Okay, thanks, Sam, for the clarification.
And no prob on the “read it again.” I didn’t take offense at it.
My memory is hazy. Am I correct in recalling that there were violent outbreaks in South Africa? Did these help end Apartied? I seriously can’t remember.
Point taken. Though the large reason for that is that they, as you said, are nutbags, and can’t really hope for enough popular support to make a true difference. Even if PETA decided to become violent insurgents devoted to veganism (funny thought), they wouldn’t be any more sucessful.
What do you mean? Tiananmen Square resulted in the formation of China Alliance for Democracy and the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars. The reason why pro-democracy movements have floundered in China is that, with China’s rising prosperity, political liberalization is less of a concern, so you can’t really expect any pro-democracy movement, armed or not, to gain as much support as it potentially could’ve a few decades ago.
And you obviously misunderstand passive resistance. One of the major parts is to refuse to comply to unjust laws (non-violently, of course). If the government ignores this and doesn’t enforce their own laws, then what kind of tyranny is that?
But you’re right, non-violent protests are not always effective. Neither are violent insurgencies. After all this quibbling, you’ve not convinced me that an armed populace makes much of a difference. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree?
For those who dismiss the idea that a semi-organized militia would be functionally useless against a despotic regime controlling the U.S., just remember the vast amounts of wilderness at the disposal of such a group, as well as the incredible ease of synthesizing large amounts of high explosives relatively quickly.
On the point raised earlier about whether fewer black people in the USA own guns than white people, here’s the relevant paragraph from a study carried out by a group at George Mason University in 2000. The analysis is based on a national survey administered by the Washington Post-ABC News, in which 1,068 adults were surveyed.
“Finally, there was an inverse relationship between gun ownership and the perception of danger. In response to the question “Do you or does anyone in your house own a gun, or not?,” whites were nearly twice as likely as blacks (51 percent vs. 26 percent) to own a gun. Further, Republicans were more likely than Democrats (50 percent vs. 39 percent) to own firearms. Yet as we have seen, both blacks and Democrats were far more likely to express a sense of danger from gun violence. It would appear that residents of households where guns are present express less fear of gun violence.” (emphasis added)
Click here for the article in full.
For Marley and Kluge.
RT: ‘So, would it be reasonable to assume that gun ownership was lower, pro rata, among black American adults than among white American adults? Any stats for this? Or comments from people who have discussed this with black friends? Or, best of all, from black people themselves?’
RT: ‘I’m asking for comments from black people, not stats. Read it again!’
Kluge: ‘Bolding mine. Okay, I read it again. Care to explain?’
It’s simple, really. First, I ask for any stats regarding gun ownership among blacks and whites. Then, I ask for comments on the issue (not stats) from people who have black friends. I refine this request by asking for comments from blackk people themselves.
Ellipsis is operating here, so that my fourth sentence above may be rendered in full thus:
‘Or, best of all, any comments from black people themselves?’
Hope that helps.
Ilsa, New Zealand has a fair bit of wilderness too. (I wouldn’t want to get lost south of Milford Sound.) And, if a Piggy Muldoon were to be returned to power, it has a potentially despotic regime in control.
Would Kiwis be in a position to raise a semi-organized militia in such an event? In other words, do folk there have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, or not? And if not, do you think they should have such a right?
Hell if I know. I’m an American; been here three months.
But in answer to your question about guns: in short, no. Being a redblooded American and keen to exercise my inalienable right to keep and bear arms here (:D), I found that the gun laws are incredibly restrictive. In short, it is very difficult to get guns, they must be kept under lock and key at all times, they must all be registered, functionally no handguns, etc. Kiwis woud be pretty much screwed if they were controlled by a dictatorial regime.
Three months and you already tried to buy one?! Must be homesick.
Do Kiwis consider the threat of that, however improbable, to be so grave as to warrant a change in the gun laws?
About half the population of the US owns guns. Perhaps it’s a bit more. 90% of the people I know own guns.
How many people in the U.S. could be considered criminals with guns that will use their gun for criminal intent? %.0001?
I don’t know any criminals. Or anyone that has been put in jail. And certainly don’t know anyone that would use a gun with criminal intent.
I see it again and again. The people that don’t know anything about guns support any law that restricts gun ownership.
That’s the problem that I see. The folks that don’t know a thing about guns, are trying to pass legislation based on 6 o’Clock news sound bites that have nothing to do with gun ownership in the U.S.
The same way people who didn’t know anything about marijuana were able to make posession of it a criminal offense.
You may be onto something there. Of course, since you’re making these explosives yourself, how does this relate to the 2nd amendment? I’ll admit I don’t know much about the right to bear arms in respect to explosives, so I’d genuinely like you to explain this to me.
I will agree that if insurgents can get their hand on something that can do some real damage, then they’ll be more viable. But the rights to such arms tend to be restricted even with the 2nd amendment. In other words, they’d better have one helluva assault rifle.
And in all fairness, there’s nothing to prevent the government from bombing the hell out of the wilderness they’re hiding in. This, of course, would have limited success, and would be a lot more costly. Nukes might do the trick, but that raises a whole mess with foreign countries.
Oh, I know all that. I just wanted to point out the contradiction. First you asked for stats, then you claimed that you didn’t ask for stats.
And quite frankly, why do the anecdotal comments of a black person matter? It may be interesting, but it doesn’t prove anything.
You know, I didn’t really know much about the PETA. Tuckerfan’s post seemed to imply it was non-violent. Guess I should’ve known a group with those extreme positions would have a violent side.
No. When I wrote ‘I’m asking for comments from black people, not stats’, ellipsis was again operating. In full, this means ‘I’m asking for comments from black people, not stats from black people’.
First, the views of black people on gun ownership, gun control and the second sould matter; second, they might be able to reflect the views of their community so that what one obtains is not merely anecdotal but generalisable.
My fault there. I need more sleep. Sorry.
I’ve always found such generalizations to be a silly practice. If one African American absolutely loves his gun, you extend that to the rest of the African American population? Statistics are so much more reliable in giving you a sense of the community’s varioues views (assuming they’re from a reliable source).
Aargh, I forgot to ask this again. enipla, cite?
If nothing else than for more specific numbers.
No problem. I’ll watch my elliptical style!
Re stats, there’s always a vested interest, but, yes, the best ones are generally a good guide. Re anecdotal stuff from individual people, reading the views and anecdotes of maybe only 50 (pretty certainly) white people on the gun issue has opened my eyes to the depth of feeling, as well as the reverence in which the Constitution is held. (Remember us Brits have no written constitution to speak of, although that doesn’t stop us being reverential about that!) So, I was hoping, in the light of Moore’s works that portray black people as peace-loving (I know he’s being deliberately provocative and exaggerrating for effect, BUT if he thinks there’s nothing in that stereotype then I really can’t see what he’s trying to communicate) that individual black people would chip in, so that, as with the white ethos, I might be able to understand the black ethos vis a vis the issues surrounding guns.
The interesting thing about the white ethos is that it seems to cut across all types (on SDMB), form war veteran to tree hugging liberal. In fact, it seems to be about the only issue that I have seen discussed here that unites the vast majority of people. But the blacks *are * different (and here I do agree with Moore, with his visceral chapter headings like ‘Kill Whitey’ and his cartoon showing crass, bigoted white aggression).
Is it bad form to raise such matters here?
OK. We gave it a chance, it didn’t work, now it’s time to grab our still legal guns and drive these traitorous, anti-constitutional second amendment kickers back to Communist China where they belong.
Of course they couldn’t. That’s not what I said though.
I said, “It also makes things more costly for the gov when it decides to misbehave.”
The price of misbehaving is that they will have to engage an armed insurrection and kill people.
If you think that this has fostered resistance in iraq, imagine if instead of Najaf, they were fighting in Atlanta again.
It makes it more costly for the gov.
It doesn’t; I was remarking on a tangential subject, namely the general viability of an armed insurgency against the United States Government.