Well, I didn't want to share, but when I worked for the US Forest Service in the summer, some Nevada "militamen" apprehended some co-workers at gunpoint and held them hostage for a day or so. It was some sort of bizarre protest against "federal" power.
They are taking our guns away !
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Well, I didn't want to share, but when I worked for the US Forest Service in the summer, some Nevada "militamen" apprehended some co-workers at gunpoint and held them hostage for a day or so. It was some sort of bizarre protest against "federal" power.
The Polish labor union, "Solidarity", predates gorby.
"Solidarity" was the spark that lit the fuse.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Very well Cypress how about the Overthow of Okello in Uganda by the National resistance army that led to the restoration of democracy in Uganda.
don't know much about it, but i'll take your word.
I don't deny that violent, armed revolutions can NEVER replace an authoritarian government, with a fair and democratic one. Its just that when guns are involved, its usually the people with the biggest and most guns that win. Not neccessarily the people with the best ideals.
As evidence of this, you've provided a solitary example from a small central african country, and in contrast, I've provided dozens of examples from eastern europe, to south africa, to latin america, where the peacefull exercise of labor unions, civil protesters, and civil disobedience managed to replace authoritarians with democracy.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
As I said there are different ways to overthrow a dicatorship. You seem to be advocating taking one of those ways off the table. The ugandans may not have been able to overthrow Okello without arms. We could potentially face the same situation. Guns are a necessary evil.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Not quite.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
Also the Guatemalan conflict could be cited as an example. While it did not overthrow the government it led to the reintroduction of elections as terms for the cease fire.
I've never advocated taking away guns. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. My relatives are avid hunters, and would probably string me up, if I said that.
I'm saying that it doesn't pass the laugh test, to suggest the primary reason to have guns is to rebel against an authoritarian government, thus replacing it with a fair and democratic one. First, that's not what the founders primarily envisioned with the second amendment, second, looking to the modern history of violent armed civil war in authoritarian countries does not give on comfort that the end result will be a fair and democratic society.
In contrast, the power of labor unions and civil disobedience in authoritarian countries, has a MUCH better track record.
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
Yes
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I've never advocated taking away guns. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion. My relatives are avid hunters, and would probably string me up, if I said that.
Not calling you a gun grabber but you don't want people to have a 50 cal weapon right? If you are ok with it I sincerely apologize.
I'm saying that it doesn't pass the laugh test, to suggest the primary reason to have guns is to rebel against an authoritarian government, thus replacing it with a fair and democratic one. First, that's not what the founders primarily envisioned with the second amendment, second, looking to the modern history of violent armed civil war in authoritarian countries does not give on comfort that the end result will be a fair and democratic society.
It doesn't have to be the primary reason it only needs to be a supporting one. I make this one for arguing gun rights because I know liberals will be most sensitive to it because of the current admin.
In contrast, the power of labor unions and civil disobedience in authoritarian countries, has a MUCH better track record.
Labor Unions are very weak in this country, and civil disobedience only works against regimes that are sensitive to the feelings of its constituents.
Not calling you a gun grabber but you don't want people to have a 50 cal weapon right? If you are ok with it I sincerely apologize.
I'm saying that it doesn't pass the laugh test, to suggest the primary reason to have guns is to rebel against an authoritarian government, thus replacing it with a fair and democratic one. First, that's not what the founders primarily envisioned with the second amendment, second, looking to the modern history of violent armed civil war in authoritarian countries does not give on comfort that the end result will be a fair and democratic society.
It doesn't have to be the primary reason it only needs to be a supporting one. I make this one for arguing gun rights because I know liberals will be most sensitive to it because of the current admin.
In contrast, the power of labor unions and civil disobedience in authoritarian countries, has a MUCH better track record.
Labor Unions are very weak in this country, and civil disobedience only works against regimes that are sensitive to the feelings of its constituents.
Woke up cranky?
T
TRGLDTE
Guest
No, she was still sleeping when I got out of bed...
uscitizen
Villified User
yes much simpler to use on the Ex than crashing a plane on the EX MIL's house.
Cute.
What do you envision society looking like if private citizens were allowed to have rocket launchers?
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
I would envision the same. There are instances of criminals using these weapons. Years ago a man fired a SAM at a police station.
IHateGovernment
Is this your homework?
My wife told me she once saw a man carrying a bazooka in New Orleans.
Not calling you a gun grabber but you don't want people to have a 50 cal weapon right? If you are ok with it I sincerely apologize.
We've already determined that you and I are not that far apart on gun control. We both believe in significant limitations of the second amendment right to bear arms.
You're upper limit is weaponry that causes collateral damage, such as incendiary rounds and ammo.
Mine, is limitiations on armour-piercing battlefield ammunation. Its not that "liberal" of a postion. Arnold Schwarzenneger recently signed a ban on 50-cal battlefield ammunition.
We've already determined that you and I are not that far apart on gun control. We both believe in significant limitations of the second amendment right to bear arms.
You're upper limit is weaponry that causes collateral damage, such as incendiary rounds and ammo.
Mine, is limitiations on armour-piercing battlefield ammunation. Its not that "liberal" of a postion. Arnold Schwarzenneger recently signed a ban on 50-cal battlefield ammunition.