It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alright anti-gunners, lets have it out

page: 6
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2008 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by passenger
Have you ever heard of Tiananmen Square?


Tiananmen Square, though a tragedy, is a excellent example of change through non-violent protest.

www.youtube.com...

Remember this video? Do you think the column of tanks would have stopped if this guy was carrying an AK-47 or a self propelled grenade? Sure, it takes some courage to rise up with a gun in your hand. It takes a hell of lot more to rise up without one.

Some people did die - changing government's minds is a difficult business. Anyone leading an armed insurgence would be a fool not to expect some to die. And it was sad. But because the Chinese government mowed down unarmed citizens, it received universal condemnation abroad and at home.

What was the results of the Tiananmen Square protests? China did major economic reforms, and now is one of the strongest economies in the world. It is still a dictatorship, but the people have the highest levels of freedom since Mao took control in 1950. Not a perfect victory, but positive change was affected.

[edit on 2008.7.23 by cannonfodder]

[edit on 2008.7.23 by cannonfodder]




posted on Jul, 26 2008 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by cannonfodder
But because the Chinese government mowed down unarmed citizens, it received universal condemnation abroad and at home.

The Chinese government was subject to "universal condemnation" because they weren't aware at first that the massacre was being videotaped at the time...They kept trying to deny it even after the videos were being shown around the world. Still, any government that practices massacres on their own population never cares about "universal condemnation," because they'll still do it anyway!

Besides, such a government will find it much easier to mow down unarmed civilians compared to an armed populace that is capable of protecting themselves with the use of guerrilla tactics...The very same kind of tactics that the Founding Forefathers used against British troops that were, for the most part, better armed & trained as soldiers than the colonists were.

This is the single, most pervasive reason why the Founding Forefathers included the guarantee of arms to citizens, without restrictions imposed by the government.



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by MidnightDStroyer
 


And I agree it was a good idea back in 1776, when having a gun put everyone on a level playing field, and reinforcements from Britian would take at least a month to get to the colonies.

Now... governments have tanks, steath bombers, jet fighters, attack helicopters, attack drones, satillite intellegence, all which can respond to any uprising anywhere in the US in a few hours. A well armed militia wouldn't fair any better than the Iraqis on the highway of death during the first gulf war. It is time to come to terms with that.



 
2
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join