Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
While I agree that right to arms alone does not make a population free, it goes a long way towards it.
|
No it doesn't really make you free just powerful which leads to..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
most of the atrocities that we see committed in the third world, we find that it's typically one segment of the population that is well armed dominating or killing another segment that, for whatever reason, has inferior weapons or is totally unarmed.
|
This is not freedom in action but rather power being exercised over another group. In Rwanda the Tutsi first had the power oppressed the Hutu who later took over and massacred the Tutsi. Arms just provided the means to do it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
it would seem that the police officers and soldiers, regardless of Castro's wishes, would have been more reluctant to carry out their heinous acts in Cuba if they feared resistance and/or retaliation from an armed population.
|
I think the Bay of Pigs proved that wrong. The people of Cuba in the majority wanted Castro and allowed him to stay in power. Otherwise the CIA plan would have worked and millions of indignent Cubans would have risen up and overthrown Castro. Didn't happen and would Cuba had been any freer after the exiles took over? I don't think you can say that webley. Isay based on the lack of said democratic ideals and foundations you might well have had another fascist dictator in Ccuba.
Rule of law and the democratic dreams and ideals we have today will keep
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
if the government became tyrannical
|
from ever being a reality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
I contend that the case is not that we are armed because the government is not tyrannical, but rather that the government is not tyrannical in part because we are armed.
|
Can you show any instance in history where an armed population keep a leader from doing something tryannical. We have had instances of that. The suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln, the sedition laws of WWI, the Japanese Interment in WWII. Did armed citizens stop those? Please do not cite the rural myth of the Battle of Athens:barf:
We are armed today and can defend ourselves from criminals because we have a democratic government whose checks and balances have kept power diffused so that one man or party could not take over as a tyrant. Even when things got bad during the Cvil War or the Great Depression we maintained our COTUS without the use of armed citizenry.
We don't have a tyrannical government because of those institutions, free press and the rule of law. Not because there is an armed minority.