"The tree of liberty must be refreshed... with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Not even close. SLORC in Myanmar is the worst example.

Has to disagree. In Zimbabwe there was a "legal" election wich reelected the president whom started a lot of bulldozers directed against those who voted against him - current state - a country that both could feed itself and neighbours is now facing starvation.

[chequita guevara]

SLORC has "legal" elections, jails the winners, and committs genocide against ethnic minorities. Zimbabwe doesn't even come close.

I should note that South Africa is getting ready to start seizing land from farmers. Under Apartheid, white farmers stole lands from Africans (as in Rhodesia). The difference is that South Africa, at least, is trying to negotiate a payment from the land theives. Great Britain and the U.S. promised to compensate the white farmers of Zimbabwe back in 1979 and never followed through. The people of Zimbabwe, whose land was solen from them by white colonists, should not have been forced to wait over two decades to have returned to them what was rightfully theirs, just because the white imperialists refused to abide by their agreements.

That's aside from whether or not Mugagbe is a thug, which he is. But he's not the worst thug in Africa. He's certainly not the worst thug in the world. but ZOMFG, a ****** is standing up to decent white Christian people!!!!!!!

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Unless I'm wrong, then revolution is only legal if you win.

For the use of weapon, well, lets say that a third of the population is heavily armed and thinks that the government oppresses their rights, so they choose to use their power despite the other two thirds are quite satisfied. Who wins ?

Thats exactly how the United States was formed, and I'm damn glad it did.

As for when...

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

So... a long train of abuses and usurpations designed to reduce us under absolute Despotism. As for what meets that standard specifically? That's subjective. There is no easy answer for when the government has crossed the line. As stated above of course, people are quite hesitant to revolt, and instead just deal with things as they are. As the American colonists did for like 10-15 years before they finally decided to actually revolt.

There is no easy answer, there is no line in the sand. But I'm damn glad the people have that option as a last resort if necessary.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Thats exactly how the United States was formed, and I'm damn glad it did.

Actually, it was through the intervention of the hated French, as well as the Spanish and Dutch. Ourselves alone would have lost the war, probably in 1777-78. Sparks of rebellion would continue for a bit, but the Continental Army would have failed after Velley Forge.

[OzzyKP]

Well that's irrelevant. In a hypothetical scenario where the US government becomes oppressive tot he point where a third of the nation are willing to take up arms, its entirely possible that other nations will step in. But that's an external variable.

We could debate over whether the revolution would have succeeded or not had the French and other intervened. But there can be no doubt that the revolution would have failed had the colonists never revolted in the first place.

Without arms they never would have attempted it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Well that's irrelevant. In a hypothetical scenario where the US government becomes oppressive tot he point where a third of the nation are willing to take up arms, its entirely possible that other nations will step in. But that's an external variable.

Wait, you mean like in 1860?

We could debate over whether the revolution would have succeeded or not had the French and other intervened. But there can be no doubt that the revolution would have failed had the colonists never revolted in the first place.

Without arms they never would have attempted it.

I am sure that would also have been true in 1860. The fact is thought the central government did win.

[OzzyKP]

Do you have a point?

[GePap]

Yes, that the fact that most Americans today don;t think of the Civil War as a act of revolutionary fervor against Tyranny of the Federal government shows just how tricky, if actually irrelevant, the original question was. IN 1860 many Americans felt the right to own ohter people was God given, they weren't going to wait for it to be taken away form them (since by the time they broke Lincoln had not even come to power and his platform had only called for spreading the spread of slavery, not abolition) to act. They rebelled, they fought. They lost.

And they lost not because right or wrong was on either side, but simply because the Federal government could bring forth more resources and manpower to the table and finally grind the rebels into the dirt.

guna may allow you to fight, yes, but guns also allow the government to crush you. So, at the end, victory will not simply be based on guns, but on just how much support the rebels can gain, and how much can the government keep, guns secondary.

[OzzyKP]

Guns are an important factor in it getting support. France wouldn't have stepped in to support the Americans if our revolution folded right away. We stuck with it for a good amount of time, and had a few key victories here and there, which convinced the French (and others) to step in. Without guns we never would have gotten to that point.

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
Guns are an important factor in it getting support. France wouldn't have stepped in to support the Americans if our revolution folded right away. We stuck with it for a good amount of time, and had a few key victories here and there, which convinced the French (and others) to step in. Without guns we never would have gotten to that point.

There is a difference between a colonial struggle and a revolution at home. The threshold for rebellion far away from the center of power is different than one trying to topple the king. After all, the American Revolution did not actually topple a King, only his administration in a specific part of the world far away from his of power. of course, it needs to be pointed out that of course the actual "tyrants" of the story were the Parlimentary leaders in London since the King had no actual powers.

That said, the Civil War scenerio makes more sense to the thread question that a colonial revolt. After all, one could always bring up the example of Gandhi, who won without guns.

[OzzyKP]

And home governments have changed peacefully as well. Both to democracy and from democracy.

The point isn't that we should get out a rifle whenever someone looks at us cross, it is that when all other options have been exhausted it is good to have a fallback. More importantly, those other options are given more weight because no one wants to go for the more extreme option.

[chequita guevara]

The point is, is that an armed populace doesn't stop a government from being autocratic. Guns were everywhere in Ba'athist Iraq.

You also don't need an armed public to overthrow the government. The Bolsheviks won not because they had arms (and they had some, which they got from the army) but because they had won over the military to their cause.

[Berzerker]

The Ba'athists ran the place, of course they were armed.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The point is, is that an armed populace doesn't stop a government from being autocratic. Guns were everywhere in Ba'athist Iraq.

And Pakistan and Afghanistan.

And just look at the wonderful democratic regimes enjoyed by the armed populations of those countries....

Every Communist must grasp the truth, "Political power rows out of the barrel of a gun."

Charlton Mao Heston

[Dracon II]

Perhaps it was conceivable that an armed populace would be a considerable check on Government power in the age of muskets... but I'm really not so sure about it now.

AFAIK the US didn't have much of a standing army to begin with... maybe the 2nd amendment was a cost cutting affair... the Government externalizing it's defense costs?