Re: Guns vs. Tyranny

From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu May 29 2003 - 21:38:15 MDT

  • Next message: Mike Lorrey: "RE: More enthusiasm than news in Fox's coverage of war"

    --- Michael Wiik <mwiik@messagenet.com> wrote:
    > Michael S. Lorrey writes:
    >
    > > Until a few months before the war, gun ownership was restricted to
    > > Baath Party members, according to some sources.
    >
    > I understand that Baath party membership was mandatory for many
    > professions. I've also heard that Hussein passed out weapons to the
    > populace prior to the invasion.

    Yes, about a month before the war. Surprising, though, that so few were
    used for their intended purpose, eh? Not really. Saddam may have had
    delusions of Stalinistic patriotic uprising in his support, but who
    thinks the people would actually use them when they'd already seen us
    kick their butts a decade before and we'd just finished kicking the
    butts of the Afghans, who up to that time were considered unconquerable
    by the arab street.

    >
    > 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.

    Actually, several examples here. Our original revolution, to start
    with. Then there is the Texan War of Independence (from Mexico). Also
    see the Whiskey Rebellion, in which the Feds declared 'victory' after
    one aborted battle and let the rest of the rebels continue to avoid the
    whiskey tax.

    There is the era of the Republic of Indian Stream and the Battle of
    Indian Stream (against Canada) which almost started a war with Britain
    in the 1830's and presaged Indian Stream's annexation into the US as
    the northern tip of New Hampshire in the final border settlement that
    had been brewing since the end of the Revolutionary War.

    >
    > 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).

    For practical purposes in the modern world, its primary utility is that
    it would force an oppressive government to so eggregiously violate the
    rights of those who refuse to be disarmed or otherwise oppressed with
    public atrocities that public sympathy and pressure forces political
    reforms. The Waco and Ruby Ridge episodes enraged so much of the US
    public that the ATF was forced to reform, the FBI was curtailed a bit,
    and the GOP regained congress.

    The biggest problem with the official secrecy we are seeing today is
    that there is no oversight if any atrocities are committed against
    American citizens.

    =====
    Mike Lorrey
    "Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
                                                        - Gen. John Stark
    Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.blogspot.com
    Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
    Pro-tech freedom discussion:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom

    __________________________________
    Do you Yahoo!?
    Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
    http://calendar.yahoo.com



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 29 2003 - 21:49:35 MDT