Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Why "a free state" as opposed to "the state"? [View all]discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,669 posts)28. Tyrants
1. A tyrant doesn't get the title until a force that history remembers opposes him.
2. A fine leader is determined by his ability to win over his political opponents while maintaining the loyalty of his allies.
My answers to your questions:
>> How many people WOULD rise up in arms to topple the regime?
Enough to topple the tyrant or by my definition, above, he's not a tyrant.
>> How many people WOULD rise up in arms to defend the regime?
Not enough, according to that same definition.
>> How many people COULD rise up in arms?
Today in the US, according to Heraclitus, at least 800,000.
"Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back." - Heraclitus
>> Can you even imagine a scenario where 80 million people share an opinion?
No but prohibition of arms, at worst, only decides who gets to "voice" their dissent.
"Your actions are only high treason if you fail." (R)me

Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
46 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

I don't think the army of the crown wore jackboots in those days but if you're referring to
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#3
Certainly they killed British officers and troops as members of a militia or army...
Human101948
Oct 2015
#12
The colonies had no legal authority to appoint them. The colonies belonged to the Crown.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#22
No, they were not unorganized. They were self-organized. Even anarchists do that.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#31
The idea of citizen-militias with rifles defending a 21st century First-World country.
DetlefK
Oct 2015
#6
"...the right of the people to keep and bear explosives shall not be infringed."
DetlefK
Oct 2015
#9
And the purpose of the militia is to secure "a free state" -- not "the state." Hence the OP.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#15
Well, it certainly wouldn't be worth it for their own government to wage war on them.
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#29
Do you think you could pacify 80+ million people with over 300 million weapons?
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#8
So because the Germans abrogated their basic human decency that gives you the moral authority
Nuclear Unicorn
Oct 2015
#20
"Well, tell me how many militia-men and how many rifles it would take to take down the FBI..."
beevul
Oct 2015
#40
a Free State...a republican gov't. And how it is to remain so, via the Militias.
jmg257
Oct 2015
#44