Protester shot in chest by live police round during Hong Kong protests

You really can't protect yourself from a government in a stable State, because the State needs a monopoly on violence to exist. Even in America, the argument from 2nd amendment advocates, that guns help protect American citizens from their government is absolutely ludicrous.

There is no realistic way for Americans to stand up to the entire US State with violence. Not without some very wide spread belief in the failure of the state, believe that would probably be easier to get with non-violent protest (and it still wouldn't be easy).

>There is no realistic way for Americans to stand up to the entire US State with violence.

Yup, particularly not as long as the same people vote to reduce access to secure communication methods.

Read up on the civil rights movement, specifically Robert F. Williams. You have a situation where blacks stood up to their local governments that refused to convict whites for lynching blacks, local governments that refused to protect blacks from white violence, where police actually sought to disarm blacks in the face of white lynch mobs with little to no federal oversight, and all the peaceful protests in the south, the diner sit ins, and the freedom riders were backed by armed black men and the threat of reciprocal violence. I think that counts as a successful instance of Americans standing up to not only their hostile government but their adversarial fellow Americans as well.

And what if violence had broken out? How do you think that would play out?

Some counter examples are the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) or possibly even the Kent State Shootings (although there it was the State causing violence).

No matter where the violence comes from, the message tends to get lost from the reaction to the violence. Sure, even Gandhi talked about needing the capacity for violence for non-violence to work, but the moment things break down; the message may still get across or it may be totally drown out.

You raise a very good point. And something else -- during this time, the US started to pass gun control laws. They were understood primarily to apply only to black men at the time.

This is the heritage of gun control in America -- racism and hate written down and codified in law.

The NRA advocated for gun control to disarm the Black Panthers. Gun control has historically been used to disarm minorities much more often than for public safety.

The NRA actually helped Robert F. Williams, from my parent comment, establish a gun club and donated rifles and ammunition. So while they helped with establishing the Mulford Act, they also supported the early civil rights movement. Not to defend them, but organizations aren't necessarily single minded in their actions.

Thanks, I didn't know that. Will have to do some further reading tonight :-D

Violence did break out. When protesters weren't armed. And black and white civil rights supporters were beaten and lynched while local police watched. Lynchings were avoided when either Feds showed up with arms or local blacks organized with arms.

The difference between the civil rights movement and say, the ELF is that MLK jr, smartly pushed for nonviolence and all armed violence was encouraged only as a retaliatory measure.

I agree that the message can and most likely will get drowned out with escalation to violence, but if the courts fail you, if the state fails you, the only recourse you really have is a credible threat of violence. If that violence is in the form of disruption or rioting or if it's simply, non compliance backed by guns- without that threat, you will be ignored, or worse.

Charlton Hesston marched with MLK Jr. when it wasn't popular to do so. He was president of the NRA for a number of years recently.

There are people who have been trying to sell a bill of goods about the NRA and gun owners in general for a long time. It simply isn't accurate.