Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In fact, there is at least one clear instance of a civilian population attempting to resist the Nazi state with arms but without the backing of allied military force, the August 1944 Warsaw Uprising. Despite having been organized by the Polish resistance on a much larger scale than would be possible in most circumstances, iIt was a dismal and bloody failure.
A salutary lesson to anyone who believes that untrained or barely-trained civilians can resist tyranny backed by an efficient, cohesive and modern army, even when that army's resources are limited to what are by now the obsolete equipment of the 1940s.
The obvious counter-example, the Paris uprising in the same month, differed in several important respects: the German army in the West was still reeling from the fighting and collapse in Normandy, and was actually retreating through Paris, so it had lost much of its cohesion, fighting strength and will to resist when the Parisians rose. Secondly, the Parisians were reinforced within days by 2nd French Armoured Division under the Count of Hauteclocque.
Proponents of civilian possession of arms as a check on some putative tyranny would be well-advised to consider these examples.
There may be times when armed civilians could keep their government in check. It probably would happen in America. Big difference is the Germans had absolutely no regard for the lives of the Jews. There wouldn't have been any "stand offs". They would have just moved in some artillary and leveled the houses until the people surrendered. Let's say in 30 years WWIII brought on a Chinese invasion. To think that a group of armed civilians could hold back an invading army in this day and age is absolutely ridiculous. Again, they would just level your home and probably drop some chemical agent on you that would kill you and they would move on.
So what are these guns for anyway? It's a proven fact they kill more of their owners than they do "home invaders" or such nonsense.
When the 2nd amendment was written then was a completely different country and those citizens from back then would think the people owning guns today are from Mars. Let's face it, half of the gun owning humanity out there today is absolute uneducated trash with more tattoos than teeth. In 1789 or whenever that thing was passed the average citizen was independent, smart and reliable. Back then if you weren't you were usually dead at a very young age. Now look at the gun toting idiots out there.
I'm not against gun ownership for responsible people, but I think they should be charged with a felony for failure to properly secure their guns or borrowing them or selling them to unqualified people.
Do I believe that the average idiot should be allowed to go out and buy a gun? Absolutely not, but the NRA would fight that all the way.
Big difference is the Germans had absolutely no regard for the lives of the Jews.
Just a point of clarification, not really important to the main issue, but for the record: the 1944 Warsaw Uprising was orchestrated by the Polish Home Army (or national resistance) and involved very few Jews, most of whom had been killed or transported out of the city by the end of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising the previous year. Not that it matters to your point, since Polish lives were hardly rated more valuable than Jewish ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
In 1789 or whenever that thing was passed the average citizen was independent, smart and reliable.
Or, even if he wasn't, could reliably be expected to do what the Squire, who was his landlord and also his militia company captain, told him.
You are about 5000X more likely to save a life in your home by taking first aid and CPR training and purchasing an AED for about $1200 than you would protecting anyone with a gun.
Unless you live in Mogudishu.
On the other side your gun is something like 1000X more likely to kill or wound a loved one than actually protect them.
You're 100% likely to have pulled those stats out of your posterior. I'm an old guy; I've had CPR training but never once had occasion to use it. I have had occasion to use a gun to protect myself. And several times wished I had one when I didn't. And none of my guns have ever killed or wounded a loved one.
Anyway, implicit in your point is a claim that having a gun and having first aid/CPR training are somehow an either/or proposition. They're not--you can do both.
I'm not against gun ownership for responsible people, but I think they should be charged with a felony for failure to properly secure their guns or borrowing them or selling them to unqualified people.
You are about 5000X more likely to save a life in your home by taking first aid and CPR training and purchasing an AED for about $1200 than you would protecting anyone with a gun.
Unless you live in Mogudishu.
On the other side your gun is something like 1000X more likely to kill or wound a loved one than actually protect them.
Show me your analysis please. Both your 5000X and 1000X claims.
Hey, It'sAutomatic - Do you wear your seat belt? Do you have fire insurance? Smoke detectors? If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, then you, too, must also be "stupid and crazy."
And I say, garbage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
