Subject:
|
Re: guns, guns, guns (was: demographics (was: My Gun Control Rant))
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Jan 2001 16:23:10 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1113 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?
>
> They are necessary for an armed insurgency. Revolution is a messy term
> because it has so many contextual meanings.
Well, I suppose guns are necessary for an insurgency to be armed. They may
not be the only effective means of achieving substantial political change;
cf feminism for another example.
> > Perhaps non-violent movements can more
> > effectively create social change: Gandhi and post-colonial India, South
> > Africa in the past decade.
>
> And you would claim that these two nations are exemplars of successful
> national organization?
Not necessarily, but that's not my point. Gandhi's form of activism was a
large factor in the manner in which India achieved independence; Mandela and
Tutu achieved much more through peaceful means than the ANC ever did by
promoting armed struggle. [note: this is the part of the discussion I am
most interested in continuing]
> > 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).
>
> I'm pretty sure that someone's getting rich whenever armed conflict happens.
Sorry for any confusion: I was referring to real political outcomes (such as
a lasting resolution of territorial boundaries), not cash. The waste that
armaments and war generate in the economy is a tangential issue.
> > Even if guns are necessary for a revolution, are they sufficient?
>
> Absolutely not. That is why it is important that we (in the US) get rid of
> all the unconstitutional "laws" that infringe the right of the people to keep
> and bear more substantial arms. It is also why it is important to keep the
> knowledge of improvised munitions alive for all.
Where do you draw the line? Mortars? Ground to air missiles? Tactical nukes?
> > 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?
>
> They might if the threat was great enough. Probably not. But neither of
> those groups represent even vaguely mainstream US opinion.
How mainstream is the opinion that people own guns to fight the government,
rather than home-invading criminals say? Not to say that one gun couldn't do
both jobs, but I would think more people are thinking about defending their
family and property than a possible armed struggle. In cases of rioting,
mayhem, and generally violent social insurrection do more people take to the
streets, or sit tight and hope for the best?
> And if the result of the coming revolution is that the US cracks into a bunch
> of smaller states, well more power to it. That is how it was supposed to
> work anyway. Murderer Lincoln ruined what hope there was for that 150 years
> ago.
So much for "e pluribus unum" I suppose. Anyone have some good cites on what
led to the civil war? I wonder what the status of African-americans would be
today if the South had won, or lost on more favourable terms?
> > 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?
>
> I suspect the US military, if called out for particularly heinous actions
> against US citizens, would fracture. But we have had one revolution where
> military engagement was widespread enough to squash the resistance.
I'm not sure what you're referring to here? the Civil War again? The
technological discrepancy between the "civilians" and the military was much
less then than it is today, wasn't it?
> Let's say that 100,000 of us get together and start a revolution. That is a
> big enough group that we could cause some serious mischief, but small
> enough that the military wouldn't have too much trouble putting us down. We
> would be called terrorists and criminals by the people inciting the
> military to attack us. I doubt they would issue orders like "Roll your tanks
> over those poor honorable freedom-fighters until the streets run red
> with the blood of the oppressed."
>
> When the US government wrongly entered a military engagement with the home of
> the Branch Davidians, they cast their enemies in the least
> flattering terms they could think of. They were a cult, not a peaceful
> Christian sect. The lived in a compound, not a home. David Koresh was a
> child molester not a sexual liberal. The same would be done in a revolution.
I largely agree with this analysis. I think that you might have over two
million people prepared to indulge in a little domestic terror if they
thought it was warranted, and they wouldn't get caught by the FBI. There's
also a distance between Koresh and McVeigh, the former having more public
sympathy but being much less likely to be emulated.
--DaveL
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
