View Single Post
Old 12-17-2012, 03:16 PM   #38
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
That's me taking the long view.

In the most apocalyptic sense, a handgun, while ineffective against a tank may be effective against a soldier who may have hesitations in the event of say... another revolutionary war.
Considering the nature of war crimes elsewhere, I'm a little pessimistic. Its very speculative because we have no idea what kind of discourse would surround a revolution that hasn't happened yet and the nation isn't even primed for yet.

Quote:
And while I'm aware that the law is clearly set against the oppressed; I AM wondering if reform and hashing it out with your oppressors is really going to do anything at all.

I take into consideration what Saya said and what it looks like she's saying is that the oppressed do absolutely nothing in defending themselves.
They preserve their lives, but that's an immediate defense against the threat of death, which often begins a long, tragic process of the justice system figuring out whether they have any right to be alive. The justice system will still seek out to destroy their lives in other ways. What a lynch mob fails to do, a jury can rectify.

That said, there will always be groups of the oppressed who simply cannot physically defend themselves in a significant way, such as children, the ill and the physically disabled. There will always be a significant portion of the population who cannot handle a gun, regardless of its legality, and often they're the ones who are abused the most.

Quote:
I guess when I look at it from Saya's perspective, those that are oppressed are either already AT WAR or they might get lucky and get a little mercy. Unfortunately, I'm not even sure how to fix it. They've tried reform and yes... naked overt 1920s styled racism isn't necessarily popular, but we haven't even come close to actually getting rid of it because it just went invisible. That certainly isn't a solution. I find it disheartening that the oppressed should technically BE THE ONLY ONES with a monopoly on violent force. But I'm sure I'm asking for something unrealistic in saying that.
The revolution vs reform debate is full of grey areas. A lot of anarchist seemed to call for a vote boycott or vote for a third party the past election because Obama to them wasn't much different from Romney, to which a lot of people replied that Obama can mean the difference between life and death for a lot of people that said anarchists have the privilege to ignore.

I think its safe to say that a lot of us can't trust liberals, but that doesn't mean we can always afford to never negotiate with them for the sake of principal. When my reproductive rights or rights as a queer are threatened, of course I felt motivated enough to vote for the party I felt would get enough sway at least to prevent the loss of what freedom I have, and I fully understand when other people need reform *NOW* rather than a revolution that may never come because their life may very well depend on it. Arguing for some reform doesn't mean you can't advocate revolution, it just may be key to self preservation and survival.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote