So do some of you think that if your own government/military decides to turn on it's people that the guns you keep at home are really going to protect you?
So do some of you think that if your own government/military decides to turn on it's people that the guns you keep at home are really going to protect you?
Originally Posted by Teacher Terry
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ~Tench Coxe, 20 Feb 1788
I think this is the point. A people can never be free if their government restrains their natural right to self defense. The fact that their odds aren't stellar if the government turns against them doesn't change the nature, or importance, of their liberty. You may feel free to abdicate yours but I think it's the height of arrogance to expect me to abdicate mine.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein
While I would agree that it's a noble idea that people should be able to defend themselves against a tyrannical government I think Teacher Terry's questions still stands. We've seen in Philadelphia in the 80's and Waco a decade later what level the government will go to when they decide that people need to be taken down. Is there actually any real chance of the people of the US winning an armed conflict against our government?
What form do you see this "conflict" taking?
It would be a handgun against a tank. Who are we kidding.
I think you do not i derstand potential tyranny of local government, police, and the like.
They would just bomb us with drones.
When black people in Oakland tried to stand up to the tyranny of their local police back in the 60's the laws regarding what guns could be owned and where they could be taken by their owners got changed. Quickly. The potential tyranny is real but if people somehow think they're going to win that fight I'd say they are foolish. If need be the local police will simply drop bombs and burn down dozens of houses to get their desired result:
https://www.nytimes.com/1985/05/14/u...ladelphia.html
I was just going to go there--what if people rose up against rogue police who seemingly can kill random blacks with impunity? How would that be met? Armed protest wouldn't stand a chance against an increasingly militarized police force. Who are we kidding...
Ramona Africa, the sole adult occupant of the bombed house in Philadelphia who got out alive, was arrested and went to prison until about 1992.
Her first speech after her release from prison can be seen at the linked website, headed 1992
http://onamove.com/ramona-africa
At that time (26 years ago) she said she was still a "true revolutionary" … "Revolution don't have to be violent." … Pressure (such as fear of riot) is why the system appeases inmates, and minorities generally.
Incidentally last night MSNBC aired a townhall on "Everyday Racism in America" in Philadelphia, at the Prince Theater. In the discussion, I noted an observation that "white discomfort" (or fear of street crime) can readily result in a call for police to attend. Police response can quickly escalate to overwhelming or even lethal force.
Maybe there is a parallel with fears of gun violence in schools. Do we/they "call the cops" to deal with school bullying? Do we/they, like Israel, decide to hire private security contractors to provide armed guards at the entrances to schools?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote