Isn't it true that no nation with an armed populace has ever, at any point in history, been successfully, forcibly taken over by any enemy, whether foreign or domestic?
>>1425130
Well, a lot of premodern societies did not give a shit whether or not their people owned weapons. Some in fact, encouraged civilians to own weapons due to one or all of the following reasons.
>The civilians form a big part of the army.
>The civilians ought to help out law enforcement.
>Plain recognizing civilians right to defend themselves versus criminals (or this was relegated to common sense).
Ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, Imperial China, the Holy Roman Empire, nobody gave a shit if you owned a weapon. Congrats, you have a sword & armor, whoopdeedoo.
And still you get foreign invasions and reprisals.
So no, America, being armed doesn't guarantee you'll win versus the Gubmint or Soviets.
If anything, weapons bans are fairly recent history. Due to the rise of centralized states and standing armies in Europe (and in Japan). "Look" says the government "we can protect you now with police forces and 24/7 soldiers, you don't need that much weaponry average chump."
>>1425130
Of course that's not true. Are you stupid? Almost everyone has been armed throughout history. Are you asking if no nation has ever been conquered?
>>1425219
Americans -especially /k/- seriously have this innocent notion that civilian revolts will not happen with gun laws.
When some of the more weapons restrictive countries in the globe are undergoing civil wars as we speak.
In the end its "country actually functions/does its job" that determines whether or not the average joe doesn't grab a gun by any means necessary and start shooting government people.
>>1425247
>In the end its "country actually functions/does its job" that determines whether or not the average joe doesn't grab a gun by any means necessary and start shooting government people.
No. It's how comfy they are.
>>1425247
>When some of the more weapons restrictive countries in the globe are undergoing civil wars as we speak.
and funnily their civilians/militias have gotten their hands on lot's of guns was it legal or not
>>1425258
Comfyness is only possible if you live in a peripheral country with no significance (i.e. Scandinavia).
Relevant countries would have to live with the strife and chaos that comes with such importance.
>>1425264
>i'm comfy right now
>i've lived in the same country all my life
>it used to be america, now you're telling me it's scandinavia
Historical revisionist.
>>1425247
guns are super legal in most of the middle east
>>1425272
Ah, a Midwesterner.
>>1425130
I can´t tell
what i can tell for sure is that those without guns have been raped, murdered, taken etc. See the jews in germany for instance.
>>1425219
Inbvasions happening is not the same as being conquered.
Armed civilians saved the greeks and the romans asses more than once.
>>1425583
Maybe they should have thought twice about pre-emptively declaring war on Germany then, if they didn't have guns or whatever.
>>1425130
More like an "armed populace" has never been relevant to a nation's defense.
>>1425263
That's his point. Once a revolution starts, the black market provides all it needs. Americans will never rise up because half are Sanders babees, and the the ones that own guns are mostly dumb rednecks that can be appeased with a dumb guy in a suit casually insulting people.
>>1425629
But that's wrong.
>>1425130
no it's not
look at the Boer Republics for example
