and to curb government authority by enabling the people to push back if necessary. Our government isn't supposed to be scared of being overthrown by an armed populace they're supposed to be respectful of an armed populace because imposing too much governmental control over their lives can result in violence and bloodshed that would be damaging to the country.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:

 feeder wrote:

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

What interest would authoritarian states like Russia and China have in restoring a strong American Democracy?

They might smuggle in the sort of weapons that could prolong conflict, but not win.

Xenomancers 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?

The revolutionary war in the states almost qualifies - that war revolution succeeded a lot more due to weather than the french though.

It's not like aid should be ruled out. As in a fully armed populace to support a resistance is a good place to start when asking for help from foreign governments.

I have a hard time thinking of nations that would be interested in allying with an insurrection that could meaningfully resist the American military. Maybe some kind of British-French-German-Japan coalition?

I doubt it.

I thought I was going to stay out of this, but here we go:

The government would have to keep the countries infrastructure intact, so they can't bring their biggest weapons to bear. You won't see bombing runs, or armored companies running down the streets of Philadelphia (not that I would complain about it at the current moment). None of this even accounts for a percentage of military personnel that will refuse orders to put down the rebellion. Our armed forces swear to uphold the constitution, not the government, so its entirely possible to have a massive schism within the military.

So yeah, its entirely possible that a second revolution would be won. If we will ever reach that point, only time will tell. Odds are it will involve the Bundys, though.

I doubt it would involve the Bundys. Nobody of note wants to follow those fethwits anywhere and even the better organized III%er groups are incredibly cringeworthy once you really examine them.

I doubt we'll ever see another Civil War but if things ever got destabilized I would imagine it would be more along the Federal vs State divide. Something like Trump letting Sessions turn the DEA loose on states that legalized marijuana, shutting down dispensaries and arresting owners, investors and patrons and prosecuting them Federally. Or doing something similarly stupid with guns or public lands or shared state resources that gets the State authorities squaring off against each other with everyone else caught in the crossfire.

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.

And you assume that everybody would rally against the US government. I've heard enough talk of tyrannical policies that Fox News is advocating for. Why assume that this demographic of "patriots" will rise up against this tyrannical government instead of support it?

I assume that people who legally own guns are aware of WHY the 2nd Amendment exists. I also assume that there's no way they'd be able to keep any sort of human rights violation quiet in any way, shape, or form. Wiping out someone they didn't like is a direct violation of due process, and therefore would be an unlawful order. Speaking as a military person, NOBODY who takes their oath of service seriously would follow that order. So it's not assumptive to think that the government takes this into consideration, it's intuitive and logical. It's also logical that certain groups do INDEED want to revoke the 2nd, and lo and behold it's the same group that isn't shy about having personal liberties taken away.

 Just Tony wrote:
I assume that people who legally own guns are aware of WHY the 2nd Amendment exists. I also assume that there's no way they'd be able to keep any sort of human rights violation quiet in any way, shape, or form. Wiping out someone they didn't like is a direct violation of due process, and therefore would be an unlawful order. Speaking as a military person, NOBODY who takes their oath of service seriously would follow that order. So it's not assumptive to think that the government takes this into consideration, it's intuitive and logical. It's also logical that certain groups do INDEED want to revoke the 2nd, and lo and behold it's the same group that isn't shy about having personal liberties taken away.

These are some pretty bizarre arguments.

1.) The assumption that just because someone owns a gun means they understand why the 2nd amendment exist also means that by definition, no newspaper can defame someone, because by dint of owning a printing press, they understand how that fits into larger society.

2.) You appear to be arguing that no military person who follow an unlawful order? There are no shortage of examples of that in US history. I see you did preface it with a No True Scotsman, but doing so just makes it a meaningless argument.

So we should assume that every gun owner is ignorant and every service member is corrupt?


And should I be reading Urban Dictionary in my free time so I can keep up with the bizarre terms? It was inconvenient enough dealing with "Flanderization"...

 Just Tony wrote:
So we should assume that every gun owner is ignorant and every service member is corrupt?


And should I be reading Urban Dictionary in my free time so I can keep up with the bizarre terms? It was inconvenient enough dealing with "Flanderization"...

Just do what I do when I come across a term I'm unfamiliar with, like I just did with "flanderization." Take 2 seconds and google it.

No True Scotsman

 Just Tony wrote:
So we should assume that every gun owner is ignorant and every service member is corrupt?


And should I be reading Urban Dictionary in my free time so I can keep up with the bizarre terms? It was inconvenient enough dealing with "Flanderization"...

No, that would be just as bizarre in the exact opposite direction. If I go to the store and am supposed to buy oranges, and I forget, it would be a little silly for me to ask my wife if the only reasonable alternative would to have been for me to buy the entire stock of oranges.

The act of successfully filling out a 4473 doesn't magically make you an expert in constitutional law. It just proves you can read and don't have a record.

 Just Tony wrote:
I assume that people who legally own guns are aware of WHY the 2nd Amendment exists. I also assume that there's no way they'd be able to keep any sort of human rights violation quiet in any way, shape, or form. Wiping out someone they didn't like is a direct violation of due process, and therefore would be an unlawful order. Speaking as a military person, NOBODY who takes their oath of service seriously would follow that order.

The new President of the NRA is a former military officer who followed orders to sell weapons to Iran in direct violation of US law so the cash could be funneled to Nicaraguan narco-terrorists. Methinks we're being a wee bit generous in our expectations

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I assume that people who legally own guns are aware of WHY the 2nd Amendment exists. I also assume that there's no way they'd be able to keep any sort of human rights violation quiet in any way, shape, or form. Wiping out someone they didn't like is a direct violation of due process, and therefore would be an unlawful order. Speaking as a military person, NOBODY who takes their oath of service seriously would follow that order.

The new President of the NRA is a former military officer who followed orders to sell weapons to Iran in direct violation of US law so the cash could be funneled to Nicaraguan narco-terrorists. Methinks we're being a wee bit generous in our expectations

But he did it for a good cause! We can excuse a lot of unlawful orders as long as the other party is real donkey-caves. Or at least portrayed as such.

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

Haiti.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

The national guard is something different from the Militia. The states are responsible for choosing the officers of the Militia but they don't have to come from within the national guard. The presence of the national guard does not supplant the Militia or obsolete it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The armed forces of the Batista regime were weakened by an arms embargo imposed by the USA, cutting them off from replacement parts for their aircraft, among other things.
But the actual fighting was pretty much all done by the Cuban people. If the Batista regime had air power throughout the conflict then it might not have resulted in the victory of the revolutionaries as they would have been much more vulnerable when moving out of their main strongholds to capture the cities in the final days of the war, to say nothing of what effect increased aerial surveillance could have had.

The revolutionaries were directly supplied and supported by Soviet Russia. The revolutionaries may have done the fighting, but they did it with Soviet rifles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:
The government would have to keep the countries infrastructure intact, so they can't bring their biggest weapons to bear. You won't see bombing runs, or armored companies running down the streets of Philadelphia (not that I would complain about it at the current moment). None of this even accounts for a percentage of military personnel that will refuse orders to put down the rebellion. Our armed forces swear to uphold the constitution, not the government, so its entirely possible to have a massive schism within the military.

The Syrian conflict is worth examining in light of your post. The conflict there supports your point that it any conflict is likely to produce a schism in the military. The conflict there began when a significant portion of the military refused to support Assad's brutal repression.

However, the extraordinary devastation in Syria, such as Assad placing whole cities under general bombardment, shows that in a sufficiently serious civil war, there is no holding back. And that isn't just Syria, some of history's most brutal, destructive wars were civil wars. The Russian, Spanish and American Civil Wars were not noted for their restraint by military forces.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 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.

So you are saying the 2nd Amendment is pointless now that we have a standing volunteer army and the world's most powerful military?

 Dreadwinter wrote:

So you are saying the 2nd Amendment is pointless now that we have a standing volunteer army and the world's most powerful military?

No, because that military would be grossly outnumbered if even 10% of the US citizens took up arms against it. I seem to recall an exercise a few years back where the military's opponents was supposed to represent the local people and the National Guard fighting against them. I forget to be honest how it turne out, but the scandal that arose from it made it sound like it didn't end well for the army.

 sebster wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
The armed forces of the Batista regime were weakened by an arms embargo imposed by the USA, cutting them off from replacement parts for their aircraft, among other things.
But the actual fighting was pretty much all done by the Cuban people. If the Batista regime had air power throughout the conflict then it might not have resulted in the victory of the revolutionaries as they would have been much more vulnerable when moving out of their main strongholds to capture the cities in the final days of the war, to say nothing of what effect increased aerial surveillance could have had.

The revolutionaries were directly supplied and supported by Soviet Russia. The revolutionaries may have done the fighting, but they did it with Soviet rifles.

Only at the beginning for their initial departure from Mexico (most of which were lost after they were ambushed after landing). After that they acquired their weapons and ammunition from defeated Batista soldiers.

The USA did have a civil war and the government won.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA did have a civil war and the government won.

Using the Militia of course. That is where my belt buckle joke came from. A very common artifact from battlefields is the VMM buckle and cartridge box cover plate. Folks from Maine joined up in droves when they called up the Maine Militia.

Indeed. There were lots of militia on both sides.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA did have a civil war and the government won.

At the expense of poor starving Irish boys.

At the expense of lots of people.

However the important point is that the existence of a large, well-armed militia movement did not prevent the government from winning the war.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the expense of lots of people.

However the important point is that the existence of a large, well-armed militia movement did not prevent the government from winning the war.

Well that could be in part to the fact that the south had a smaller Militia pool to begin with. Militia is functional in a free state, but when large parts of the population is disarmed, like slaves.....

Or when large parts of the population don't support the troops/government. A good part of the reason why the communists won in China was because the Nationalists ah...sucked donkey balls....and were not worth fighting for.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

The national guard is something different from the Militia. The states are responsible for choosing the officers of the Militia but they don't have to come from within the national guard. The presence of the national guard does not supplant the Militia or obsolete it.

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the expense of lots of people.

However the important point is that the existence of a large, well-armed militia movement did not prevent the government from winning the war.

Thats incorrect but in the inverse. A majority of the forces fighting for the Light (aka union) at the start were actually state militias and formations. Thats one reason in the first year they were equipped with an array of weaponry, from rifles to rifled muskets, to old style smooth bore muskets. This is particularly true of early battles like Bull Run. It took a bit for them to start to standardize kit.

Its kind of like December - February 1941-1942 in the Pacific. Formations fighting the Japanese were more typically armed with Springfields and heavy machine guns and Tommy style helmets. Even at guadalcanal the First Marine Division was equipped with a melange of gear - 1930s weapons but newer helmets etc.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the expense of lots of people.

However the important point is that the existence of a large, well-armed militia movement did not prevent the government from winning the war.

I was simply making the point that the Union had a lot more expendable bodies to send into battle. The civil war was about who was willing to lose more men. Many died on all sides from all over the place. Today things would be much different. We appreciate life a lot more today. Look at Palestine. 50 People die in Gaza and the world reacts against it. Imagine how the world would react to hundreds of Americans dying in the same way - waving american flags and screaming about the core values of democracy...the war would be over before it even started.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 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.

The national guard is something different from the Militia. The states are responsible for choosing the officers of the Militia but they don't have to come from within the national guard. The presence of the national guard does not supplant the Militia or obsolete it.

I think you need to look up the law. . . the national guard is, per federal law the "organized militia" and you're quite simply wrong here.

National guard is quite literally a reserve army. Trained in the same way as regular army by the army.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
At the expense of lots of people.

However the important point is that the existence of a large, well-armed militia movement did not prevent the government from winning the war.

I was simply making the point that the Union had a lot more expendable bodies to send into battle. The civil war was about who was willing to lose more men. Many died on all sides from all over the place. Today things would be much different. We appreciate life a lot more today. Look at Palestine. 50 People die in Gaza and the world reacts against it. Imagine how the world would react to hundreds of Americans dying in the same way - waving american flags and screaming about the core values of democracy...the war would be over before it even started.

Really? Then why is the Syrian civil war still going?

So based solely on how this thread has derailed to all sorts of wierd topics, I am going to guess that the Santa Fe Shooting will lead to no new legislation on guns, school shootings, or anything really before the mid-terms.

People are too busy worrying about civil wars, the actual Civil War, revolution, etc. to worry about school shootings.