Ed Brunner
New member
BUT the Democrats are the ones pushing it. The Rev. Jesse Jackson DS has really been talking it up.
Do Some of You Yearn for Armed Conflict??
- Thread starter Gary H
- Start date
Maybe just a few good riots...
The Rodney King riots were interesting to watch on TV, and it's better them than us doing the rioting. Whenever the "heard" came into Korean controlled areas, they would open up from the rooftops...and the heard found greener pastures elsewhere.
The Rodney King riots were interesting to watch on TV, and it's better them than us doing the rioting. Whenever the "heard" came into Korean controlled areas, they would open up from the rooftops...and the heard found greener pastures elsewhere.
There are several reasons I will never do the kinds of civil disobedience that blacks did in the deep south in the sixties. A) Everything is a felony now, the right to bear arms would be revoked over minor crimes B) The government regards bearing arms against their wishes as on the same level as great nasty sins of the worst kind and may kill you for it. C) I have the means to not be forced to be beaten, raped, burned, etc. like blacks were, so why should I? D) This is our damn country too, a handful of self declared elites will see little mercy from me simply because it might result in armed conflict...
Just remember how the media will deal with you. Timothy McVeigh, if he did it or not is beside the point, was demonized be the media before he even went to trial. Not just that but he was demonized by the crowds of people screaming for blood. We're a nation of easily swayed fools. I think ultimately that's why libertarians aren't the dominant party, we don't talk down to people... Remember though, how McVeigh walked out of that building surrounded by police. Nobody in that crowd really knew the details of the evidence against him, and yet they were all ready to lynch him.. Also, when he had no expression at all on his face, the reporters were like "oooo, look at him, he's so cold and ruthless, he's not showing any remorse for what he did!" This is of course with no evidence in their hands at that time that he actually did anything at all. The point is, if you do anything or not, it won't always matter, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is a foreign one to America, never forget that. Don't let things get to the point where they are arresting us for stuff we didn't do any using it to take our guns, and more importantly, or freedoms away.
That said, I certainly do not wish for it, but I do sense it looming in the horizon. We need a great mandate, some unifying factor, but right now we are a hugely diverse country living under a unified government, and that's a recipe for disaster when the diversities are often in conflict like they are here... I'm not talking racial at all, it is purely political. I train for it, I have people I train with, but I never wish for it. My plan is simple... IF it happens, I plan to win.
How many years shall we write letters, vote for good people, and spread the word before we give up? Many on this board have fought the fight for dozens of years and lost?
Pacifist means only work under a just and fair government because there is no bite behind the bark. Our government looks on those people as we look upon small yapping dogs. "Aren't they cute?"
I have more respect for a man who has had enough and blows up a building than a man who is fed up and writes letters to his senators for 50 years while he watches them spit in the face of everything he beleives in.
There are degrees of resistance between writing a letter and using explosives. Civil disobedience and vadalism are two examples. Do what you know is right in the face of the "laws" made by those in power. Whenever you've had enough think about slashing the appropriate tires or toilet papering the appropriate house before grabbing a gun.
I am not ready to open fire, but I can understand why people look forward to it when they've watched the non-violent ways fail so completely.
Pacifist means only work under a just and fair government because there is no bite behind the bark. Our government looks on those people as we look upon small yapping dogs. "Aren't they cute?"
I have more respect for a man who has had enough and blows up a building than a man who is fed up and writes letters to his senators for 50 years while he watches them spit in the face of everything he beleives in.
There are degrees of resistance between writing a letter and using explosives. Civil disobedience and vadalism are two examples. Do what you know is right in the face of the "laws" made by those in power. Whenever you've had enough think about slashing the appropriate tires or toilet papering the appropriate house before grabbing a gun.
I am not ready to open fire, but I can understand why people look forward to it when they've watched the non-violent ways fail so completely.
I do *NOT* yearn for conflict. God no. I don't even own a rifle. If actual conflict over the RKBA and other freedom issues did break out, it would look more like the Warsaw Ghetto uprising that anything else: urban bushwacks by people able to blend back in to the general population. We're not talking about sniper war, we're talking sudden mayhem with snubbie revolvers because if the whole thing isn't over in five shots, you're screwed anyways.
God help us all at that point.
BUT, I think it's necessary for the opposition to realize it's possible to drive us to that point. An example of my type of thinking and talking about it is along the lines of:
"We're being screwed in the gun rights issue so badly (CCW corruption, racism, illegality, etc.) that if California driver's licenses and vehicle registrations were handled the way CCW permit issuance and "assault weapon" registration is done, every DMV office in the state would be burned by rioters...yet gun owners have proven their commitment to peace by NOT lashing back, except in court. If we were really as dangerous as the gun-grabber politicos and top cops say we were, it would be hazardous to abuse us to the degree they do!"
Now at that point, you've sent multiple messages: we're not violent, but we have CAUSE to be and therefore our continued law-abiding ways can either be construed as "we can be trusted" or if you can't wrap your head to THAT point, then you better stop screwing us before we go collectively postal!
Now, my good friend Attorney Peter Mancus is way past that point, into the "Revolutionary War era causes for revolt" direction that KJM is treading:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/peter/
Jim
God help us all at that point.
BUT, I think it's necessary for the opposition to realize it's possible to drive us to that point. An example of my type of thinking and talking about it is along the lines of:
"We're being screwed in the gun rights issue so badly (CCW corruption, racism, illegality, etc.) that if California driver's licenses and vehicle registrations were handled the way CCW permit issuance and "assault weapon" registration is done, every DMV office in the state would be burned by rioters...yet gun owners have proven their commitment to peace by NOT lashing back, except in court. If we were really as dangerous as the gun-grabber politicos and top cops say we were, it would be hazardous to abuse us to the degree they do!"
Now at that point, you've sent multiple messages: we're not violent, but we have CAUSE to be and therefore our continued law-abiding ways can either be construed as "we can be trusted" or if you can't wrap your head to THAT point, then you better stop screwing us before we go collectively postal!
Now, my good friend Attorney Peter Mancus is way past that point, into the "Revolutionary War era causes for revolt" direction that KJM is treading:
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/peter/
Jim
A shooting war, if one comes, will not be started by our side. It will be started by the likes of the tree hugging capitalist haters as seen in Seattle, the rioters as seen in LA, and the other left wing wackos out there. Jesse Jackson and his cronies have not finished stirring the pot. I am properly prepared and will respond as necessary to protect my family and property. I pray to God that it will never occur. But the recent rancor over this election shows the deep divisions between the left and the rest of us. They will not quit until they have their "People's" republic. The ultra right wing militia buffoons among us that wear their cammies to gun shows and hope for Armageddon will probably be the first to cower if the crap really hits the fan. I've seen this in crisis situations before. The loud mouth braggarts are usually the biggest cowards...Pray for Peace, but Prepare.
Getting shot at sucks.
Personally, I think that pointed, non-violent movements are the way to go - For instance, if your local sports stadium takes an anti-CCW stand, ask for an escort to your car following the game. If they refuse, raise a stink. Do the same thing with other places. I've begun patronizing a local supermarket chain again, 18 months after they supported the anti-prop-B folks here in Misery, and I think they're getting to know me.
When someone says something, GET IN THEIR FACE. I'm HIGHLY insulted when someone accuses me of being a "potential murderer," simply because I am into the shooting sports. They start talking about kids and guns, ask 'em if they have a pool, or if they're absolutely sure that all their tools and household chemicals are secured. Don't do this quietly. Accuse THEM of being bad parents, etc., and turn it around...
Personally, I think that pointed, non-violent movements are the way to go - For instance, if your local sports stadium takes an anti-CCW stand, ask for an escort to your car following the game. If they refuse, raise a stink. Do the same thing with other places. I've begun patronizing a local supermarket chain again, 18 months after they supported the anti-prop-B folks here in Misery, and I think they're getting to know me.
When someone says something, GET IN THEIR FACE. I'm HIGHLY insulted when someone accuses me of being a "potential murderer," simply because I am into the shooting sports. They start talking about kids and guns, ask 'em if they have a pool, or if they're absolutely sure that all their tools and household chemicals are secured. Don't do this quietly. Accuse THEM of being bad parents, etc., and turn it around...
Are those who have accepted and welcomed this possibility immature, inexperienced, and NAIVE? Or are those who have stated and demonstrated that they would not make the sacrifice COWARDS?
Some see an armed insurrection (of some scale) INEVITABLE. As learned from history, as dictated by logic, and as seen in prophecy.
They would visit the scenario sooner that later as they still hold some of the cards, not the least of which, their youth/health.
Many are simply UNWILLING to selfishly pass this burden on to their children or grandchildren! Rather, with luck, secure the blessings of freedom _for_ their children and grandchildren. Maybe even realize true freedom in OUR lifetime!
One would be challenged to find such lofty goals in the NRA's Ten Year Plan.
Some see an armed insurrection (of some scale) INEVITABLE. As learned from history, as dictated by logic, and as seen in prophecy.
They would visit the scenario sooner that later as they still hold some of the cards, not the least of which, their youth/health.
Many are simply UNWILLING to selfishly pass this burden on to their children or grandchildren! Rather, with luck, secure the blessings of freedom _for_ their children and grandchildren. Maybe even realize true freedom in OUR lifetime!
One would be challenged to find such lofty goals in the NRA's Ten Year Plan.
gjwandkids
New member
Jordan-name calling does precious little to change anything and alienates a potential ally.
FYI people who would rather avoid armed conflict are usually the very people who have had to participate in armed conflict. It is not fun or pretty and should be avoided if it can be. Does that mean that those same people will refuse to engage in armed conflict? No, it doesn't. It simply means that they will try all other alternatives first. If you are so anxious to get into a shooting war, go visit Israel for awhile. You might then change your mind.
Finally, I do have children. Three are old enough to be trained to handle firearms, so they are being trained. They are also being trained to be politically active. There are other options still. Another post put it best. Prepare and Pray.
FYI people who would rather avoid armed conflict are usually the very people who have had to participate in armed conflict. It is not fun or pretty and should be avoided if it can be. Does that mean that those same people will refuse to engage in armed conflict? No, it doesn't. It simply means that they will try all other alternatives first. If you are so anxious to get into a shooting war, go visit Israel for awhile. You might then change your mind.
Finally, I do have children. Three are old enough to be trained to handle firearms, so they are being trained. They are also being trained to be politically active. There are other options still. Another post put it best. Prepare and Pray.
In armed conflict one becomes inured to maiming and death, because if one doesn't one might literally go insane. It's not pretty. Not glorious. Incredibly loud. Ugly. Smelly. Disgusting. Putrid. Seeing another human being blown to hamburger; having to locate a boot with half a leg still in it to get a dog tag from the lace. Another human with half his head gone and an eyeball hanging out. A pregnant woman disembowelled with her fetus impaled on a stake. This is war. All your spit shined rhetoric and chest thumping bellicose bull **** will never change that. Never. Remember it. Look at pictures of your kids and think, by God!
We are not there yet. Someday maybe. We are not there yet now.
Let Jesse and his rent-a-rioters spew their venom. He and his ilk can ES&D if you get my drift. There is enormous strength in the vote. We must awaken those who don't vote to the very real fact that they, each and every one individually, really DO vote by NOT VOTING. It is far preferable to the alternative.
We are not there yet. Someday maybe. We are not there yet now.
Let Jesse and his rent-a-rioters spew their venom. He and his ilk can ES&D if you get my drift. There is enormous strength in the vote. We must awaken those who don't vote to the very real fact that they, each and every one individually, really DO vote by NOT VOTING. It is far preferable to the alternative.
Citizen Patriot
Inactive
IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND,NO LIBERTIES LOST TO GOVERNMENT HAVE EVER BEEN RECOVERED WITHOUT BLOODSHED,EVER!!! Thank You kjm
As we have seen recently in Seattle and elsewhere
peaceful redress of greivences are no longer a viable option unless you want to be met with tear gas and billy clubs.
Wake Up people,,,
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
As we have seen recently in Seattle and elsewhere
peaceful redress of greivences are no longer a viable option unless you want to be met with tear gas and billy clubs.
Wake Up people,,,
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
Women received the right to vote in the USA without significant armed violence.
Civil rights for minorities was achieved with the preponderance of actions being nonviolent. Yes, there
were riots but that wasn't what did it. It was the
Freedom Marches that were more powerful.
Citizens in the USA ended the VietName war without significant armed resistance to this stupid war.
The Soviet Union fell without significant armed resistance
by the populace.
The Serbian tyranny was overthrown, etc.
While the right to defend yourself against government
access and tyranny is crucial, rhetoric should not be
based on fantasy slogans.
Civil rights for minorities was achieved with the preponderance of actions being nonviolent. Yes, there
were riots but that wasn't what did it. It was the
Freedom Marches that were more powerful.
Citizens in the USA ended the VietName war without significant armed resistance to this stupid war.
The Soviet Union fell without significant armed resistance
by the populace.
The Serbian tyranny was overthrown, etc.
While the right to defend yourself against government
access and tyranny is crucial, rhetoric should not be
based on fantasy slogans.
As we have seen recently in Seattle and elsewhere peaceful redress of greivences are no longer a viable option unless you want to be met with tear gas and billy clubs.
My god, who would not take peaceful protest met with tear gas, rubber bullets, and billy clubs over violent revolution met by live fire if they accomplish the same goals? I understand anger over the criminalization of dissent (and it's something I have to deal with fairly frequently) but to say that justifies starting a civil war?
My god, who would not take peaceful protest met with tear gas, rubber bullets, and billy clubs over violent revolution met by live fire if they accomplish the same goals? I understand anger over the criminalization of dissent (and it's something I have to deal with fairly frequently) but to say that justifies starting a civil war?
Peaceful Protest with Violent Respones
folkbabe,
I am curious, if a group protested peacefully and the protest was met with real bullets from 'officials' rather than rubber bullets, would that be a civil war?
I don't get the impression the that people in this thread want to 'justify' a civil war. I think some people see a time when education, voting, protest, legal challenges and civil disobedience may not answer.
I do not want to ever have conflict more extreme than spirited debate. But I do sometimes wonder what other people are capable of in the pursuit of their own agenda.
My central piece of concern on this questioning is the extensive scholarly work done by R. Rummel. His findings are important to everyone. Especially someone like you who values the benefits of a free society.
Rummel finds that the more free and democratic a society is the less violence it commits, both against other countries and it's own citizens. He finds that the governments who excercise more control (as opposed to free) kill thier own citizens more. In the 20th century he estimates governments have murdered 169,000,000 from 1900-1987, OUTSIDE OF WAR!! ( http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_totals.html and http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/welcome.html ).
The countries that are identified as having more 'controlled' governments have killed the most. I am terming 'controlled' as the scheme that has government control what jobs people may have and that redistributes the benefits from working to others USSR, China etc. These controlled societies have always had the professed goals of helping 'the people'.
Thus, based on very solid historical precedent, I distrust a powerful government. I do _not_ argue that the U.S. is in the same category as Cambodia under Pol Pot, rather I argue that I never want it to get on that side of the political balance. I want it to be more free, rather than less free, so it will not move to the tragic position that has caused such horrific suffering in so much of the rest of the world.
Finally, I view the ability for ordinary citizens to posses firearms without governmental approval as the indicator of free society. It is the canary in the mineshaft. As governments feel the need to control the access of the ordinary citizen to firearms, it seems (historically) to move inexorably to restrict other essential freedoms, many of which, you as an activist, must dearly love, and depend on.
If I am correct, and I think Rummel's evidence is incontrovertible (my own theory of guns as the canary of freedom still needs more evidence but I think it will be developed), then all people who want to reduce violence should support the right to firearms ownership.
Are you convinced?
Read Rummel (at least a little).
"INTRODUCTION
It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of economic development and welfare. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the less violence. Conversely, the more power at the center, the more violence. In short: power kills.
The purpose of this web site, then, is to make as widely available as possible my theory, work, results, and data that empirically and historically, quantitatively and qualitatively, support this conclusion about freedom. This is to invite their use, replication, and critical evaluation, and thereby to advance our knowledge of and confidence in freedom--in liberal democracy."
Then read what a law professor has to say in this law review ( http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html#fn1 ).
OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL
Cite as 75 Wash. U. L.Q. 1237
DANIEL D. POLSBY and Don B. Kates, Jr.
I have excerpted it's first sentence:
"This essay seeks to reclaim a serious argument from the lunatic fringe. We argue a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide[1] upon its own people."
Later in the intro it makes these extremely persuasive points,:
"The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."[2] Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder.
Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.
Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenseless. This is not to say that the plans of a government resolved to eradicate an ethnic or political minority would necessarily be precluded by armed resistance. As elsewhere in life, raising the cost of a behavior, whether genocide, smoking cigarettes or anything in between, merely makes that behavior more unusual than it would otherwise be, not impossible for those willing and able to pay the price. No specific form of social organization will ever make genocide or any other evil literally impossible. Nevertheless, because most important questions are matters of degree, it is still worth inquiring into the connection between the virulence of a government and the degree of its effective monopoly on deadly force."
I really look forward to your thoughts,
Thanks,
Noel
folkbabe,
I am curious, if a group protested peacefully and the protest was met with real bullets from 'officials' rather than rubber bullets, would that be a civil war?
I don't get the impression the that people in this thread want to 'justify' a civil war. I think some people see a time when education, voting, protest, legal challenges and civil disobedience may not answer.
I do not want to ever have conflict more extreme than spirited debate. But I do sometimes wonder what other people are capable of in the pursuit of their own agenda.
My central piece of concern on this questioning is the extensive scholarly work done by R. Rummel. His findings are important to everyone. Especially someone like you who values the benefits of a free society.
Rummel finds that the more free and democratic a society is the less violence it commits, both against other countries and it's own citizens. He finds that the governments who excercise more control (as opposed to free) kill thier own citizens more. In the 20th century he estimates governments have murdered 169,000,000 from 1900-1987, OUTSIDE OF WAR!! ( http://www.freedomsnest.com/rummel_totals.html and http://www2.hawaii.edu/~rummel/welcome.html ).
The countries that are identified as having more 'controlled' governments have killed the most. I am terming 'controlled' as the scheme that has government control what jobs people may have and that redistributes the benefits from working to others USSR, China etc. These controlled societies have always had the professed goals of helping 'the people'.
Thus, based on very solid historical precedent, I distrust a powerful government. I do _not_ argue that the U.S. is in the same category as Cambodia under Pol Pot, rather I argue that I never want it to get on that side of the political balance. I want it to be more free, rather than less free, so it will not move to the tragic position that has caused such horrific suffering in so much of the rest of the world.
Finally, I view the ability for ordinary citizens to posses firearms without governmental approval as the indicator of free society. It is the canary in the mineshaft. As governments feel the need to control the access of the ordinary citizen to firearms, it seems (historically) to move inexorably to restrict other essential freedoms, many of which, you as an activist, must dearly love, and depend on.
If I am correct, and I think Rummel's evidence is incontrovertible (my own theory of guns as the canary of freedom still needs more evidence but I think it will be developed), then all people who want to reduce violence should support the right to firearms ownership.
Are you convinced?
Read Rummel (at least a little).
"INTRODUCTION
It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of economic development and welfare. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the less violence. Conversely, the more power at the center, the more violence. In short: power kills.
The purpose of this web site, then, is to make as widely available as possible my theory, work, results, and data that empirically and historically, quantitatively and qualitatively, support this conclusion about freedom. This is to invite their use, replication, and critical evaluation, and thereby to advance our knowledge of and confidence in freedom--in liberal democracy."
Then read what a law professor has to say in this law review ( http://ls.wustl.edu/WULQ/75-3/753-4.html#fn1 ).
OF HOLOCAUSTS AND GUN CONTROL
Cite as 75 Wash. U. L.Q. 1237
DANIEL D. POLSBY and Don B. Kates, Jr.
I have excerpted it's first sentence:
"This essay seeks to reclaim a serious argument from the lunatic fringe. We argue a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide[1] upon its own people."
Later in the intro it makes these extremely persuasive points,:
"The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."[2] Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder.
Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.
Nor should this be altogether surprising. An armed population is simply more difficult to exterminate than one that is defenseless. This is not to say that the plans of a government resolved to eradicate an ethnic or political minority would necessarily be precluded by armed resistance. As elsewhere in life, raising the cost of a behavior, whether genocide, smoking cigarettes or anything in between, merely makes that behavior more unusual than it would otherwise be, not impossible for those willing and able to pay the price. No specific form of social organization will ever make genocide or any other evil literally impossible. Nevertheless, because most important questions are matters of degree, it is still worth inquiring into the connection between the virulence of a government and the degree of its effective monopoly on deadly force."
I really look forward to your thoughts,
Thanks,
Noel
Citizen Patriot
Inactive
I do not think anyone but a fool,would wish for or want to start a civil war. And I don't think the first shots will
be fired by citizens unless push comes to shove.But my point is once the government resorts to tear gas,billy clubs and
rubber bullets the only thing left for them is real bullets.
Pray God it does'nt happen
Prepare in case it does
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
be fired by citizens unless push comes to shove.But my point is once the government resorts to tear gas,billy clubs and
rubber bullets the only thing left for them is real bullets.
Pray God it does'nt happen
Prepare in case it does
GIVE ME LIBERTY OR GIVE ME DEATH
Noel, I think if there were a sustained, organized or semi-organized movement intent on overthrowing the government or breaking away and that movement were clashing on the streets with a government using live fire than yes, that would probably be a civil war. I hestitate to use Israel/Palestine as an example, but if one considers that area one state then yes, they're engaged in a low-level civil war. (Low-level because "only" a dozen people are killed a week instead of, say, several hundred.)
I think the police state does have too much power. I'm on the recieving end of that power occasionally, for a variety of reasons. I don't like that the government can now legally listen to my private conversations because of some dumb*ss law Clinton signed after Oklahoma City. (I've talked on the phone with people who are probably considered "dangerous political extremists
" so my phone can also be tapped.) As far as murdering its citizens goes, I think the U.S. government won't fall back on that large-scale as long as the people continue to in large numbers happily accept the mindless commercialism and pro-corporate attitudes taught through the media.
Citizen Patriot, I think about the stupidest thing one could do in response to police firing on a crowd at an anti-corporate globalism protest is to return that fire. It would (1) justify the police brutality in the eyes of the world--media doesn't bother reporting such things as order of occurances, (2) totally violate the principles agreed upon by participants in the protests (non-violent direct action), and (3) further endanger the crowd through encouraging the police to fire more into it.
I think the police state does have too much power. I'm on the recieving end of that power occasionally, for a variety of reasons. I don't like that the government can now legally listen to my private conversations because of some dumb*ss law Clinton signed after Oklahoma City. (I've talked on the phone with people who are probably considered "dangerous political extremists
" so my phone can also be tapped.) As far as murdering its citizens goes, I think the U.S. government won't fall back on that large-scale as long as the people continue to in large numbers happily accept the mindless commercialism and pro-corporate attitudes taught through the media.Citizen Patriot, I think about the stupidest thing one could do in response to police firing on a crowd at an anti-corporate globalism protest is to return that fire. It would (1) justify the police brutality in the eyes of the world--media doesn't bother reporting such things as order of occurances, (2) totally violate the principles agreed upon by participants in the protests (non-violent direct action), and (3) further endanger the crowd through encouraging the police to fire more into it.
The Canary Theory
folkbabe,
Two points:
1- In the Israeli Palistinian conflict I can not call it peaceful protest. I also thought of this example and that was why I asked what you felt in the case of peaceful protest specifically. My feeling is that _if_ it is civil war the Israeli's are not prosocuting the war effort. Israel has overwhelming force and restrains the level of violence to prevent the public opinion of the conflict from being even worse than it is. Also, in my view, the Palistinians use the death of protestors to further the cause, and puposefuly ferment the protests to cause a violent reponse, to then take advantage of the resultant media coverage. This is similar to what you stated about firing into crowds.
If this is their tactics, I find it a lousy way to make a principled stand. I don't think Israel has shown itself as a principled entity either, and have no judgement on how the situation could ever be resolved without the anihilation of one of the partys.
I hope someone can find a resolution, but I have no hints on how to do it.
Upon rereading your answer I realize that I did not gather your meaning about the 'clashing' that you wrote. I still wonder what is the feature that makes it a civil war, rather than a sustained protest, you seem to make the distinction based on violence from the government and a desire to overthrow. Is that correct?
2- You did not address the issue of gun ownership as a way to reduce violence, only that you felt the impact of too much police power.
The fear of gun registration is somewhat akin to your reaction to having your communications monitored. Many, many gun owners truly believe that all of the Bill of Rights must be honored not just the ones that are convienient at the moment, to the powers that be.
Please le tme know what you think about Polsby and Rummel.
I am also interested in discussing the approach of the Dali Lama. He has a different reaction than I would have to the invasion and brutal oppression of his homeland. He always displays compassion and love for the Chinese even as his people are murdered. His is a beautiful and admirable stance, but it has some drawbacks.....
Perhaps we can take that up in another thread.
Noel
[Edited by Noel on 12-17-2000 at 12:25 AM]
folkbabe,
Two points:
1- In the Israeli Palistinian conflict I can not call it peaceful protest. I also thought of this example and that was why I asked what you felt in the case of peaceful protest specifically. My feeling is that _if_ it is civil war the Israeli's are not prosocuting the war effort. Israel has overwhelming force and restrains the level of violence to prevent the public opinion of the conflict from being even worse than it is. Also, in my view, the Palistinians use the death of protestors to further the cause, and puposefuly ferment the protests to cause a violent reponse, to then take advantage of the resultant media coverage. This is similar to what you stated about firing into crowds.
If this is their tactics, I find it a lousy way to make a principled stand. I don't think Israel has shown itself as a principled entity either, and have no judgement on how the situation could ever be resolved without the anihilation of one of the partys.
I hope someone can find a resolution, but I have no hints on how to do it.
Upon rereading your answer I realize that I did not gather your meaning about the 'clashing' that you wrote. I still wonder what is the feature that makes it a civil war, rather than a sustained protest, you seem to make the distinction based on violence from the government and a desire to overthrow. Is that correct?
2- You did not address the issue of gun ownership as a way to reduce violence, only that you felt the impact of too much police power.
The fear of gun registration is somewhat akin to your reaction to having your communications monitored. Many, many gun owners truly believe that all of the Bill of Rights must be honored not just the ones that are convienient at the moment, to the powers that be.
Please le tme know what you think about Polsby and Rummel.
I am also interested in discussing the approach of the Dali Lama. He has a different reaction than I would have to the invasion and brutal oppression of his homeland. He always displays compassion and love for the Chinese even as his people are murdered. His is a beautiful and admirable stance, but it has some drawbacks.....
Perhaps we can take that up in another thread.
Noel
[Edited by Noel on 12-17-2000 at 12:25 AM]