We know that nearly all tyrannies start with disarming ordinary citizens...

>American Revolution=Freedom
LMAO

...

Unironically this

Waco, TX

Anti-American communist spotted

>Wahhhhh we lost the election that we agreed too

Bunch of idiots, Lincoln would almost certainly have not ended slavery. Ironically, he ended up instilling tyranny via rescinding habeas corpus, which wouldn't have happened otherwise.

The American Revolution started when britcucks tried to bin our guns at Lexington and concord

>We know that nearly all tyrannies start with disarming ordinary citizens
Is that a fact or just a conjecture based on popular opinion/ideology?

>are there any historical examples of an oppressive government succeeding in subjugating an armed populace
History of China? History of Roman Empire? History of World?

>We rich white oligarchs don't want to pay taxes.
"Freedom"

>We know that nearly all tyrannies start with disarming ordinary citizens
On the contrary: the People's Republic of China started by arming the fucking countryside because its OG army was too small so that National Defense relied on the logic of "the People's War" so the PLA gave counties small armories so peasants can arm up when the big bad capitalists return.

Turns out popular support can launch tyrannies. Who knew.

You can't say "nearly all" and then give me one shoddy example faggot.

OP irrevocably BTFO

Taxation is theft

>government has tanks, artillery, helicopters, jets, bombers, drones, satellites and professional soldiers
But yeah, the only thing stopping them from getting your freedoms is some rednecks with guns. Better let your children be shot in the heads in school than to give that "security" away.

>>government has tanks, artillery, helicopters, jets, bombers, drones, satellites and professional soldiers

>I only fight battles if I know I can win.

Spoken like someone who believes in nothing.

>(((white)))

>We know that nearly all tyrannies start with disarming the ordinary citizens
>People actually believe this

Which requires an operator which said operators love the second amendment.
I'd post the war book I read about armies straight up deserting because they were asked to kill civilians but I'll refer you to America

Makes the second amendment redundant then, innit?

The US army would NEVER kill civilians
*launches the two largest civilian-target attacks in history and celebrates it for decades afterwards*

That is in fact what happens, user.

If it is then so is rent.

yeah because youre gonna occupy a city with jets

just buy your own house nobody forces you live there

>government has tanks, artillery, helicopters, jets, bombers, drones, satellites and professional soldiers
Which will barely help against a guerrilla militia attacking them

>Better let your children be shot in the heads in school than to give that "security" away.
Statistically gun control hasn't reduced homicides anywhere.

ahem

Rent isn't theft because you are paying to use somebody else's property

Taxation is theft because you pay for existing

>armies straight up deserting
Not all armies you imbecile, The ones who didn't desert killed alot of unarmed civilians and tended to avoid the armed ones.

>what is guerrilla warfare

Too bad that's all it will ever be. COIN doctrine has advanced since the times of Vietnam and even further increased due to Iraq and Afghanistan. Small pockets of resistance isn't going to topple a powerful military in their own territory.

Idiots who don't know how warfare works thinks that we'll stand out on an open field while the enemy runs us over with tanks.

>Vietcong was destroyed in the Tet Offensive.
>War was won by Viets because ultimately Ameri56% couldn't touch North Vietnam without setting of Korean War 2.0, SEAsian edition.

Meanwhile in an Amerinigger civil war those guerillas will be hunted down in the country's own territory.

>tanks
neutered by correct tactics
>artillery
neutered by correct tactics
>helicopters
neutered by correct tactics
>bombers
neutered by correct tactics
>drones
neutered by putting on a burkha, apparentlywired.com/2013/01/anti-drone-camouflage-apparel/
>professional soldiers
like 75% of them aren't even in combat roles

>COIN doctrine
US doctrine right now focusses mostly on IED's and facing numerically inferior opponents, not a numerically superior enemy on their home turf which relies on firearms to inflict damage.

Bashar al-Assad

Not to mention that overseas terrorists can do very little to damage the USA at home, whereas a rebel militia within United States territory could easily cause tremendous amounts of damage to USA infrastructure and military bases. Heck, there's a National Guard base near where I live, with several helicopters and dozens of trucks, and less than a dozen people to guard them.

>American revolution started in 1776
I don't have any brainlet pictures on my phone, so just use your imagination.

>successfully
The Syrian government is currently fighting Kurds, ISIS, and Syrian Rebels.

They just traded one tyranny for another though.

See the siege of Aleppo. Jets are pretty fucking useful.

Why are Americans willing to throw out all other liberties as long as they get to keep their guns? Why is that one the most important?

It's the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.

SHALL

Guerrilla insurgencies can be stopped dead by emptying out the countryside of civilians who are put in concentration camps, while all their crops are burned and livestock slaughtered.

That's how America won the war in the Philippines, despite an extremely extensive insurgency, unfortunately though 200,000 civilians died as a result from starvation and disease in the camps. But hey, it was their fault for being born in the Philippines right?

Its victory is all but certain.

Except the USA would be killing their own citizens and massively increasing the size of the guerrilla force, as well as causing a huge schism and desertion within the military (assuming one hasn't already happened yet)

There’s more guns than people in America
Any semblance of government attempting to take them would require a bloodbath that would make ww2 look tame

But Americans are willing to establish a police state that bans everything but guns.

Because some Americans harbor fantasies of fighting in a new civil war so that they can murder their neighbors who have different political beliefs. Without guns that fantasy is crushed.

Everyone in America hates everyone else and keeps guns nearby in case the other people try to rob them so they can kill them

I wouldn't be so sure, the Kurds have taken a lot of territory since they first began and they're not short on troops, the Syrians still have to deal with the remains of ISIS, the Free Syrian Army, and Al Nusra, and by the time they can coordinate their efforts against Rojava alone they'll be quite weak.

And if Americans begin to find this intolerable and the government won't listen to us then we can use those guns to rebel. But you can't rebel if you don't have guns.

Russian Revolution, Also, the Soviet crushing of Eastern Europe after WWII.

what I can't understand is why the hell we can't have both

There's plenty of precedent for the us murdering it's own citizens.

Yes, and it hasn't been viewed positively. If they started doing it deliberately on a massive scale as you suggest it would quickly lead to the toppling of their own support.

Unlikely, at the end of the day most people aren't willing to openly break the law, especially over outlawing a hobby. I'm sure many would choose to hide their weapons instead of handing them over, but murdering soldiers and blowing up buildings over this? I just don't see it.

>the Kurds
Did you not notice how decisively and easily they were kicked out of Mosul? A decade of political and military gains reversed in one day.

It doesn't matter anyways, the majority of cops aren't be willing to enforce a confiscation anyways. Without anyone willing to take the guns it doesn't matter what laws the government passes.

I'm guessing most gun owners probably won't even be that upset over a gun ban considering that a lot of police officers are bro-tier 2a supporters and wouldn't be cracking down on people for owning an AR-15. At least, that seems to be the case in my state.

>Yes, and it hasn't been viewed positively.
What about that little incident from 1861-65?

They did a poll of 15,000 cops and the majority of cops said they wouldn't enforce a gun confiscation. As someone who knows a few cops personally, I've asked them why and they said they won't do it for two reasons. First, the majority of them are pro-2nd amendment. Second, they know that if they try to take them it's pretty much guaranteed that they'll get shot at, so they're not risking it.

Please post more gunfus

They were attacking rebels (who were fighting for slavery), not civilians.

At the end of the day police are just cohs in the government machine. Personal discretion wouldn't play a factor in something like that.

I'm a cop BTW.

What's the difference between that and Americans shooting at police and soldiers enforcing the law.

Cog I mean, typo.

They may be cogs, but if you tell a cog to kill himself he'll still say no. Asking the cops to go house to house confiscating weapons, knowing that they'll get shot at and almost certainly die doing so, isn't something that most of them would be willing to do.

Police don't bake cookies for a living. Anyone who takes a shot at the police, from their own home no less, will hang for it. As I said most people really aren't willing to take the leap to become a criminal. There's a difference between bending the law by hiding your contraband, and quite openly breaking it by trying to murder police that are only doing their jobs.

The point that was making was that the USA government would be willing to genocide its own citizens by rounding us all into concentration camps and burning the countryside and salting the Earth. The point I was making was how counterproductive that would be to their cause, because it would royally piss off the American population.

The American civil war was different for two reasons, first, the Union wasn't attacking their own citizens because the South had seceded, effectively temporarily creating two separate nations. You wouldn't see the Union killing Michiganders, for instance. Second, the Union didn't deliberately kill civilians as the other user suggests, they only attack soldiers and military targets.

If you look at shitholes like Iraq or Mexico, that experience prolonged civil crisis, fatality rates among law enforcement skyrocket, and people stop wanting to do that job.

>Anyone who takes a shot at the police, from their own home no less, will hang for it
You don't think they know that? user, a quarter of America fucking lives for the day they'll finally get to shoot the cops on their front porch trying to take away their freedoms, and that's something that both the right and left share.

>openly breaking it by trying to murder police that are only doing their jobs.
"Their jobs" in this case being to piss on the Constitution.

I think it's foolish to frame the discussion around a the military aspect of a hypothetical confrontation between a tyrannical government and armed citizens rising up. It seems especially unbelievable to me that it would play out that way. As a small example look at the Boston Bombing, you basically have an entire city locked down while militarized police go door to door without warrants and the entire thing is framed as an heroic event for the people of Boston.

What makes you think that went the next crisis happens people won't react much of the same way? Especially if the powers out, the water stops running and the stores stopped getting stocked? People will be BEGGING the police to come for them. PLEASE come save me, you need my guns? Sure, just take me to the shelter where there's food and water and heat.

While I agree with your first point that secession was a game changer, you're wrong about the second. What do you call the March to the sea?

Being numerically superior matters little if you cannot effectively organize to counter military doctrine. Being on the hometurf allows the military to plan faster and act with greater efficiency as well. Secondly, IED usage has dropped significantly between 2004 and now. This is due to us training new local personnel and utilizing drones + airstrikes to combat them.
A rebel militia in US territory would also be easily put down. You think we don't have actual military facilities with jets and drones at the ready?
That's a big assumption about deserting. There's been several instances where Governments and it's militaries were not above shooting or even imprisoning it's own citizens.

>lmao they can't fight guerrilla war against us if we just genocide them
So you just destroy what you are fighting for? That's middle eastern dictator level retardation.

That's a fair point, although I don't think all that many civilians died from it, it was mostly targeting civilian infrastructure and resources.

That being said, what's being discussed is basically the equivalent of the March to the Sea being done while the South is still in the Union. Obviously such as action would likely be very antithetical to the preservation of the Union.

>the entire thing is framed as an heroic event for the people of Boston
It is? Where the fuck have you been? The only thing I've ever heard is "holy fuck why is the police going door to door? What fascist shit is this?"

>You think we don't have actual military facilities with jets and drones at the ready?
Where the fuck are you going to bomb? You need to know where the rebels are first.

>That's a big assumption about deserting. There's been several instances where Governments and it's militaries were not above shooting or even imprisoning it's own citizens.
And yet even in a dictatorial shithole like Syria it led to mass desertions and rebellion of the military.

Indeed, but America is not the equivalent of either. The status quo would have to shift tremendously before we reach such a state. The former having numerous active militias comprised of devout Muslims, and the latter having extreme corruption and powerful mafias. America really isn't comparable at this time I think.

I really have to reemphasize my point that most law abiding people aren't willing to openly break the law even if they disagree. We live in a democracy with stable institutions. People fight in the courts, through public protest, and at the ballot box, not through violence.

Pure fantasy, when pulling that trigger means your life as you know it ends that bravado will fall by the wayside.

Are you really saying you would murder a cop on your doorstep who demanded you to trade in your weapons? What would that accomplish beyond ending a cop's life and ruining yours?

>Are you really saying you would murder a cop on your doorstep who demanded you to trade in your weapons?
But I don't have any guns to hand in. I lost them all in a boating accident.

>duh I can just conquer the whole world with my tactics, get on my level

And for every one of them the government kills ten more will be created. There are very good reasons why the US government didn't try to round up and arrest all the militia members back in the 90s.

You'll be fine with an inspection of your house to confirm that then

>what is guerrilla warfare

You'll need a warrant first, but once you have one go right ahead. Not like you'll find anything here anyways.

>So you just destroy what you are fighting for?
That's war, it is inherently illogical. As it destroys what was to be gained.

I was not advocating for placing people in concentration camps, merely stating it's efficacy in defeating insurgencies (the British pioneered the tactic to great effect against the Boers) and that it has actually been done by the us army at enormous cost in human lives, and no one cared because it was war.

>>beyond ending a cop's life and ruining yours?
You know, they actually tried firearms confiscation after katrina hit in New Orleans about 11 years ago now, they gave up on after a few cops got killed. None of the people who killed the cops who came to confiscate weapons were ever arrested to the best of my knowledge.

>It is?
Did you miss the mark Wahlberg movie about the supposedly heroic Boston police?

In what war did the US army put civilians into concentration camps at a tremendous cost in human lives.