I just said it is an example of government tyranny. I am saying that I think introducing Jim Crow into this thread undermines the purpose of the original topic is all.
Read my post above. Hopefully it’s clear that while I agree with your sentiment, it isn’t necessarily relevant to the OP (or at least, my interpretation of it).
Now we are getting places. You are only afraid of the govt going against the will of the majority of its citizens. So do you think that non-violent direct action would be more or less succesful if the people practicing it were a majority of the population?
It seems to me that the case where the govt could successfully use the modern army to wage war againt the interests of the majority of citizens is extremely unlikely. It’s also an insult to the military.
Really? I thought it would be good to have an actual example. Do you have one that you’d like to substitute (an actual one, not a hypothetical).
I think we’re going in circles here. I agree that the hypothetical of our modern volunteer military coming after the general US populace at the behest of the federal government is extremely unlikely.
I also agree that slavery and Jim Crow laws were wrong to their very core, and that either or both of those historical happenings would have placed armed revolution by black people on the right side of justice, even if it wouldn’t have been viewed as such at the time, and possibly history books would have termed it as something quite a bit less than a heroic struggle.
We agree. I’m now completely uncertain what you are arguing about with FinnAgain.
I agree with you on both parts–and that’s the problem with the “guns protect us from tyranny” argument. As Lumpy said, if you’re the persecuted minority, guns aren’t going to help you. If you’re the majority they might, but then you’re the majority and most things help the majority. The will of the majority is usually where the tyranny comes from initially.
We can talk about all sorts of macho times when pulling out a gun to shoot a copper/politician/harasser is justified, but when are the times when it’s wise and tactically sound? When does it make sense? If we think of how many threads have been on this board where someone said, “I agree with him, but the way he went about it was wrong” or “He made a bad situation worse” or “What did he think he would accomplish?” or similar statements illustrates that we all know there are times when things are morally right but still stupid or foolish.
To use the Jewish example, it’s possible some now would be arguing that the Jews had it coming for being so violent, and that if they’d only gone ahead peacefully it wouldn’t have turned out so bad. (That left a bad taste in my mouth just typing it.) We all know that argument would be false, but in a different world with a different history, it’s hard to know just what spin would have been put on what the persecuted minority did. It’s hard to believe that it could have been worse, but there were survivors of the Holocaust so yes, as bad and horrific and terrible and unforgivable as it was, it could have been that much worse. None of us can know.
There obviously are situations of minorities oppressing majorities, such as most recently apartheid South Africa. I have little to no problem with the ANC’s military actions against the minority white government, and I think such actions played an important role in ending apartheid.
As to oppressed minorities, well, yes there comes a major tactical issue, even if violent resistance is justified. The Holocaust all round is a bad example to use, given that the Final Solution aspect occured during a time of total war. You are right we don’t know what the outcome would have been. While I agree with most posters that German opinion was anti-semitic, there is a question of whether Jewish resistance would have impacted these views. Much of the German public seems to have known that the Jews were going somewhere not great, but chose to think little more about it than that. How that view would have been in the face of resistance, I don’t know. But overall, I am not sure an armed Jewish population would have fared significantly better in that time period.
So the question of majority oppression of minorities still exists. Armed resistance is problematic for all the reasons discussed. But it isn’t impossible, depending on the situation. After all, as my Grandad taught me, you never have to win a fight. You just have to hurt the other guy worse than he is willing to be hurt. And oppressed people often have a higher tolerance for “pain” than their oppressors.
But more importantly, there is the question of majority and minority status not being etched in stone. That’s where tactics can come in. Turning a race based civil rights struggle into a class based one can dramatically swing the numbers. Now if violence makes that shift less likely to occur, then violence is a bad thing. But if it can be combined, so be it. One of the great successes of capitalism in the US has been the separation of the interests of the black working class from the white working class. (Damn I feel like I am channelling Gramsci or even Lenin here).
But the violent resistance isn’t necessarily doomed to failure, even for a minority. Given the deep seated nature of racial oppression in the US, violence against Jim Crow would haev been quite possibly counterproductive, as it would have pushed the liberal elites who became powerful supporters away. Had it been able to coalesce into class based movement however, and taken on board interests of the poor whites as well, then who knows…
Me too.
To be a little more rational for a moment (as you did so well in your last post), my observation is that we have already gone through periods in our history where the government has quite blatantly violated the rights of some of its citizens. I think that these abuses have amounted to what can honestly be called tyranny. And yet, those abuses were overcome by the use of the non-violent, direct action and other means that fell far short of the taking up of arms by citizens against the government. I don’t think that history has looked at the civil rights movement or Stonewall and argued that it would have been better if armed conflict had been employed. In fact the greatest thing about America is that our government (with the exception of the Civil War) has been able to make huge changes in a peaceful manner.
So my conclusion is that people who use the 2nd ammendment as justification that citizens must keep guns at the ready for armed revolt against the government are at best being disengenuos. That view puts guns in the unique position that any sort of control (registration, criminal checks, safety requirement, time and place restrictions) defeat the purpose of the right to bear arms.
My personal belief is that guns should be treated similar to cars: registered, licensed, insured, and training required. I don’t think that these methods will be 100% effective any more than the regulations on cars are. But I do think that on balance it will make the lives of all of us more safe and enjoyable.
I’m not sure where it is we’re in disagreement, to be honest.
It seemed to take a while, at least from my perspective. You could make a better point by using some of the other members of the coalition, who were even more demanding of a withdrawal and earlier than the U.S., especially since the U.S. has not as of yet pulled out. Indeed, i’d consider being costly enough that the crushers are of wavering opinion to be a reasonably good amount of cost, at least potentially. It reduces the chance that the crusher will want to continue.
They didn’t seriously hinder Nazi military operations. And the other uprising also failed. Power most certainly is shown, and it is shown to have an effect, but not a very considerable one, sadly. Nazi power was rather undiminished, as a whole. I’m pretty sure i’ve made that point before.
And my “tangential” points seem pretty damn significant to me. You’re free to suggest that there’s no effective difference to the argument made between an invading outsider force or a coup from within, but I tend to think that there very much is. And i’d point out, again, that things would likely have been very different if the average non-Jewish German population had been as (if not, likely more so) armed as the Jews in Warsaw. I suspect that it would not have been pleasant.
I’ve ignored it? I think you’ll find that i’ve looked into morale and logistics in quite a few of my examples, thanks; you may disagree with the points I have made, but please do not declare I have ignored things, again, when I have not. I suggest you might want to find a more suitable word.
The WGU did have an effect, but not a considerable one. The Nazis had to devote more effort; it did not cripple nor indeed injure them in any considerable way. They would have recovered, in other words, all too quickly, from a not very significant wound. A recovery that would have been considerably quicker with a well-armed German populace.
This is not so much aimed at you, but I despise this particular criticism. How else exactly am I supposed to defend my argument without referring to it? And indeed, I don’t recall suggesting that the truthfulness of my argument relied on how many times I state it. I could be wrong; feel free to look back and check, if you like.
Thank you for the examples. I’m afraid i’m not particularly up on Nigerian or South Korean politics, though; i’m aware it’s a bit to ask but could you provide the reasoning why you think they support your point? I’m afraid the little I know about the events you’ve brought up is what you’ve put down here.
I’m a Jew, U.S. Army veteran, and a gun owner. I believe every Jew should own a firearm and know how to use it.
The Holocaust has not yet moved into the realm of “ancient history”, and there has never been a shortage of people willing to kill Jews just for being Jews. Just ask the Jews of Mumbai.
If there were a few more dead Nazis, there might be a few more live Jews. The fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto showed that armed resistance can make a difference. They may have lost the battle, but I’m proud of them and what they accomplished against vastly superior forces.
Thugs, of whatever type, prefer their victims to be unarmed. I’m not willing to make things so convenient for them.
Actually, it is only a very small step from Gitmo to Auschwitz. I can’t even count the number of people I have heard in the last 7 years giving support for taking just such a step. Just because we are doing it to someone else’s neighbor rather than our own is making that justification even easier for some people. Fortunately they are the minority for now.
As for the “kicking in doors and breaking up families in the night” (as well as indiscriminatly gunning down) it is already happening in Iraq, by us. We may have gotten rid of Bush, but the undercurrent of racism that supports his actions is still very much alive and well.
Neither am I. I’m all for the stopping of thugs, the stopping of those who would take the opportunity to murder and maim simply because of who some people are. Which is why I don’t want thugs to be armed. I’m not willing to make things so convenient for them.
You completely misunderstood his post. He didn’t say that. In fact, he said the opposite of that.
Bullshit.
The quote, in context, was:
Your obfuscation is either ignorant or dishonest. I misunderstood nothing and guilt by association was exactly what that fucker was aiming at. Which is exactly why he didn’t include the ACLU and Pink Pistols, et al, among the horrible people that he was using in his guilt-by-association idiocy. Since only a “right wing gun nut” would find common cause with them. :rolleyes:
Your denial is beneath you.
FinnAgain, I can’t believe you quoted everything he said that proves my case and ruins yours, but you’re still so dead certain you’re right.
And it’s obvious why he didn’t include the ALCU and the Pink Pistols.
Sure, but the Warsaw Ghetto resistance doesn’t have anything to do with this discussion. We’re not talking about resisting an occupying force; we’re talking about resisting one’s own entrenched government.
FinnAgain, fix your glasses. That “fucker” offered your senile, clap-ridden old ass some sound tactical advice, if you can be bothered to read on.
Unless you like cementing your image as a stupid reactive prick, which plays hell with your ethos as a rhetor. Again, no skin offa me.
Next time someone helpfully tells you your intellectual fly is open, don’t call them dishonest or ignorant. It only taints the pity your readers already feel for you with well-merited contempt.
That’s the last of the free advice. You can go back to gumming the turkey remnants now and lamenting the death of the polka, in your syphilitic stupor.
Yes, because it ruins your lie that it isn’t guilt-by-association and your idiocy that calling someone a right wing gun nut for having those fellow travelers isn’t guilt by association.
And, of course, your convenient omission of the fact that the Nevada ACLU would be “right win gun nuts” by that same guilt-by-association bullshit, except its user was too intellectually dishonest to apply it across the board.
Oh, and Char, you asshole? Fuck you and your ignorant, smarmy gun bashing stupidity. You are a hair’s breadth away from trolling and your arrogant and aggressive stupidity about how people need to defend themselves from your idiocy displays delusions of competency. Go fuck yourself, turd-gargler. And while I’m at it, you stupid fuck, not only is age not a valid insult, I’m only 28.
Pathetic. You fucking coward. Those of us with brains know why you don’t include Pink Pistols and the ACLU in your slur about “gut nuts”.
He’s like, 30.
What a shame. PREMATURELY senile from syphilis, no less.
Look, pottymouth. Are the Pink Pistols the first group most people think of when considering gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters?
Consider closely: that’s a hint, and constructive criticism. Does the ACLU as a national organization support the 2nd Amendment to the full extent you would like? Why? Why not? Do people know?
That’s another hint. Outside of its merits or lacks thereof, your cause has a serious PR problem – most non-gun owners think of your bunch as dumb wannabe bully meatheads like yourself. From a strategic standpoint, it almost doesn’t matter whether the characterization is right. Let someone smarter than you read this, and work on implementation.
Hairsbreadth from trolling? Report, and let a mod decide.
Coward? Oh, yes. The ultimate measure of my courage is how much time I decide to waste shouting into your deaf ear.
x2