Egypt chaos sending a 2A message?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Glenn E. Meyer

The Communists were removed nonviolently in the end, from Russia and Hungary.

As a fellow of some russian ancestry, I can only caution against drawing too many easy lessons from the way these people behave. I worked with a monarchist group who were generally supportive of the liberalisation under Yeltsin, a communist.

The communists were not removed from russian government. The governing principle of communism, that the party retain a monopoly on political power, suffered from only a moment of doubt before Putin re-established it to the glee of most russians.

These communists don't sing from a marxist hymnal in public any longer, but that is not a consequantial difference.


As to the egyptian circumstance and an armed populace, I note an important difference. We have a professional armed service with a strict government command ethic. In many places, the army is a political force that moderates the swings of electoral politics and generally reflects, more or less, popular sentiment. In this sense, egyptians are armed against their government with their army.

[BlueTrain]

I generally agree with the previous post from zukiphile. One of the flashpoints of the Russian revolution was soldiers firing on a crowd, which curiously enough, was one of the flashpoints of the American revolution. However, I'm not sure the simple possession of personal firearms even enters into the matter, at least not in a positive way. It does, if it is a question of protecting your own home but I've already talked about that. There's more to it than that.

The presence of a militia, more or less organized, may sometimes make as much difference as an army, although generalizations can confuse the issue. In the case of Egypt, there probably is nothing equivalent to a militia and the Egyptian population is not widely spread out geographically. Both factors are important. Revolutions do not happen in the wilderness; they start in cities, whether or not they are successful. But it doesn't follow which side a militia might be on either. But it is also important here to distinguish true militias from what are essentially private armies under a war lord. Those militias usually have no nationalist interests, only those of the war lord.

[madmag]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

In this sense, Egyptians are armed against their government with their army.

Do not agree. I think the pro-Mubarak supporters are in fact military/police in civilian clothing, and they are armed against the people...not the government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110202/...mi_ea/ml_egypt

The protesters accused Mubarak's regime of unleashing a force of paid thugs and plainclothes police to crush their unprecedented, 9-day-old movement demanding his ouster, a day after the 82-year-old president refused to step down. They showed off police ID badges they said were wrested from their attackers. Some government workers said their employers ordered them into the streets.

My personal guess is that the paid pro-Mubarak supporters will cause enough chaos that the Army will then say it has to act to clear out all demonstrators. Of course the army stood by while the pro-Mubarak forces came in....it's just a game.....my opinion of course.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by madmag

I think the pro-Mubarak supporters are in fact military/police in civilian clothing

I would not conflate the army and police.

Part of the egyptian gripe is that the police function as a political arm of the regime. Today, I read a report that the army has moved to keep protestors and police separated.

[Evan Thomas]

It seems that it is possible, at least sometimes, to have a revolution without a Second Amendment or an armed populace. President Mubarak has stepped down. Here's a link to the New York Times coverage.

A peaceful revolution so far, pretty much... who'd have thunk it? One hopes the Army, which is now running things, will do the right thing and quickly institute democratic reforms, including free elections.

[Al Norris]

Does everyone realize this whole shebang started with social networking on FaceBook?

[Tom Servo]

Does everyone realize this whole shebang started with social networking on FaceBook?

Yep. It proved two (seemingly) contradictory things:

1. The internet is a powerful medium for political change, and
2. cutting it off won't stop what's begun.

There is a tenuous 2nd Amendment link here. In the early 1990's, there was a debate on whether or not civilians should be allowed to use sophisticated encryption or whether it should be restricted to governments. The debate had very similar contours to the ones we have today regarding the 2nd Amendment and protection from government tyranny.

Information can be a weapon as dangerous as any ordnance.

Part of the egyptian gripe is that the police function as a political arm of the regime. Today, I read a report that the army has moved to keep protestors and police separated.

There's a great deal of anxiety about the idea of the military being in charge right now. I can certainly understand that, especially considering how historical trends don't bode well for that kind of situation.

Egypt is a different situation, however. Over there, you don't get to be a cop unless you've got some connections, and once you do, you're pretty much the elite. Soldiers come from the lower and middle classes, and are much more in touch with the populace.

Word from the front is that the army is likely to be the one thing guaranteeing a smooth transition to multi-party elections.

[Evan Thomas]

Egypt is a different situation, however. Over there, you don't get to be a cop unless you've got some connections, and once you do, you're pretty much the elite. Soldiers come from the lower and middle classes, and are much more in touch with the populace.

Word from the front is that the army is likely to be the one thing guaranteeing a smooth transition to multi-party elections.

Yes... and it's also worth noting that the older, pro-Mubarak members of the officer corps were largely trained by the Soviet Union, while the junior officers (the ones directly commanding those lower and middle class rank-and-file troops) have been trained by, and are apparently much more sympathetic to, the United States.

It will be... interesting... to see how this plays out.

Information can be a weapon as dangerous as any ordnance.

Definitely. Isn't there some cliché to that effect involving pens and swords?

[Tom Servo]

Definitely. Isn't there some cliché to that effect involving pens and swords?

Yep. Apparently a pen in the hand is worth two in the bush

I got a few pictures from last night's celebrations. They convey a mood of optimism and triumph, but may be off topic. One bears showing, however:



It doesn't read "wedgies for yankee pigdog." It reads "thanks, Facebook."

[BlueTrain]

The Iranian revolution happened pretty much the same way without the help of Facebook or the Internet. The basic technique is to get the person who has been running things out of the country.

[madmag]

Originally Posted by Blue Train

The basic technique is to get the person who has been running things out of the country.

Yes, but it should be added not to replace the departing regime with something just as bad or worse.

Originally Posted by Al Norris

Does everyone realize this whole shebang started with social networking on FaceBook?

TFL is also a social network.....for shooters anyway

[BlueTrain]

While the strategy is to get the old ruler out of the country, what happens next is not a given. Besides, who gets to say whether it is better or worse?

[madmag]

Originally Posted by Blue Train

who gets to say whether it is better or worse?

The people under the new regime get the say. If, without intimidation, they say the new regime is better, then it's better. It seems the human species naturally favors freedom of choice. It's nice to read or say what you want without fear of reprisal. Or even to participate in a gun forum if you like.

[Tom Servo]

While the strategy is to get the old ruler out of the country, what happens next is not a given

Nope, but these people didn't just go to all this trouble to replace one tyrant with another.

People tend to think of the "middle east" as one homogeneous body, and they tend to think "Arab" means one group, with all the same desires and mores. That's not the case.

The Egyptians are fairly modern, skeptical (in the original sense), and they have a substantial middle class. Most likely, the political situation will come out looking something like Turkey.

[Rufus T Firefly]

Events like Katrina and now current events made us evaluate where we are and how to survive. I don't want to be political at all here. I basically have a well earned distrust for any denomination of politician.

We stocked some food and made some plans. Got a 1377 Crosman for small game. We quickly realized we had a big hole in the plan. No defense! We had a survival knife and a machete, but a single shot for defense? Obviously our focus is more concentrated on usable self defense.

[Jim March]

This is what I posted on the reddit /guns forum when somebody said that "10,000 Egyptians with guns flooding into the main square would have been a bad thing".

---

OK, here's how it works.

If you want to pull off a relatively bloodless revolution patterned on what happened in Tunisia, you need to get the cops and/or the military on your side.

SHOOTING those same cops/soldiers is counter-productive if that's your goal. So yes, the original poster is correct: 10,000 armed Egyptians in Tahrir Square would have done more harm than good.

But that doesn't mean there isn't a role for guns!!!

See, a dictator like Murabak has a problem: not enough psychopaths to go around. He needs total psychos to do the "secret police" crap - the midnight arrests, torture sessions, body dumping, etc. So the usual pattern is, he'll pile up those sorts in a small number of organizations, sometimes as little as one org. This model was adopted by Nazi Germany: you had the SS doing the really horrible **** as opposed to the regular German military and even most German cops who usually despised what the SS were up to.

The pattern was actually perfected by the Tsars in Russia prior to the commies taking over.

So what does this mean?

Well when you're out doing the mass demonstrations, you don't want guns around so long as things haven't gone all the way to a civil war.

Where you DO want guns is at the small organizing meetings for the protests "behind the scenes" where you have to fear raids by the real psycho-organization(s). THOSE bastards need shooting!

The US civil rights movement was no different. Esp. early on when Dr. King wasn't a major figure that couldn't be taken out without a major backlash, his home and various meeting places were armed camps ready to fend off midnight KKK raids. Out on the streets waving signs or doing sit-ins or whatever, no, that's the time for unarmed resistance.

The other time guns come in handy is when leaders or organizers are quietly on the move. The "Mississippi Burning" murders happened in 1964 when a single carload of voter registration workers were ambushed and killed with the cooperation of local cops. After that, a lot of those voter registration workers went armed and some Klan died too out in the back roads where the gruntwork of civil rights reform was happening.

Now...I'm uniquely qualified to discuss this. I'm a former lobbyist (2003-2005) for a smaller "NRA similar" org, yet I've also been arrested and spent 18 hours in the San Diego County jail for an unarmed protest against illegal voting system secrecy by that county - an unarmed protest taken straight out of Dr. King's playbook. But if somebody from Diebold or the like ever wanted to take me out, well they COULD, sure, but not quietly. Not at ALL quietly - I can make damned sure of that. Full-house 357Mag is anything but quiet.

Upshot: Non-violent protest is strongly preferred over an all-out civil war by anyone sane, but at the same time organizers of protests can and have been subject to criminal assassination - and have an absolute personal civil right to self defense under such circumstances. And it works because regimes don't have a hell of a lot of real psychos to threaten you with.

Jim March
Member of the Board of Directors, BlackBoxVoting.org (I'm one of Bev Harris' "lieutenants")
2nd Vice Chair, Pima County Libertarian Party

[BlueTrain]

While I wish it were so, Mr. Madmag, I don't think you are always free to read or to say what you want in this country without fear. Notice that "BlueTrain" is not my real name (hint: it has to do with both a car and a train--two gold stars to whoever understands it). Sometimes having the wrong bumber sticker will get your windshield smashed in or, sometimes, prevented from attending a political rally. Mostly, however, it isn't that bad. Relationships between different peoples in this country are not always exactly what they are made out to be by those who may or may not know any better.

It is amazing, when you think about it, that in this country, when a new president is inaugurated, all the former presidents attend if they can still totter around, even when they are of entirely different political persuasions. But be that as it may be, there still occurs a certain amount of "dirty tricks" in elections and sometimes perfectly legitimate and legal civil organizations are looked upon as "troublemakers" (which they might actually be) and attempts are made to control them somehow. Ultimately, even here, there are government interests in what you are allowed to profess.

[madmag]

Originally Posted by Blue Train

Mr. Madmag

No need to cal me Mr. madmag....although I am older than most here I am a very lenient person.

Freedom is a relative thing. Compared to most we have a very free system, including our 2A rights.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by tom servo

Nope, but these people didn't just go to all this trouble to replace one tyrant with another.

People tend to think of the "middle east" as one homogeneous body, and they tend to think "Arab" means one group, with all the same desires and mores. That's not the case.

The Egyptians are fairly modern, skeptical (in the original sense), and they have a substantial middle class. Most likely, the political situation will come out looking something like Turkey.

The problem in these circumstances is that "what egyptians want" or "what the people I know and talk to want" isn't determinative of what will happen.

Iran was a growingly secular and very pro-western muslim country with a cosmopolitan urban middle class. There were always a few nuts around, but the Shah saw them as an impediment to Iran's growing place in the functional wider world.

Some of the middle class thought he was heavy handed and pushed for change. We reflexively sided with those nice people who wanted "reform". After all, they are nice people like us, right? We put the word out that we would not back the Shah. He fell, and the fact that lots of doctors and university professors and business owners and their wives who wore make-up and skirts really wanted the same kind of society but with a popular vote didn't matter. These were people with much to lose and little to defend it with.

If someone burns your wife in public for reading, or cuts your daughter's nose off for going out in public, or puts your youngest child in an oven and makes you watch while it cooks alive, you aren't going to bravely stand for parliamentary government and free speech. You are going to be silent or leave, if you can.

That the muslim brotherhood is a minority political faction not supported by many matters less than what the MB will do when they see an opportunity.

[Buzzcook]

A reformed old regime is still the old regime.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/02/13-1

CAIRO - Egypt's new military rulers will issue a warning on Monday against anyone who creates "chaos and disorder", an army source said.

The Higher Military Council will also ban meetings by labor unions or professional syndicates, effectively forbidding strikes, and tell all Egyptians to get back to work after the unrest that toppled Hosni Mubarak.

The army will also say it acknowledges and protects the right of people to protest, the source said.

Ironic how the military says it will protect the right of the people to protest, unless it's people they don't like.

Basically the military council has to make reforms quickly enough to satisfy the people. Shutting down peoples ability to collective bargaining is not a good first step.
The problem with old regimes is their main interest is maintaining the status quo and protecting their own power. That makes efforts at reform ineffective or at best cosmetic.

There are a couple of options. There can be a military junta which takes control or the old regime can add some revolutionaries to the government.

[madmag]

Originally Posted by Buzzcook

Ironic how the military says it will protect the right of the people to protest, unless it's people they don't like.

Yes, generals are (of course) power hungry like most......so after they consolidate power they will probably be reluctant to turn loose. There is a good chance Egypt will go from the frying pan to the frying pan.

When I started this thread it was about links to 2A rights....I hope we are not going too far afield.

[Buzzcook]

When I started this thread it was about links to 2A rights....I hope we are not going too far afield.

Law and civil rights. I think that's well within the field.

[Tom Servo]

Where you DO want guns is at the small organizing meetings for the protests "behind the scenes" where you have to fear raids by the real psycho-organization(s). THOSE bastards need shooting!

There are guns in Egypt. A few came out of the closet during the first few nights of looting. When the army started enforcing order, they were quietly put away.

Their legal status is questionable, but there are guns in people's homes any place they're banned. Hang out in Australia or England long enough, and you'll find out that some guy on your block has an old rifle in the closet somewhere.

Now, are there enough to make a difference? I don't know. There's a point when there are just enough Stasi, NKVD, or Frumentarii to make armed resistance seem a very unappealing course of action.

Fortunately, it never came to that. What happens in the next few weeks and months remains to be seen.

[BlueTrain]

Tyrants come and go, so it seems. Do you realize that meaning of "tyrant" in the original Greek was merely "popular leader?" The meaning has changed--or has it?

[Buzzcook]

Tyrants come and go, so it seems. Do you realize that meaning of "tyrant" in the original Greek was merely "popular leader?" The meaning has changed--or has it?

And dictator is from the latin for a temporary leader during a crisis.

Stuff changes.