Egypt chaos sending a 2A message?

M

madmag

New member
Along with all the reports of rioting there have been numerous stories of families in Egypt withdrawing into their community's and organizing their own home type protection against roving gangs. It has been noted that most ordinary citizens are not allowed to own firearms and are using sticks, rocks, etc. to protect themselves. It does appear that some of the roving gangs are armed.

So, is there an underlying message about private gun ownership?
 
Mike Irwin said:
But that's not a discussion for TFL.
Click to expand...

I understand.

I was not thinking so much about the details of the Egyptian political scene, but rather in general terms. But maybe it's hard to separate the two. So, maybe not a good question if it gets into areas we should no discuss.
 
I think that the aftermatch of hurricane Katrina was a much more relevant and critical message about our rights under the 2nd Amendment and how government responds to disasters which threaten us. Be vigilant and keep your powder dry.
 
The real message is that tyrants in general do not like an armed populous. The US founding fathers had incredible foresight, and trust in the average man-on-the-street.
 
Since the fall of royalist France in 1789 there have been a bunch of popular revolutions. Not one of them needed an armed populace.

Tunisia and now Egypt continue the trend.

That brings into question one of the main shibboleths of the 2nd Amendment, that firearms are "necessary" as a protection against a tyrannical authority.
 
The US founding fathers had incredible foresight, and trust in the average man-on-the-street.
Click to expand...

As long as that average Joe was WHITE and a MAN and had property or education.....

The constitutional framers were no more, no less, egalitarian than any other educated Brit from the higher mercantile or lower aristocratic class, which means that their view of "We the people" was quite circumscribed. John Kerry would have been We the People. Sarah Palin, not:p

WildisaywotwotyourentranceisinthebackAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
I did some checking this morning. There are only a few countries with a right to bear arms. I'm sure glad to be in one of them.
Guns per 100 people in the USA - 90
Guns per 100 people in Egypt - 3
No wonder those folks have to resort to sticks to keep the looters at bay.
The police seem to have abandon the people.
 
If we haven't got the message by now, one more isn't going to do it. The message has been given throughout world history and our that of our nation.


The message is NOT that you need to be armed to rise up against tyranny. The message is that being armed PREVENTS tyranny rising against YOU. One of the first step in a national slide to tyranny is the disarming of it's people.
 
"Since the fall of royalist France in 1789 there have been a bunch of popular revolutions. Not one of them needed an armed populace."

Yet any number of popular uprisings since 1789 by largely unarmed civilians, never had the chance to get to the revolution stage because they were absolutely crushed by the government.

Had those populations been armed, there's no telling what might have happened.
 
So, is there an underlying message about private gun ownership?
Click to expand...
Not one that won't be lost on anti-gunners. The people who understand the message didn't need to see turmoil in Egypt, or L.A., or Liberty City, or post-Katrina NOLA.

The police seem to have abandon the people.
Click to expand...
I got news for you. It's the same everywhere when the people go up against the entrenched government. If it ever happens in North America, it will be the same thing. There may be some statistically insignificant exceptions, but the majority of the police will stick by their employers.
 
It doesn't have to be someone going up against the government for the police to abandon the people. Look at LA and the riots, particularly after the "Rodney King" trial verdict. Not only did the police pull out and leave the people to their own devices against the mob, they were actually ordered to do so (for their own safety, we were later told).

Also note that those people with arms, who were prepared to defend themselves and their property, did not suffer nearly as much from the mob violence and looting.
 
To Wildalaska: You have a very distorted view of both the founding father's view of equality and our early history. Citizens did not get their rights as such due to their race, white or black, but their status. Slaves were property and therefore not citizens. Freed slaves of any color had rights as citizens throughout the colonies. Only later did freed slaves lose their rights in several southern states. Property requirements for voting ensured that voters had "skin the game" when supporting or opposing candidates and policies. We are currently seeing the impact on our country of giving enormous power to groups of people without a full stake in the consequences of their actions the influence on our elections, etc. I am not saying I necessarily support property ownership as a criteria for voting rights, but with over 40% of our population paying ZERO Federal income tax, it is no wonder that politicians can get great support when proposing more and more "entitlements" from the taxpayers. Our founding fathers had great faith in the inherent wisdon of the citizenry, and recognized that individuals had the right to defend themselves and to throw off oppressive governement through the use of arms. You can tell which elected officials today mistrust their own citizens by their position on second amendment rights. Ronald Reagan trusted us; Barack Obama does not.
 
"Freed slaves of any color had rights as citizens throughout the colonies."

No.

In many cases, they didn't.

In some Northern colonies, and stretching into statehood, free blacks were forbidden from voting even if they met property requirements. Oddly enough, in many Southern colonies, free blacks could vote.

In others, they were forbidden to purchase or own property, effectively denying them the right to vote in the early Republic.

In many areas nationwide free black children were forbidden from attending public schools.

The truth is far more complex.
 
I didn't state that the early colonial period nor the early days of the republic were color blind. Despite slavery and the reality that equality was not universal, the value of the second amendment and the commitment to the concepts enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights is not diminished. It is intellectually and historically dishonest to try to besmirch the concepts in our Bill of Rights, or the genius and idealism of our founding fathers by stating that things were not perfect during our early days as a nation.
 
peetzakilla said:
Not one that won't be lost on anti-gunners. The people who understand the message didn't need to see turmoil in Egypt, or L.A., or Liberty City, or post-Katrina NOLA.
Click to expand...

I understand most here understand the message. I guess I was wondering if the Egypt chaos might make the non-gun owners in this country think about 2A rights. The anti-gunners will not change their minds, but perhaps this will enlighten some borderline anti-gun types.....maybe too much to hope for?

44 AMP said:
Also note that those people with arms, who were prepared to defend themselves and their property, did not suffer nearly as much from the mob violence and looting.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a real world way to look at the message. I hope it gets through to the anti-gunners.
 
Last edited:
If there is a real change in the government in Egypt as a result of some of the things that are happening there now, it will be because the army will make it so. That doesn't mean there will be a military dictatorship and it doesn't mean there will be any form of democracy. But it is army or something very similiar that either allows things to happen or makes them happen. And by the way, the army in Egypt is made up of Egyptians.
 
I have heard some anti gunners saying that the egyptians are being very successful without needing guns-- they are in the process of successfully overthrowing the goverment without the need of arms-- and therefore our insistence on the second amendment is overstated.
 
MikeGoob said:
they are in the process of successfully overthrowing the government without the need of arms-- and therefore our insistence on the second amendment is overstated.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but my main point was civilians protecting themselves.....of course overthrowing the government is also part of the equation. I think the jury is out on whether they can actually overthrow the government without the need for arms. I suspect the answer is the military will still prevail, but the present regime will probably be gone.

Added:
One question I am still asking myself, does the Egyptian situation make people in the outside world more aware of the importance of arms for self protection?
 
Last edited:
To Wildalaska: You have a very distorted view of both the founding father's view of equality and our early history.
Click to expand...

No, he doesn't, but I do see how you conveniently neglected to address the sexual issue.

Slaves were property and therefore not citizens
Click to expand...
.

Oh well, right, I guess that makes it okay. Property doesn't have rights and so I guess is it okay to claim that the founding fathers were not bigoted or biased based on sex or race as it isn't racism if the human being is property. :rolleyes: What about women? Oh wait, they were property as well, owned by their fathers or husbands.

Native Americans were not allowed to vote. They weren't slaves, but they were not allowed to vote. Was it because they were not considered to be human either?

The only thing that Wildalaska left out is being over the age of 20.

John Adams is considered a founding father, right? He was big into that whole early government scene. He was not in favor of letting a more generalized cross-section of the population vote.
http://www.history.org/foundation/journal/spring07/elections.cfm

The founding fathers had a view of equality that was definitely skewed and not actually based on equality. We don't like to think that our heroes ever did anything wrong, but the fact of the matter is that by our standards, they did some terrible things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top