What about trying to end the USSR before 30 million died at the hands of the red wolves of Stalin? Before the Holodomor? Before the Great Purge? They did not because they could not... the russians were rendered totally helpless at the hands of the soviet state. As it happened in the Otoman Empire, when they decided to exterminate the armenians, the plan worked perfectly... and in the future it would effectively be mirrored by Germany, Cambodia, Uganda, China etc. for the same purpose of genocide.  

Also come on, you do know the USSR imploded alone because of the incompetence of it's leaders. Anyone protesting for democracy would be crushed like little insects, as they were on China or Czechoslovakia, if the USSR was still as strong as under Stalin. 

Why was the right to carry a gun ever included in your constitution? i don't understand that

To prevent supression from local and federal governments. To protect friends family and loved ones from people with no regard for human life. To get food during harsh winters... many reasons

Would think that would be obvious...

Thank God people are finally realizing that gun control means more crime, not the other way around. Do you really think tons of gun control would have stopped shootings such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, or the Colorado movie theatre? No! But if some of the people in these places had been carry/concealing maybe they could have stopped it sooner.

I'm gonna have to say this: If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

No reason bro. We're just all cr-zazy.

Illinois isn't realizing this though. They actually fought tooth and nail on this. On top of this other restrictions were deemed unconstitutional previously in Illinois. I don't remember the exact laws but they were ridiculous to the point that it was impossible to have a gun. It was something like you needed to bring your gun to chicago to register it but then there was another law banning guns in the city limits of chicago. Something utterly ridiculous like that.

Soviet leadership opened their own doors up for democratic change, to the point where the army wasn't willing to shoot at protestors because they (the military) knew better.

There are two further problems with your examples, which are the stock examples of "but if the citizens had been armed, none of that would have happened."

1: In cases of oppression of minorities by well-armed tyrannies, the minorities having guns probably would have made things worse. Hitler and the Nazis had to do a fair bit of work convincing the German people that the Jews were worthy of straight-up extermination. If the Jews had had guns and were actively fighting the government in that endeavor, Germany would have wiped them out much quicker (and probably with less in the way of international condemnation, since it would have been seen as a Jewish provocation, even though the genocide would be less excusable). Similar with the Ottomans and the Armenians. You lose a lot of moral high ground when an unprovoked genocide turns into an overzealous response to armed rebellion.

2: All of these oppressive, dictatorial regimes were brought in by guys with guns. During the Chinese and Russian Revolutions, all factions tried their best to arm the citizenry in hopes that they would turn out for their cause. In China's case, it just meant that centuries-old inter-village feuds were now backed by Soviet or Japanese-made munitions. In Russia's case, it led to some five distinct armed factions (Reds, Whites, Blacks, Greens, and Blues, plus a handful of ethnic factions). All of these were people trying to express their political views with guns and fight for what they believed was their freedom.

In light of that, it made a great deal of sense that whoever won was going to institute a total gun ban. It wasn't a communist thing so much as "there's no way in hell i want those guys to be re-armed" thing. The Whites would have done the same thing.

Edit: and i may add that this sort of thing is rather hard for Americans to understand because we've never had to deal with a real revolution and only two real rebellions (Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion). Usually we fought against the semi-independent Amerindian Nations, and our civil war was fought between states, such that our Civil War wasn't very politically messy, except in a few of the border states like Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Similarly, our "Revolution" was really waged by the governments of the colony/states, so it wasn't really a Revolution as such. A very neat and orderly affair.

Well we Europeans don't need guns in our everyday life, why would you? You don't need guns to live. And if you get supressed by government, you can always raid a army base, like the Libyans did. And finally do you think guns will make the Government back off, just look at Syria currently, it's just made things worse. 

Wow that's absolutely ridiculous...I can't believe how people continue to ignore the facts and blame crime on guns/lack of gun control. I'd have to look it up but I'm almost certain I've read that more crime is prevented by armed law abiding citizens than by police...and much of this is just flashing your gun, not even shooting it.