View Single Post
Old 12-17-2012, 12:33 PM   #34
Saya
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 9,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by AshleyO View Post
I don't think disarming the populous is a good idea, especially since the west seems to be submerged and steeped in class struggle like whoah. In a sense... the working class SHOULD have a fighting chance and no, that doesn't mean middle class Americans either.
Maybe its just my Canadian sensibilities, but from what I understand, the right to bear arms was written in a time where there was little distinction between what arms the military had and what civilians had. You had a musket, which in retrospect was a pretty crappy thing that took forever to reload and in a lone gunman's hands would do very limited damage. So my question is, what difference does it make whether the populous is armed or not? The police or the army can outgun anyone, assault rifles be damned. From my understanding uprisings elsewhere are often armed by forces outside of the country (like Syrian rebels being armed by foreign nations) or the armies themselves are badly hurting for arms and armour, or new and poorly trained, or sympathetic to the people. I really wonder whether an armed uprising is possible in the US, unless foreign nations get involved in proxy wars or the army takes the side of the people.

I totally get and understand why the Black Panther Party armed themselves and if anyone gets to have guns to protect themselves, its the oppressed. But it doesn't solve a whole lot of problems; in Florida, where Zimmerman apparently had the right to stalk and shoot Trayvon Martin, a woman was convicted for simply firing shots into the air as a warning against her abusive husband, and was sentenced to twenty years...and of course she wasn't white. It might have saved her from her husband, but it didn't save her from a racist justice system.
Saya is offline   Reply With Quote