Re: Guns vs. Tyranny

From: Michael M. Butler (mmb@spies.com)
Date: Wed May 28 2003 - 13:27:12 MDT

  • Next message: Dennis Fantoni: "Re: PHYSICS: Black holes on demand?"

    On Wed, 28 May 2003 12:30:48 -0400, Michael Wiik <mwiik@messagenet.com>
    wrote:

    > I would appreciate examples of an armed populace successfully revolting
    > against an oppressive government. Of course, one example is right here in
    > the USA. I know there are examples of a government disarming the populace
    > before instituting oppressive measures, but this is not the same thing.

    Depends on what you mean. According to Mohandas Gandhi, armed revolt was a
    possibility he kept firmly in mind. That he wound up emphasizing
    nonviolence doesn't mean it wasn't also on the Viceroy's mind.

    Then, as I mentioned recently, there's Iran. Perhaps it happened because
    the Pahlavi government wasn't sufficiently oppressive. You can always make
    that claim about any successfl revolution.

    And of course Cuba, if you buy the Guevaran/Castroan party line regarding
    Batista. And the Soviet Union. And Mao against the warlords and Kuomintang.
    Hey, if it works for Commies, why not for non-Commies?

    And what about the Roundheads?

    Does it count if any troops wind up siding with the revolutionaries, or do
    they have to do it all by themselves with kitchen chemicals and farm
    implements?

    > While I support the 2nd ammendment, my feeling is that pragmatically it
    > exists only to protect itself (and maybe parts of the first, dealing with
    > religion).

    Feelings are good. I feel you are wrong, and that there is a certain
    general orneriness (deterrence) effect in some of the extant USA
    subpopulations until or unless the polity comes to accept a degree of
    savagery on the part of the authorities that makes the matter moot. There
    was a town in Tennessee shortly after WWII, I seem to recall, where armed
    citizens forced a corrupt local government to stop throwing an election.

    An analogy: the aggregate odds on resuscitation via CPR are given as about
    25%. Does that mean that no sensible person would ever administer it?

    MMB

    -- 
    I am not here to have an argument. I am here as part of a civilization. 
    Sometimes I forget.
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 28 2003 - 13:40:17 MDT