The protests in Iran and China…would be different if the people had guns……

[2aguy]

There are apparently now armed separatists in Iran, fighting against the regime……the article is behind a paywall………and the protests in China? Would be completely different if the citizens had guns……,,

This is what anti-gun fanatics don’t understand……..armed citizens keep the government in check….

The democrat party blm/antics brown shirts stayed primarily in black neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities to do their looting, burning and murder…..why?

Because democrat cities have the most extreme gun control targeted at law abiding citizens…..there was no one….except Kyle Rittenhouse….to shoot the blm/brown shirts …..except for some smart business owners who did use rifles to protect their own stores. The suburbs tend to have far higher gun ownership rates..
which means looters and killers can be shot.

Imagine how hard it would be for Iran and China to crack down on protestors if they had guns…….

The Dynamic of the Iran Protests is Changing as Armed Conflict Ignites in Separatist Regions

pjmedia.com

The point of a heavily armed citizenry is to keep the government from ever trying overt suppression of the people………..

 

[candycorn]

You guys have guns.
And you're the most miserable people on the planet...complaining about being censored, marginalized, persecuted, ignored, turned down by women, and a litany of other gripes.

 

[pknopp]

In the news nearly every single day we read about a police officer fired or charged over acts that would have had him commended a few years ago.

This is all over actions, while at times violent, were not done with guns.

I support the people protesting in China and Iran and I believe they should be armed if they so choose to be, but change can come in other ways also.

 

[Jaxson]

There are apparently now armed separatists in Iran, fighting against the regime……the article is behind a paywall………and the protests in China? Would be completely different if the citizens had guns……,,

This is what anti-gun fanatics don’t understand……..armed citizens keep the government in check….

The democrat party blm/antics brown shirts stayed primarily in black neighborhoods in democrat party controlled cities to do their looting, burning and murder…..why?

Because democrat cities have the most extreme gun control targeted at law abiding citizens…..there was no one….except Kyle Rittenhouse….to shoot the blm/brown shirts …..except for some smart business owners who did use rifles to protect their own stores. The suburbs tend to have far higher gun ownership rates..
which means looters and killers can be shot.

Imagine how hard it would be for Iran and China to crack down on protestors if they had guns…….

The Dynamic of the Iran Protests is Changing as Armed Conflict Ignites in Separatist Regions

pjmedia.com

The point of a heavily armed citizenry is to keep the government from ever trying overt suppression of the people………..

You think that US citizens having all those guns is keeping the governments in check? LOL!

You've completely lost it brah.

 

[Blues Man]

You guys have guns.
And you're the most miserable people on the planet...complaining about being censored, marginalized, persecuted, ignored, turned down by women, and a litany of other gripes.

First World Problems.

 

[2aguy]

You guys have guns.
And you're the most miserable people on the planet...complaining about being censored, marginalized, persecuted, ignored, turned down by women, and a litany of other gripes.

We aren't being loaded into boxcars yet...you doofus, unlike Europe where they murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children in 6 years......

 

[2aguy]

In the news nearly every single day we read about a police officer fired or charged over acts that would have had him commended a few years ago.

This is all over actions, while at times violent, were not done with guns.

I support the people protesting in China and Iran and I believe they should be armed if they so choose to be, but change can come in other ways also.

Change is harder when the government will murder its citizens openly and without concern of an armed response........

 

[2aguy]

For an American example...the democrat party in New York used street gangs to enforce their will......

The problem was New Yorkers were shooting the gang members....

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

 

[pknopp]

Change is harder when the government will murder its citizens openly and without concern of an armed response........

The protests were over the government murdering it's citizens.

 

[2aguy]

The protests were over the government murdering it's citizens.

Which is always much, much harder when the citizens can shoot back...which is why they always ban and confiscate guns first.

 

[2aguy]

The protests were over the government murdering it's citizens.

Random, rare police officers abusing their power is a lot different than what iran, china are doing..........and they can only do what they do because their people don't have guns.

 

[Jaxson]

Change is harder when the government will murder its citizens openly and without concern of an armed response........

You mean like on Jan. 6?

 

[pknopp]

Which is always much, much harder when the citizens can shoot back...which is why they always ban and confiscate guns first.

It all depends on the situation. Is change in China going to be harder than change here? I imagine so but a few dead Chinese isn't going to phase China. Actions to undermine their economic tract would.

 

[Jaxson]

For an American example...the democrat party in New York used street gangs to enforce their will......

The problem was New Yorkers were shooting the gang members....

The strange birth of NY’s gun laws

Problem was the gangs worked for Tammany. The Democratic machine used them asshtarkers (sluggers), enforcing discipline at the polls and intimidating the opposition. Gang leaders like Monk Eastman were even employed as informal “sheriffs,” keeping their turf under Tammany control.

The Tammany Tiger needed to rein in the gangs without completely crippling them. Enter Big Tim with the perfect solution: Ostensibly disarm the gangs — and ordinary citizens, too — while still keeping them on the streets.

In fact, he gave the game away during the debate on the bill, which flew through Albany: “I want to make it so the young thugs in my district will get three years for carrying dangerous weapons instead of getting a sentence in the electric chair a year from now.”

Sullivan knew the gangs would flout the law, but appearances were more important than results. Young toughs took to sewing the pockets of their coats shut, so that cops couldn’t plant firearms on them, and many gangsters stashed their weapons inside their girlfriends’ “bird cages” — wire-mesh fashion contraptions around which women would wind their hair.

----Ordinary citizens, on the other hand, were disarmed, which solved another problem: Gangsters had been bitterly complaining to Tammany that their victims sometimes shot back at them.

So gang violence didn’t drop under the Sullivan Act — and really took off after the passage of Prohibition in 1920. Spectacular gangland rubouts — like the 1932 machine-gunning of “Mad Dog” Coll in a drugstore phone booth on 23rd Street — became the norm.

That was 100 years ago, lol. Fucking doofus.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

You guys have guns.
And you're the most miserable people on the planet...complaining about being censored, marginalized, persecuted, ignored, turned down by women, and a litany of other gripes.

Seriously ? You loons can not function with being in a constant state of manufactured outrage.

 

[surada]

We aren't being loaded into boxcars yet...you doofus, unlike Europe where they murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children in 6 years......

Hitler didn't take guns away from the German people... Just his enemies.

Remember the Freikorps paramilitary?

Freikorps

The Freikorp, translating as Free Corps, were an armed group with right wing beliefs. They were made up of mainly former soldiers who were patriotic nationalistic Germans and anti-communists.

www.tutor2u.net

 

[2aguy]

It all depends on the situation. Is change in China going to be harder than change here? I imagine so but a few dead Chinese isn't going to phase China. Actions to undermine their economic tract would.

Again.....if the Chinese people had the level of gun ownership we have here...the situation there would be completely different.

 

[pknopp]

Again.....if the Chinese people had the level of gun ownership we have here...the situation there would be completely different.

You are assuming most want change. If that was the case IMO there would have been change.

 

[2aguy]

Hitler didn't take guns away from the German people... Just his enemies.

Remember the Freikorps paramilitary?

Freikorps

The Freikorp, translating as Free Corps, were an armed group with right wing beliefs. They were made up of mainly former soldiers who were patriotic nationalistic Germans and anti-communists.

www.tutor2u.net

Yeah......you dope....what about that did you not understand? He disarmed anyone who would stand against him.....anyone ratted out by the FBI.....I mean the gestapo.......he took away their guns. He took control of the police, who would then stand down when blm/antifa......I mean the brown shirts beat and attacked the people who were a problem.....

They began registering and banning guns in the 1920s.....a decade before hitler used those gun registration lists to take away the last guns from those he planned on murdering........and they registered and banned guns on the same promises you idiots are making today...that the German people would be safer without them.....and the rest of Europe did the same thing.....banned and confiscated guns....

And then, a decade later, they murdered 15 million innocent men, women and children in 6 years.....

In America...with all of our guns.....we have had about 2,460,000 murdered.....in 246 years of our entire history.......

Guns aren't the problem...government having the guns and disarming the citizens is the problem....

Do you know the one country that didn't have the slaughter of their citizens?

Switzerland.

THE SWISS WERE PREPARED TO FIGHT FACISM TO THE BITTER END | FRONTLINE | PBS

That is why the Nazis despised Switzerland. Joseph Goebbels called Switzerland "this stinking little state" where "sentiment has turned very much against us." Adolf Hitler decided that "all the rubbish of small nations still existing in Europe must be liquidated," even if it meant he would later "be attacked as the 'Butcher of the Swiss.'"

The 1940 Nazi invasion plan, Operation Tannenbaum, was not executed, and SS Oberst Hermann Bohme's 1943 memorandum warned that an invasion of Switzerland would be too costly because every man was armed and trained to shoot. This did not stop the Gestapo from preparing lists of Swiss to be liquidated once the Nazis overran the country.

The other European nations were easily toppled and had little means to wage a partisan war against the occupation. Once their standing armies were defeated, the governments capitulated and the populaces were defenseless.

Only in Switzerland was the entire populace armed and prepared to wage a relentless guerrilla war against an invader. When the war began in 1939, Switzerland mobilized 435,000 citizen soldiers out of a population of 4.2 million. Production figures for Swiss service rifles, which had firepower equal to those of the Germans, demonstrate an ample supply of small arms. Swiss militiamen were instructed to disregard any alleged "official" surrender as enemy propaganda and, if necessary, to fight individually. This meant that a nation of sharpshooters would be sniping at German soldiers at long ranges from every mountain.

While neutral, Switzerland was prepared to fight a Nazi invasion to the end. The celebrated Swiss Gen. Henri Guisan developed the strategy known as defense du reduit--an initial opposition followed by a retreat into the Alps, where a relentless war to the death would be waged. Most Swiss strongly opposed Nazism. Death sentences were issued for fifth-column activities, and proclamations against anti-Semitism were passed at various official levels.

There was no Holocaust on Swiss soil, something that can not be said for France, the Netherlands, Poland or most of Europe.

 

[2aguy]

You are assuming most want change. If that was the case IMO there would have been change.

Nope.....not caring about that.....pointing out that the Chinese government couldn't use the same tactics they use now against their people, if the people in those crowds could shoot back. Dittos Iran.