To Double Naught Spy: You are guilty of applying contemporary standards of morality and equality to a situation almost 250 years ago. At that time slavery existed in most of the world, and had been that way since time immorial. To expect the American founders to simply and universally say that we should outlaw slavery, grant full rights to native Americans who were viewed as savages at the time, and accept women as equals when nowhere in the civilized world was this the case, is preposterous. The fact that so many of our founding fathers, including John Adams, were vehemently anti-slavery is quite amazing. There never would have been a United States had some of the northern colonies/states insisted on outlawing slavery in the Constitution since the South would not have gone along with this at all. The wisdom and foresight shown by our founders in the writing of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution is, to many, clearly divinely inspired. It is these documents, and the adherence to them by many generations of Americans, that have made this the greatest nation in the history of mankind and continues to be the shining beacon of liberty for oppressed people throughout the world. The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, is an affirmation of our inalienable rights that is without precedent. That many Americans today would forego the rights that were so dearly fought for and won, in the desire for a cocoon of government determination of our choices in life, is a larger threat to us as a nation than any foreign invader will ever be.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Egypt chaos sending a 2A message?
- Thread starter madmag
- Start date
What are you talking about? The only males of any ethnic group who were not slaves and not allowed vote were American Indians also known as aborigines.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?
Indians were not allowed to vote because they were recognized as members of Indian nations within the United States.
BTW, early in the Civil War, some Northern states refused to accept Indians as soldiers. Michigan is one of them but finally permitted them to enlist when quotas could not be filled so readily with whites. New York allowed them to enlist too.
BTW, early in the Civil War, some Northern states refused to accept Indians as soldiers. Michigan is one of them but finally permitted them to enlist when quotas could not be filled so readily with whites. New York allowed them to enlist too.
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.
Absolutely. Would the Cuban revolution during the late 1800's have been successful if the populace had been better armed? Would US intervention have been unnecessary?
Many years ago in Jr. High we studied revolutionary cycle, with the Mexican revolution/civil war of 1910 as our example. The sixties was many years ago so I only remember a couple of bullet points.
The most important was that a high percentage (80% iirc) of the population wanted revolutionary change.
Another was the concentration of wealth and power in very few hands, causing poverty for the majority of the people. I'm pretty sure it was 10% and 90% respectively.
Perhaps we could argue that an armed populace would lower those percentages.
There are a couple of examples that, I think, indicate that's not the case.
We have an example of an armed populace, under a nasty tyrant, with a clear majority being opposed to that regime.
That's Irag after the Iraq/Iran war and before the Bush invasion.
Saddam was a Sunni in a majority shiite nation. Counter intuitively he handed out AK-47s to the people both Sunni and shiite to "defend" against Iranian/Western incursions.
With the exception of a brief revolt in the South after Desert Storm and continuing Kurdish skirmishes, there was not a popular revolution.
The other example is "Bleeding Kansas". While not revolutionary in the strictest terms, each side was trying to impose its own version of government through the use of force.
Btw both sides had artillery as well as rifles.
The Kansas example is echoed in the competing para-military organizations in places such as Columbia.
In the first example an armed populace doesn't revolt for reasons that I can't guess at. In the second example an armed populace seeks change, but is stopped by other armed citizens with an opposing agenda.
As you say, we can't know if certain insurrections might have become successful revolutions if there had been an armed citizenry.
We do have an example of were a war would not have been possible without armed citizens. The Boer war was fought with the Afrikaners being armed citizens.
Finally the most important example to us is the American revolution. While it was the French Charleville musket that ended the war, the revolution couldn't have started with out armed citizens at Lexington and Concorde.
I hope that clarifies my first post.
The founders said a lot of stuff. If you quote mine enough you can get them to support just about any position you want.
John Adams was an elitist and an egalitarian. He believed in the superiority of the white race and was an abolitionist. He was a devoted church goer and disdained religion.
Besides original intent/understanding is bunk.
John Adams was an elitist and an egalitarian. He believed in the superiority of the white race and was an abolitionist. He was a devoted church goer and disdained religion.
Besides original intent/understanding is bunk.
There are many messages, but I don't think gun ownership is one of them.So, is there an underlying message about private gun ownership?
However, I've got family over there I'm currently trying to get out, and they are giving me a somewhat different picture of the situation. Many police officers (and some soldiers) have left their posts, and are going back to protect their own homes and neighborhoods. They appear to have taken their guns, which may help their friends and families level the odds.
Bear in mind, this could go several different ways. Right now, it looks like a pro-democratic uprising. Let's see how things look at the end of the week, when soldiers find they aren't getting a paycheck, when nobody's running the utilities, and food and water suddenly become very scarce and very expensive.
Tom Servo said:There are many messages, but I don't think gun ownership is one of them.
However, I've got family over there I'm currently trying to get out, and they are giving me a somewhat different picture of the situation. Many police officers (and some soldiers) have left their posts, and are going back to protect their own homes and neighborhoods. They appear to have taken their guns, which may help their friends and families level the odds.
Your point that many police officers have left taking their guns back to their neighborhoods seems to contradict your first statement that gun ownership is not a message. Anyway, it's a good thing that the police are going back to protect their old neighborhoods.
BlueTrain said:Why hasn't there been a revolution here, then?
Because the majority here are not at the poverty level......we have a large & strong middle class.
BlueTrain said:We do not have the large and strong middle class that we used to have and in ten years we won't have the middle class we have now.
I can't say you are wrong, I just don't know on that point. But the main reason I started this thread was to discuss the learning lesson of civilians not having arms to protect themselves when there is a breakdown in local police protection.
Well, according to the news, not necessarily always accurate, people are withdrawing into their neighborhoods and along with their neighbors, organizing for defense. It sounds like just as much a messge for organizing your neighborhood when it comes to that, not retreating into your own castle, if you have one. Big difference.
My comment about the army still stands, however. The police almost everywhere are on a different footing from the military and, in theory at least, see the world differently. While it was the army that no doubt enabled what's his name to stay in office for 30 years, possibly with the help of a secret police (usually different from your neighborhood police officer), it is likely the army that will determine what the ultimate outcome is. This is not to say that all the rioting and demonstrations will have no effect, only that whatever change that happens, the army will have to go along with it. (I mean whatever change happens, it is because the army went along with it). But predicting such things is notoriously difficult.
My comment about the army still stands, however. The police almost everywhere are on a different footing from the military and, in theory at least, see the world differently. While it was the army that no doubt enabled what's his name to stay in office for 30 years, possibly with the help of a secret police (usually different from your neighborhood police officer), it is likely the army that will determine what the ultimate outcome is. This is not to say that all the rioting and demonstrations will have no effect, only that whatever change that happens, the army will have to go along with it. (I mean whatever change happens, it is because the army went along with it). But predicting such things is notoriously difficult.
Buzzcook mentions a case where wealth and power were concentrated in very few hands, causing poverty for the majority of the people. Why hasn't there been a revolution here, then?
To paraphrase Tom Jefferson, America has a revolution every four years.
My opinions on problems in America would go way off topic.
It isn't. There's no right to keep and bear arms in Egypt. Theoretically, the police have deserted, and their possession and use of those guns is illegal under their laws. This isn't about resisting an oppressive government; it's about deterring looters. Furthermore, if you don't have a friend who's a cop, and who chose to leave his post, you still don't have access to that protection.Your point that many police officers have left taking their guns back to their neighborhoods seems to contradict your first statement that gun ownership is not a message
Even with that, there is little chance they could stand against the military. Fortunately, the military has chosen to side with the people of Egypt, and as of last night, they are not interfering with the protestors.
There are a few guns in the hands of civilians in Egypt, but they are illegally owned. There's a black market, and as with most third-world nations, gun control goes out the window during a crisis. Money talks. Expect the guns to disappear when the crisis passes. This is an apples/oranges comparison to our situation.
Tom Servo said:There's no right to keep and bear arms in Egypt.
I understand, that was the main point of my thread. It points out what happens when that "right" is lost, or not there in the first place.
From my post#1
madmag said: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?
HarrySchell
New member
When there is chaos, criminals will seek to exploit it. As in Chile after the earthquakes, citizens organized militias for mutual protection.
As to the lack of requirement for citizens to be armed to produce regime change, horsefeathers. In Tunisia and Egypt, the armed forces have not been deployed to suppress demonstrations, police intervention mild or non-existent. Contrast this with the Hungarian and Czech rebellions as put down by the Russians, the continuing strife in Chechnya and the expulsion of Russian forces from Afghanistan. Tianamen Square, remember that? Remember Pol Pot? An armed populace might have made a difference.
Whether citizens need to be able to exert force for self-defense when ordinary police forces and mores have broken down, or whether the dictator the citizens wish to overturn decide to use whatever force is necessary to stay in power and has such force at his disposal...it depends on the extent of chaos, criminality and how badly the dictator wants to keep his job.
As long as any person is willing to use force against another unjustly, the human right of self-defense and the means to effectively enforce that right on a personal level will be relevant and required, whether it's phasers or rocks.
Human nature hasn't changed and won't.
As to the lack of requirement for citizens to be armed to produce regime change, horsefeathers. In Tunisia and Egypt, the armed forces have not been deployed to suppress demonstrations, police intervention mild or non-existent. Contrast this with the Hungarian and Czech rebellions as put down by the Russians, the continuing strife in Chechnya and the expulsion of Russian forces from Afghanistan. Tianamen Square, remember that? Remember Pol Pot? An armed populace might have made a difference.
Whether citizens need to be able to exert force for self-defense when ordinary police forces and mores have broken down, or whether the dictator the citizens wish to overturn decide to use whatever force is necessary to stay in power and has such force at his disposal...it depends on the extent of chaos, criminality and how badly the dictator wants to keep his job.
As long as any person is willing to use force against another unjustly, the human right of self-defense and the means to effectively enforce that right on a personal level will be relevant and required, whether it's phasers or rocks.
Human nature hasn't changed and won't.
One internet news article pointed out that the Egyptian army is composed of men from the lower and more impoverished classes of Egyptian society and would be unlikely to seriously disrupt large demonstrations, although "unlikely" is a key word here. And unlike China, Egypt cannot bring army troops from the other side of the country where people are a little different and would be strangers in town.
It is unfortunate that civil unrest, whatever the outcome, provides opportunities for the criminal element, but so does the night. Similiar things have happened in this country during blackouts, after hurricanes, on Halloween or New Years, but you don't hear that much about roving gangs, really.
It is unfortunate that civil unrest, whatever the outcome, provides opportunities for the criminal element, but so does the night. Similiar things have happened in this country during blackouts, after hurricanes, on Halloween or New Years, but you don't hear that much about roving gangs, really.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
In the Hungarian revolution, the armed forces decided not to resist as they knew they would be crushed with terrible loss of life. I know someone from their armed forces who came here.
An armed populace of small country vs. the Soviet Union would not have stopped the reconquest. True, the Afghanis fought the Russians and their country is now a garden spot.
The Communists were removed nonviolently in the end, from Russia and Hungary.
About defending yourself and family, different story. Also, for groups to prevent genocide against them - it's clear that being competent and armed is a great deterrent.
An armed populace of small country vs. the Soviet Union would not have stopped the reconquest. True, the Afghanis fought the Russians and their country is now a garden spot.
The Communists were removed nonviolently in the end, from Russia and Hungary.
About defending yourself and family, different story. Also, for groups to prevent genocide against them - it's clear that being competent and armed is a great deterrent.
Glenn E. Myer said:In the Hungarian revolution, the armed forces decided not to resist as they knew they would be crushed with terrible loss of life.
Yes, I am old enough that I followed the revolt as it happened. It was a lesson that overwhelming power can prevail, even if it's temporary. But, as you said, that's different than protecting of ones family from roving gangs.
I know the present Egyptian lesson is not lost on 2A advocates, I just hope the lesson sinks in to some that oppose gun rights.
I think the lesson is too tenuous as it is. Guns have played little or no real part in this situation. My understanding is that folks did just fine deterring looters with pipes and knives. While a few guns might have lent some deterrent value in some cases, we'll never know to what extent.I know the present Egyptian lesson is not lost on 2A advocates, I just hope the lesson sinks in to some that oppose gun rights.
As I mentioned, it is the army keeping peace. By that logic, Americans don't need guns if we have the National Guard to protect us.
If anything, history will look at this as an event in which a democratic uprising occurred with surprising swiftness and strength, and in which dictators need to learn to keep their armies a bit closer if they want to oppress the populace.
Just playing devil's advocate here, but if this had been a shooting revolution, should we have been pleased?