Because they are speaking from experience…
Americans never give up your guns – Pravda
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
From “The Gulag Archipeligo“, Chapter 1, ‘Arrest’
“Resistance! Why didn’t you resist?” Today those who have continued to live on in comfort scold those who suffered.
Yes, resistance should have begun right there, at the moment of the arrest itself. But it did not begin.
Update:
Dem Congressman Jerrold Nadler: Government Has ‘Monopoly On Legitimate Violence’
Well, I think the legislation doesn’t ban existing ones but — although I would like to do that, too, but I think the legislation we’re talking about would prohibit the sale and probably manufacturer sale of high-capacity clips in the future, not those that are in private possession today.
But let me say, yes. One of the definitions of a nation state is that the state has a monopoly on legitimate violence. And the state ought to have a monopoly on legitimate violence. If the premise of your question is that people are going to resist a tyrannical government by shooting machine guns at American troops, that’s insane.
US Declaration of Independence – exerpt:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
