"When our founding fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment, the concept of political change through non-violence, the kind we saw in the past couple of weeks in Egypt and Tunisia, did not exist....The premise of a potentially necessary violent overthrow of an existing government has been superceded by non-violent politcal revolution."
- "Dog Gone" - An anti-gunner who I shall not link to.
The concept of political change through non-violence didn't exist in 1791? Our founders utilized every form of recourse with the King before taking up arms. They exhausted all options without seeing change. The concept of non-violent change existed, but as history shows us it doesn't always work.
I'm pretty sure the U.S. had gone through "political change" in the form of several elections from 1776 through 1791 and onward. To say that the concept didn't exist in unbelievably stupid, but then these are the words of an anti-gunner, so stupidity is a default condition.
As for using Egypt & Tunisia as proof that violent overthrow isn't necessary, well that just shows astounding naivety. Time will tell whether the despots in many of these Middle Eastern nations actually relinquish power. The reason the Egyptian revolution "worked" to the extent that it has so far is because Mubarak lost the support of the men with guns. If you're a dictator and the Army turns on you, you're screwed.
A dictator can quell even a massive uprising of the unarmed fairly easily if he retains control of the military and has no issue using it against the people. (See Iran in 2009) Also, who is in power in Egypt right now? The people? No. The military controls the country.
I saw this quote in the comments over at Ben Smith's piece in Politico,
"The peaceful nonviolent protesters, despite their "moral force" and spiritual vibes, get mowed down by security forces with guns, and die. Alot of politicians and pundits are taking credit for an outcome that was due only to one fortuitous thing: the Egyptian military's restraint. They could have blasted them all to smithereens."
Exactly. The outcome laid out above is significantly more likely when the populace has been disarmed. There's substantially more risk to government officials trying to kill people en masse when those people can shoot back. That's a good thing. It's exactly the way things should be in a free and civilized society. We've seen the slaughter of the unarmed masses carried out by a comparatively tiny number of armed government agents far too many times throughout history to deny the dynamic present. Anti-gunners will of course deny that reality, but then they're anti's. Like the Terminator it's what they do, it's all they do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Exactly, it still remains to be seen what freedoms they get. changing one dictator for another is hardly a good result.
Wow. That woman positively delights in exposing her ignorance for the world to see.
The history of the American colonies immediately before the Revolution is chock-a-block packed with communications, letters, complaints, diplomats, envoys, documents, and Lord alone knows what else being sent to England to express our displeasure with the situation.
Oddly enough, England did not listen.
And so "political change through non-violence" had to be abandoned as an abject failure, and the American colonies moved on to "diplomacy by other means" - outright warfare.
Thankfully, the Egyptians were successful with their civil unrest, but, as Divemdedic says, now we get to see where this rabbit hole goes...
Hell Linoge, we threw this nice little TEA party and they didn't listen....
I don't link to such abject ignorance, mostly because like so many other despicable anti-gunners she's in bed with Jade and MikeB. Then again, misery loves company and she doesn't exactly have many like minded bloggers to hang out with.
Yeah, non-violence is going like gangbusters over in Lybia.
Post a Comment