"History is not kind to this argument. The armed citizen has a lamentable record against the armed regiment, and often it is the simple suggestion that citizens have arms that allows for the brutal repression of opposition groups. African-Americans, for example, did not win their civil rights through gunfights with the police. The Nation of Islam was reviled for its violence, and parlayed into propaganda for racists and segregationists. No, the last dictatorships in the United States, which were the police states of Mississippi and Alabama, were taken down through peaceful protest that spurred legislation. The protests came at an admittedly high price, but that price was exacted largely through night-riding and terrorism--by ordinary citizens with guns. Can a citizen's gun be an instrument of liberty? Of course. But it can just as easily, and indeed more often, be an instrument of oppression."
The author fails to look at examples from history in places like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, where tens of millions of people were murdered by their own government and they had no defense.
posted on 04/04/2003 12:27:29 AM PST
Can a citizen's gun be an instrument of liberty? Of course. But it can just as easily, and indeed more often, be an instrument of oppression."
that's because the oppressed didn't have 'em, and the oppressors did. The oppressed were prohibited by Jim Crow legislation, against their natural right. Seems to be an argument FOR armed citizens. ALL citizens.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson