Subject:
|
Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Jan 2001 04:57:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1082 times
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> My guns are owned in part so that I can assist the revolution if I should
> decide that that is the right course of action.
Are guns necessary for a revolution? Perhaps non-violent movements can more
effectively create social change: Gandhi and post-colonial India, South
Africa in the past decade. Interestingly both these countries have examples that
show how a culture of violence can become the norm, with no "gains" to anyone
involved (India's conflict with Pakistan over Kashmir; tribal/gang/poverty
related crime in SA).
Even if guns are necessary for a revolution, are they sufficient?
1. Chris points out his right to choose to join the revolution or not. The USA
is much more culturally diverse now than it was at independence. Would the armed
population be united against an illegitimate government? Would the Klan and the
Nation of Islam find enough common ground that they would forget to hate each
other? And even if they did:
2. Would the world's most powerful military force be deployed against its own
citizens? Could this actually happen? And what would happen if it did?
--DaveL
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread: (Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|