Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
That said, nonviolent opposition is a far superior way to go. Unfortunately, it's crucially dependent on the tyrant losing his nerve. In places like Iran, Zimbabwe, or North Korea where they're willing to arrest or slaughter any number of people to remain in power, doesn't work so much.
Pistols aren't that accurate, really. Much as we complain about the cops, it's hard to hit something with a pistol that is more than 15 meters (50 feet) away from you with any consistent accuracy, especially a moving target, which is why they aim for center of body mass (the chest) usually. So Glock MPs aren't that effective.
And Tunisia was a revolt by the middle class.
And it could happen here.
Today. Without guns.
I thought this was Mudede
@2 yup. For every Tunisia there is a Myanmar, Iran and Xinjiang.
now i personally dont like guns and dont own one, however i have no strong views against other people being armed, just a passing thought.
Nixon and W weren't the first of your presidents to lie to you.
What troubles me more is the idea that violent revolution will likely produce a better system of government than we have now. I think this is the point Dan is alluding to, not that there aren't successful armed rebellions here and there but that they tend to produce yet another repressive regime.
The Iran Revolution actually started off as secular, popular "people power", but was quickly coopted by the mullahs. Few of the people who brought down the Shah wanted the mullahs in his place. Sort of like how the people who toppled the regime of the Tsar were not Lenin's Bolsheviks, who merely capitalized on their actions and took over.
The history of armed insurrection IS widespread, but it's almost always horribly negative in outcome. The history of tyranny being staved off by an armed populace, which is what American gun nuts often think they're doing, is, of course, nonexistent.
@3, war was in the end not the most important factor in the American Revolution. The British were doomed no matter what. The war merely settled an inevitability.
A bunch of handguns and hunting rifles won't do much against the greatest military force the world has ever seen. A military unit - even a severely outmanned one - would be vastly superior to any group, however large, of untrained civilians.
The folks in this country who are talking about violent uprising are all short-sighted fools. They have no plan or vision for the country, they just want to rage. They don't care about what might be better or worse down the road, they're too dim to see past next week.
Then again, most Americans are sheep ... so maybe.
@20 is correct. We actually lost most battles - repeatedly. But as soon as they'd leave we'd spring up again. And the French help kept the British from bringing most of their Navy to bear on us.
Anyone crazy enough to think they can defend their home and family with a stockpile of weapons against the US Military should see a shrink- my own father included.
At least you aren't saying all gun owners like kiddie porn like Charles at least.
I absolutely agree that a strategy of civil disobedience is likely to elevate a ruling class with good values. But it's simply incorrect to say that tyrants are never removed by armed locals (Nicaragua, Cuba, various anti-colonial movements).
Beyond the objective of toppling the government, local armed groups are quite capable of making particular areas no-go areas for the regime, which is also a means of protection from tyranny. There are several militant groups in Myanmar right now, while no threat to take the capital, that to some extent protect ethnic groups in border regions from depredations.
@21 - no need for a thought experiment - we've sent Bradleys to control many small towns over the past decade or so. How's that working out for us?
I'd love to stay and chat because it's an interesting subject with a lot of history (I love history!) but I've got to get to work...
Stopping extreme oppression before it starts is a lot more preferable, but when circumstances get dire enough, physical resistance (and the guns that go with it) are necessary. I'm not endorsing that activity in America today --- we're far from that point.
translation: we have a right to have guns so the militia can keep America secure. from invasion.
what conservatives hear: we get to have any weapon we want so we can overthrow the government if a black man is president.
Having lived through the German reunification, and shortly thereafter having spent six months in the disintegrating former Yugoslavia, all I can say is that while both methods can be effective in achieving regime change, only one of them typically results in a country that is safe to live in during the aftermath.
The federal constitution is over the states. We cant ignore it.
Well, the peasants never did overthrow their masters. Sure, there were insurrections, but the uprisings were led by aristocrats against other aristocrats. The whole argument about an armed citizenry overthrowing a tyrannical regime (or keeping the government in line) is pretty ridiculous.
That being said, I once observed my father kill an elk from a distance of about a mile...from one mountain ridge to another. At eight years old. I was quite impressed, if entirely dejected and saddened at the killing of such a large animal. I personally preferred to walk down to the town dump (small town in Eastern Arizona) with my .22 and blast crows. We (kids under the age of ten) were able to carry guns around without people really raising an eyebrow.
Different time, different place.
don't change the topic from federal to state constitutions. i'm saying the 2nd doesn't give us the right to have guns in order to overthrow the government, but rather to protect it.
it's anachronistic, to say the least.
And then I thought, well, sure, Tunisia, but SURELY someone will mention King or Ghandi in the comments. I mean, two HUGE insurrections effecting real change, all based on non-violence.
But no.....
Ya'll are lettin' me down here....