The most powerful militaries in the world are regularly confounded by widely dispersed rural insurgents with little more than ancient rifles. What do you think is different about China? Do you think the PLA would have fared any better in Iraq or Afghanistan?
“These days” escalating violence against a government has proved to be very viable.
In my personal view, violence is the last resort for protesting and even then, sometimes I disagree with HK approach (beating officers with pies) despite of the fact that I support the HK's cause.
I'm quite glad I don't have to worry overly about stray bullets flying through my window and literal open warfare in the streets.
It's peaceful here because guns are so common. The gov't tries shows of force on rare occasion, and is reminded that's a bad idea.
Sorry, when did the US government try a "show of force" on its own soil only to be "reminded" that it was a bad idea?
I don't recall any popular uprisings or coups in the US in recent memory, despite gun owners swearing blood and violence constantly in regards to gun control laws, the IRS, the Supreme Court and any Democrat in office, and the Federal government won the only civil war on record.
As far as I can tell, the only people who have arguably successfully resisted the armed might of the American government have been people who were not Americans, and, ironically, who did so without Second Amendment rights.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/29/standing-roc...
I'll grant you that it's a protest, but most of the alleged violence described in that story seems to have been committed by the police. Peaceful protesters being beaten and mauled by attack dogs by definition don't count towards a valid argument for the effectiveness of the Second Amendment.
The protestors also lost - the pipeline was built, regardless.
This probably would have gone down differently had the occupants not been armed.
Then the main perpetrators were not convicted in court either.
I don't know, being armed didn't help at Waco or Ruby Ridge. Maybe there were other factors at play in the government's behavior than simply being afraid of an armed group?
It's also threat of public blowback from armed firefights leading to uncomfortable "why?" questions and detailed examinations of policies and the details of what happened.
Ass covering bureaucrats hate that. It could affect the pension.
The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the capacity of a "well regulated militia" to commit armed violence "in defense of a free state." Resistance and protest which does not involve armed violence against the state by definition is not relevant to discussions about the effectiveness the Second Amendment. This is not adding a "new qualifier," it's merely taking the intent of the Second Amendment seriously.
>Armed citizens, be they ineffective & disorganized, were enough to dissuade heavy handed gov't tactics for a long time - lest effective & organized arise.
This is an assumption on your part which willfully ignores evidence to the contrary. You're like Batman, thinking the bat costume works because "criminals are a superstitious and cowardly lot", only with guns and the government.
Until you can actually prove that the government - which has been militarizing and becoming more aggressive since 9/11, mind you, not less, and which shoots unarmed civilians in the streets in broad daylight with impunity and often gets commended by the gun community for doing so - has changed its tactics out of fear of an armed populace and an effective uprising, I'm going to consider further conversation to be fruitless.
Your "with impunity" reference is not couched in reality.
Good luck holding to your narrative. Reality differs.
I didn't say regularly. I said "rare". Sometimes decades between them.
Athens. Waco. Bundy Ranch. Twin Peaks.
https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3031905/hong-ko...