Really makes you think.

I think any loyalists who expressed opinions like that wouldn't have joined the army.

File: 5d08832e8bedf0e9cf28cc9a35ecb2e019edefe5.gif (60KB, 350x269px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 350x269px

>>1846280
>British Empire
>18th century

More like British "Empire"

>>1846291
I really like the Georgian empire. It looks comfy.

The Revolutionaries had tons of support from France, Spain and Prussia, so it's not like they did it on their own.

Difference is both sides had state of the art weaponry (blackpowder muskets and cannon). Let me know when any sizeable American militia gets access to stealth bombers, tanks and drones. Not to mention that the British fought a war on the other side of the Atlantic or that if you are one of the people that would actually take up arms against the US military you're probably already on some watch list somewhere.

Did loyalists have their own regiments with their own specific uniforms and such or did they just enroll in the British Army proper and fight alongside native Britons?

>>1846280

Not really, it's pretty retarded.

And of all the reasons for justifying the 2nd Amendment, I've always found "But what if we need guns to overthrow a tyrannic government?" to be by far the stupidest.

Syria has strict gun control laws. Gaddafi's Libya had strict gun control laws. Sri Lanka had strict gun control laws when the LTTE were there, the Soviet puppet government instituted strict gun control laws in their occupied Afghanistan.

In every case, people willing to revolt against the government managed to get guns. And a hell of a lot better pieces of hardware than most privately owned guns in America today, which are predominantly handguns.

>>1846291
Man, that's like 50% of their empire fucking off in one go. Wish I could've seen the Br*ts reacting to American independence

>>1846318
>lmao dude you can just get guns ezpz
Then there's no reason to have any gun laws. The vast majority of attempts to violently overthrow governments have failed anyway. Just look at how hard the Hungarians got curbstomped when they rebelled against the Soviets, or how FARC has been fighting for decades with no real progress.

>>1846307
Call me when the US uses a tank to suppress a riot in New York.
Also there's no way other counties wouldn't start supplying Rebels with weaponry.

>>1846323
>The vast majority of attempts to violently overthrow governments have failed anyway
What I really love is how my countrymen think we Burgers are any different.

>>1846307
Then again the vietnamese btfo america :^)

>>1846280
Are you unironically using "really makes you think" to describe to your own post or using it as a meme response to obviously pseudo-intellectual crap? Because the latter is what it should be used for.

>>1846333
The NVA literally had state of the art weapons though.

>>1846331
I'll give you a call when a miltia literally opens war on the US government.

>>1846318
Weren't all of these supplied by America though.

>>1846333
The Vietnamese had state of the art fighter jets and tanks though

>hurr durr I neeed muh gunz in case muh gubmint tries to take them away from me
>or if I want to overthrow it because look how well that goes in modern days
>AND 2000 ARMED REDNECKS WITH ASSAULT RIFLES COULD REALLY FACE THE MIGHTIEST MILITARY ON PLANET EARTH

>>1846323

>Then there's no reason to have any gun laws.

Of course there are. You can support gun laws for individual self defense. You can support them out of a notion that a citizen of a democracy DESERVES to have guns and other lethal implements. You can support them because you don't think they're that dangerous to either public safety or the body politic. You can support them because you think that it's impossible to enforce a gun ban.

Supporting them because you have a fantasy of "The People" rising up with their handguns and hunting rifles to overthrow a 1984 government is stupid. If such a thing were to really happen, you can bet your ass that any revolt, successful or not, would be carried out with imported arms primarily, just like every other revolt against every other government in the 20th century.

>The vast majority of attempts to violently overthrow governments have failed anyway. Just look at how hard the Hungarians got curbstomped when they rebelled against the Soviets, or how FARC has been fighting for decades with no real progress.

Which addresses the point how exactly? Yes, revolution is a complicated process, in large part because despite how they'd intuitively appear, they're rarely total wars, which starts to bring in all the poli-sci baggage of how hard individual polities are willing to go and war exhaustion and the like. A lot of them don't work; governments are pretty powerful. You'll note in my first post I mentioned people like the LTTE, who also failed in their separatist revolution.

Guess what? They got guns. Their failures weren't due to not having enough pistols. It had to do with an inability to clear and hold space (even after winning battles!) and an inability to present a viable front on the political arena for a divided state. If there were to be a revolt against the U.S. government, it would again, be enormously more complicated than having people with their own private weapons heading out and shooting people.

>>1846339

And you don't think America's enemies would supply rebels against a U.S. government?

>>1846323
>Then there's no reason to have any gun laws.

I shouldn't have to say this, but the purpose of gun laws is not preventing rebellion.

>>1846341
It's more a protective measure than an offensive one. The reason something like the Waco siege is so controversial is because, legally, the people had a right to defend themselves from the government breaking down their doors. It's a measure to keep tyranny in check

>>1846344
Supplying the citizens of a first world nation =/= supplying the citizens of third world countries.

33-34k Americans died in 2013 due to guns. That's more then half the men lost in Vietnam. If you don't think America has a problem you're either an idiot or a liar.

>>1846351
Really made me think...but not an argument

>>1846351
>legally, the people had a right to defend themselves from the government breaking down their doors
Didn't the ATF literally have a warrant?

File: Queen's_Ranger.jpg (104KB, 375x500px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 375x500px

>>1846310
The 1st American Regiment, a.k.a the Queen's New York Rangers, were one of the first british units to use camo.

>>1846351
You are obsessed with the idea of revolution. Change takes time and rarely does a revolution end without catastrophe.

>>1846352

No, it's considerably easier, what with the far greater amounts of trade and trade infrastructure going through, as well as the greater global presence that first world citizens and organizations tend to possess vis a vis third world citizens and organizations.

>>1846360
They did but don't tell gun nuts about it.

>>1846365
>it's considerably easier
Seeing as how the USA has 16 intelligence agencies, I doubt it.

>>1846354
2/3 of those are suicides. Citing big numbers to scare people isn't very smart

>>1846368
>>1846360
A warrent give you a right to blow up someone's home with a tank?

>>1846280
Daily reminder that in the course of enumerating the powers of Congress in article 1 section 8 of the US constitution, the purpose of the militia is clearly described and involvrd suppressing, not conducting, insurrections

Daily reminder that muh tree of liburty is and always has been pure libertarian fantasy

>>1846375
12,000 aren't tho. You still get Vietnam numbers.

>>1846379
This is the price of freedom.

>>1846379
>actually defending the Waco cult

You fucking wacko.

>>1846372

Than the police state that the Soviets ran? Or that Ba'athist Iraq had? You're joking, right?


Furthermore, if you're assuming that you have government surveillance to such an extent that everything is watched, you have an extraordinarily low chance of any revolution succeeding anyway, even if the rebels are armed for bear before hostilities start. It would be enormously hard for them to get organized, with prospective leaders being hauled away in the night and disappearing, and they'd have the ability to actually selectively target rebels and not non-rebelling population, which would limit collateral damage and subsequent rebel support enormously.

Non-total wars are very much dictated by the balance of information the stronger conventional side can bring to bear, and assuming that a U.S. rebellion would have stronger conventional forces than the government they'd be opposing is absurd, they'd have to wage an asymmetric war to have any chance whatsoever.

>>1846379
The Branch Davidians started the fire, and the tanks were never used. And you don't get to fire on federal agents who were in the legal right because "2nd amendment lol".

>>1846381
Out of a population of 315 million vs the 9 million or so veterans who served in Vietnam.

That's like claiming the UK is a shithole because more people are murdered a year than died in the Falklands conflict.

>>1846395
Strawman you fucking faggot.

Point is, 12,000 Americans die needlessly every year so you can play with your cracker toys.

>>1846385
>Because they are a cult that means that they don't have the right to defend themselves
The ATF could have handled the situation far better than it did.
>>1846390
Why do you need to bring tanks in the first place?

>>1846405
Next on /his/: Jim Jones was actually in the right.

>>1846291
>350x269
kys

>>1846402
Most of them are gangbangers. If they weren't shooting each other they'd stab each other.

And then a lot of the ones that aren't are suicide by cop or just getting shot by a cop.
And then a bunch more of these deaths are self defense homicides.

When you get down to non gang related non suicide unlawful homicides by firearm the number is very small. Far smaller than the number of people who successfully defend themselves and their property with firearms.

>>1846402
How is it a strawman? It's you who are equating civilian murders with a warzone. You're also making it out like those murders wouldn't have occurred had there been no access to guns.

Also newsflash, the US murder rate has been dropping for decades now and is lower than ever while states have legalized concealed carry. Clearly, the issue is not simply "guns make people murder".

>>1846386
A police state does not necessarily mean a nation has adequate foreign intelligence services. And the likelihood of weapons unavailable to US citizens (MANPADS, AT weaponry etc.) being smuggled into country in any significant numbers seems low given the geographic location of the USA, especially with post-9/11 paranoia added to the mix.

It's honestly just a meme. if these jokers were serious about an armed rebellion, they would get serious about their fitness and health as well. Nobody cares about how well you shoot at stationary targets if you can't even run two miles without suffering a heart attack.

>>1846405
>Why do you need to bring tanks in the first place?
I dunno man, maybe because a compound of crazy cultists had opened fire on federal agents, and the exact armaments of said cultists were unknown?

>/his/ - History & Humanities
>neither history
>nor humanities

>>1846428
>people are ignorant of history
>and they praise arrogant genocidal despots in spite of humanity

This site will turn every subject to shit.

>>1846417
>seems low given the geographic location of the USA
Expanding on this, it's not like the US is some Soviet satellite state with third world nations on all sides, it's neighbors are Canada and Mexico. One of which seems unlikely to work against the USA in a rebellion-type situation, and the other has a very closely watched border. And while people do get through the US-Mexican border, a large shipment of large weapons (let alone military vehicles of some sort) would be noticed.

>>1846323
The vast majority of attempts to violently overthrow governments failed because they lacked political will and they pretty much failed in selling the rebellion. Not because MUH GUN LAWS.

Really? Fucking Hungarian Uprising? Which only happened in Budapest while the rest of the country braced for incoming soviet response? You do know the Uprising SUCCEEDED in overthrowing the government and Hungary remained communist only because a powerful foreign cunt came in and the idiots have no idea what to do after they overthrew the Hungarian communist government, leading to the rest of the country being confused who to side with.

Really? The FUCKING FARC? WHICH THE GODDAMNED COLOMBIANS HATE? UNSUCCESSFUL BECAUSE MUH GUN LAWS? Fuck the shit off.

Successful rebellions in history aren't romantic stories where DA ARMED MASSES OVERTHROW DA TYRANTS. They were usually a consensus of multiple classes, from detracting members of the government, the social elite, and THEN the masses, who are upset at the establishment and rallied their collective asses together to launch a revolution. Just look at your own fucking revolution.

"From the ground up" rebellions succeeding are very fucking rare. Top of my head, one of the very few grassroots rebellion from the lower class up that actually succeeded was in China, when Liu Bang's bandit group turned peasant militia helped the bastard carve out the Han Dynasty. A feat only to be repeated in China yet again when Zhu Yuanzhang led a Buddhist ISIS group versus his provinces' Yuan Mongol authorities, only to snowball into a bigger rebellion that saw him crowned Emperor and founding the Ming dyynasty.

>>1846280
There is no point debating them as USA is the home of radicalsim, in all its forms. Now to pressurise them into isolationism again and we'll have world peace

>>1846380
>Daily reminder that in the course of enumerating the powers of Congress in article 1 section 8 of the US constitution, the purpose of the militia is clearly described and involvrd suppressing, not conducting, insurrections
Wrong. It's largely because the Early USA distrusted standing armies which were the norm in Europe.

One of the big arguments in the early USA was whether to have one or not. The pro-army guys pointed out that a professional army won the fucking revolution. The antis-pointed out IT WAS A TOOL OF TYRANNY AND WHAT IF SOME POPULAR GENERAL TAKES OVER?? Instead: they met halfway. Westpoint was founded to create a professional officer corps and a tiny standing army was made, which included the first army regiments, the US navy, and the Marines. The majority of the USA's army would be composed of volunteer militias equipped for and armed by either the state government or the own bloody citizens themselves.

They were fine with this set up until the American Civil War rolled by - which is pretty much the first US total war- in which almost all state militias were assembled, and they found out that nobody had standard fucking weapons and a supply nightmare ensued among the volunteers. Some even had old style flintlocks.

>>1846417
>>1846439


>A police state does not necessarily mean a nation has adequate foreign intelligence services.

But it will have considerable domestic intelligence, which is the more important of the two to watch in case of civil insurrection. You don't watch for every foreign nation that produces and exports guns, you watch your borders, and you watch the sorts of people who might be willing to use said gunsagainst the government. Police states do that quite well.

>being smuggled into country in any significant numbers seems low given the geographic location of the USA, especially with post-9/11 paranoia added to the mix.

The U.S. conducts a truly colossal amount of trade, far more so than any third world country. More trade means more chances to slip stuff in.

>Expanding on this, it's not like the US is some Soviet satellite state with third world nations on all sides, it's neighbors are Canada and Mexico. One of which seems unlikely to work against the USA in a rebellion-type situation, and the other has a very closely watched border. And while people do get through the US-Mexican border, a large shipment of large weapons (let alone military vehicles of some sort) would be noticed.

And when the U.S. was running guns to the Afghanis, they weren't working with the neighboring governments of places like Pakistan or Iran, they set up their own convoys in those countries on the down-low. For starters, that mostly unwatched border with Canada is a great place to smuggle stuff through. Not to mention the colossal amount of seaborne trade that the U.S. performs, which necessitates closely watching every port and every ship.

>>1846310
They had a number of regiments, some were still in use during the napoleonic wars. There was the 60th Royal Americans, the 84th Royal Highland Emigrants and the 105th.

>>1846319
They didn't care much, the war was very unpopular in Britain.

>>1846449
Don't get your knickers in a twist, faggot. I was saying that most rebellions fail and arming your men is never easier. Legal access to arms makes it much easier than it is when you're living under an oppressive government that locks down the borders and watches everyone.

>a bloo bloo nobody liked them/the big meanies from somewhere else kicked their ass
That describes the vast majority of rebellions. Rebellions usually only involve a tiny percentage of the population. Groups that attempt to overthrow governments ALWAYS attempt to seize an area, and then they either win or lose when they have to defend it. The Hungarians getting their shit kicked by their Soviet overlords is not an unusual case. Every single semi-competent revolutionary group has had to deal with a similar situation.

>>1846346
>I shouldn't have to say this, but the purpose of gun laws is not preventing rebellion.
Bullshit, and it's irrelevant. Guns do not become magically easy to acquire when someone wants to start a rebellion.
What's the difference between a "terrorist" and a "revolutionary"?

>>1846342
>handguns and hunting rifles
Nice strawman. The most popular rifle in the US is the AR-15.

>Guess what? They got guns.
Many groups never had enough of them. The IRA had to start cranking out shit tier homemade weapons in basement shops when their arms supplies started getting seized. These weapons weren't nearly as effective or safe to use as factory made guns. If you want to play around with a gun made by a guy who knows nothing about gunsmithing, then be my guest. I'd rather keep my fingers.

>>1846487
>The most popular rifle in the US is the AR-15
A semi-automatic rifle? What's your point?

>>1846487

>Nice strawman. The most popular rifle in the US is the AR-15.

And the most popularly manufactured and sold guns in the U.S. are pistols. Your point?

>Many groups never had enough of them. The IRA had to start cranking out shit tier homemade weapons in basement shops when their arms supplies started getting seized.

I forget, are the British still occupying Ireland?

>>1846513
>I forget, are the British still occupying Ireland?
Yes.

>>1846493
It's not functionally much different, in a combat scenario, from an M4. Full auto is rarely used; its mostly used as in emergencies at really close range.

>>1846520

Then what is this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland

File: 1475612266887.jpg (18KB, 255x223px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 255x223px

>>1846520

>>1846493
If you knew anything about firearms you would know that the military generally discourages soldiers from using full auto. The rifles are practically identical in experienced hands. FA is typically used for suppressing fire, which is merely meant to force your enemies to keep their heads down while your comrades move. A guy with a semi AR can achieve the same exact thing.

>>1846569
That would be pro government traitors betraying their fellow revolutionaries. Remind me; Who does North Ireland belong to?

File: Northern_Ireland_Life_and_Times_Survey_constitutional_preference.png (35KB, 1002x544px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 1002x544px

>>1846584

The people of northern Ireland, who voted rather decisively in the referendum about the subject, and continue to have strong majority for non-unification in polls.


We're drifting off the point here, really. Weakness in arms was never the main problem for the IRA, and what they've set out to do militarily (or paramilitarily) they've pretty much done. The success or failure of a rebellion often has a fuckton more to do with "soft" political factors than it does with the degree of quality of rifles they're using. I would again suggest you look up the LTTE, as it is one of the few conflicts in modern history where the rebels were able to actually win pitched battles on occasion with the government they were opposing, and they still failed as Tamil separatism didn't have the sort of go ahead they needed; despite a military advantage far in relative excess of say, what you saw in a lot of decolonialist wars in Indonesia and other parts of southeast asia, they failed while others succeeded.

2nd amendment is kind of a meme, I'm not necessarily against it but generally whenever things deteriorate to the point where a substantial portion of the populace wants to revolt guns are really easy to obtain. Storming a local police precinct for rifles and pistols is very easy. Not to mention whatever guns come your way from foreign states and gun runners looking to make a profit.

>>1846658
Storming the local police precinct with sticks and rocks is a lot harder when your cops have APCs and they're decked out in gear that many military forces can't afford.
It's much easier when you and your guys already have AKs and ARs.

>>1846625
You're trying to pretend that arms make no difference. We both know that this isn't a case. The Tamil Tigers are an outlier, not the rule.

>>1846319
that is why Spain and France supported it.
After American independence the most important British colony was Jamaica.

France fucked it all with the French revolution and napoleonic wars.

>>1846690

>You're trying to pretend that arms make no difference. We both know that this isn't a case. The Tamil Tigers are an outlier, not the rule.

No, I am not. I am trying to point out that there is a very large, very complicated set of factors regarding how successful a revolt is. Arms are only one of those factors, and probably a secondary one.

Arms held by civilians, many of which are handguns, before the conflict begins, is a subset of the armament factor, itself a secondary one.

Claiming that millions of weapons, primarily handguns, are going to tip the tide in the event of a hypothetical conflict between the U.S. populace and the U.S. government is an extraordinarily unlikely one. Actually decisive factors are going to be things like levels of popular support, levels of organization, international reaction, if any, and how heavy a hand the gov't can get away with employing.

Now, are having good guns better than bad guns? Sure. But it's not what usually decides revolutions, and it doesn't change the fact that most revolutionary movements acquire their weapons during the conflict, not using holdover guns from before it.

The 2nd amendment has a lot going for it, but "prevention of tyranny" is a pretty dumb justification.

>>1846291
What a surprise that the British empire - which lost its main territory - would have nary many possessions or enact upon their claims during the last stages of a 2 decade long conflict.

Compare that map to the British empire 1 decade thereafter.

>>1846331
If the military is not going to react, why have the militia? There will obviously be no oppression if the military sides with the people.

Idiot.

>>1846307
Wars are won solely on the moral of the people. If you have the peoples support, you will win the war. It may take you decades to do it, but you will win.

If America had to fight it's government, sure the government would have the better weapons, but they would lack in money and men to fight for it.

>>1846280
Have you read the second amendment?

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary >to the security of a free State, the right >of the people to keep and bear Arms, >shall not be infringed.

Are you part of a well organized militia? If not, then fuck off.

>>1846873
Moral doesn't get you food or protection from bullets anon

Pakistan genuinely thought they could beat India, look what happened

>>1846280
It's a totally shit comparison, but the supported thesis is not wrong. Overthrowing a government calls for terrorism and rioting, from a violence point of view. It's not something that requires more than small arms or that can be fought with bombers and tanks.
That said I can't believe that's an actual propaganda poster. The loyalists couldn't possibly be that dumb, could they?

>>1846280
If only you gun nuts gave a shit about the rest of the Bill of Rights. Most of you are more than happy to let your liberty be eroded in the name of "security", but god forbid they regulate your guns. Guns will totally protect you from a pervasive neoconservative establishment.

>>1846894
Maybe you should take an English class buddy.

File: british-empire-map.png (11KB, 678x314px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 678x314px

>>1846291
Sure, it was pathetic in 1815, but not so in 1915

FREEDOM

ISN'T

FREE

>>1846894

>A well balanced breakfast being necessary to continued good health, the right of the people to own and eat cereal shall not be infringed.

In my admittedly ridiculous amendment, would you say that the right to own and eat cereal belongs to well balanced breakfasts?

>>1847160
No, but individual gun ownership in your ridiculous answer is buying cereal to throw into a fire.

Or, if you want to be more on the nose about it, bludgeoning people with your boxes of cereal.