how many of you CA residents plan to register your "assault rifles"

[Buzz cook]

46. The right to bear arms is tits on a bore.

To call it equal with the other right is laughable.

Yes oppressive government in the Jim Crow South was oppressive. Saying that doesn't eliminate the actions of private citizens.
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/rob.html

The Ku Klux Klan was a powerful and feared force in Monroe, and the community where Williams grew up experienced regular brutalization at the hands of whites.

The police and the Klan worked hand in hand.

https://boomcalifornia.com/2013/07/23/witness-to-a-hanging/

The American tradition of lynching transcended the white-black milieu of the Deep South. Two social historians, William Carrigan and Clive Webb, have made a strong documentary case that the “lynching rate” for Mexican-Americans was comparable to that for African Americans.3 California led the way in anti-Mexican and anti-Chinese vigilantism. According to legend, Joaquín Murrieta—one of the great figures in Gold Rush and Chicano history—chose his second career in banditry in response to the hanging of his half brother. Even after the placer gold petered out, Californians of Mexican descent, Californios—often called “greasers,” a word on a par with “niggers”—continued to be lynched at a rate wildly disproportionate to their overall population. (As for Indians, settlers were more likely to murder them without any pretense of legality).

As I said people with guns tend to support oppressive government.

Partisans during time of war rarely if ever use private firearms. The French resistance depended on captured arms and supplies from the allies. The same is true of partisans such as Tito being supplied by the Soviet Union.

Just how much utility did armed African Americans have? Besides getting open carry laws changed in California they played into the hands of racist propaganda that still lives today. Witness the rights reaction to a member of the Panthers being near a polling place.

The end of the 20th century was the greatest revolutionary period in history. The fall of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact happened with a populace that didn't own private firearms, with very very few exceptions.

The largest revolution in history was led by a little man wearing a diaper whilst preaching non-violence.

History is not on your side here.

History also shows us that successful revolutions tend to have some governmental ideal and or a structure that the revolution is subservient to. The Colonial committees of correspondence, Sons of Liberty, local governments and finally the Continental Congress are prime examples of that. The African national congress, is a successful example, the Free French, and other governments in exile during WWII are also example. Even when that ideal fails during or after the revolution as with the French Estates General, the structure of government is still there.

(Just as an aside the British marched on Concord and Lexington to seize weapons and powder controlled by local government, not those owned by private citizens. Even when the British did seize weapons owned by the public as they did in Boston, it had no effect of the revolutionaries ability to wage war.)

Would you prefer that the armed groups supporting oppression go unopposed?

This is a silly question. It's like when conservatives used to ask if the world was a better place with Saddam Hussein out of it.
It presumes that there is only a binary choice.
King and Gandhi stood up to oppressive government without firearms, Boris Yeltsin drunkenly stood in front of a tank. They won their battles, though the wars sill continue.

We live in a nation that is still partly democratic. As such we have lots of options to act on without playing Red Dawn.

I don't think the right to bear arms is a right of the individual. Imo Heller was wrongly decided just as Citizens United was.

I also think that confusing the philosophical right to revolution with the civil ability to own firearms is just silly.