Subject:
|
Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 14 Jan 2001 13:43:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1055 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> 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).
Very true. I’d like to add to the list much of the eastern European states
which have “come in from the cold”. It is a gross generalisation, and I hope
I do not offend anyone, but much of these popular uprising have been against
oppressive / unrepresentative / exploitative governments which did not have
any history of listening to the greater populous – but instead followed
their own ideology. These revolutions were about a popular majority making
their view know to an unhearing, but powerful, minority.
A direct contradiction of this situation is, what I expect will be, what
Chris meant by revolution. He worries that the majority will remove some of
the choices he can now make – or perhaps give him extra ones which he does
not want. That will be when some in the USA will revolt.
>
> 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?
This can only happen when the army, and their families, have extra rights
over normal citizens which it fears the masses will remove from them.
Otherwise, how could they be motivated?
> Could this actually happen? And what would happen if it did?
Most modern Armies are trained in urban clearance - it is a key part of
modern warfare. Personally, I fail to see how a bunch of out to shape middle
aged men can put up any sort of credible resistance, with small arms,
against a well trained military. To me, the notion that a man with pistol
can put up anything more than a token resistance is absurd. Has anyone seen
“Dad’s Army”?
Naturally, all that assumes that the military would not divide. If it did
divide, the gun owning populous would be even more ineffectual.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant))
|
| (...) Is it your assertion then, that the changes in government in states such as the DDR, Poland, Czechoslovokia, Hungary, etc. had nothing whatever to do with guns, that is, that they were completely non violent, and no guns or weapons anywhere in (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
