1 shot can change the world

batou wrote:
It certainly can.



If you're offering; a double malt. Straight.

Thanks

When I first came to Georgia my landlord, who was a redneck Republican fella, asked me why we still had the royal family and my response was "because we don't have guns". The same question could of course be asked to him as Bush was in power at the time. Of course he did not see a problem with Bush.

Of course history shows us that no matter what you have the state has bigger. Most big anti war protests and the like are peaceful. Those protests are often turned violent by provocation or simply portrayed that way or not covered at all.

I was actually watching a documentary series called xxi century on Netflix and they covered much this same topic. Of course they did not suggest armed demonstrations though but simply discussed the problems of media representation.

I do however know that some tea party types have been in Atlanta with big guns. The black panthers used to carry weapons also and of course they were then painted as criminals and framed for violent crimes.

So really the problem is how people get back control of their government and the media and of course the whole army/police issue regarding citizens particularly.

i-baster wrote:
Ahh but you see. Going to a demo armed with an array of firearms is just supporting your 2nd ammendment and the constiturion. But waving a flimsy placcard saying to austerity is clearly a riot.

Clearly.

If the people don't know who to aim their aggression at then violence will be just as pointless as the voting and the 'protesting' is.

Disclaimer: This statement neither agrees nor disagrees with the OP or any of the other posters but merely tries to direct the thread out of the gutter.

batou wrote:
Yeah 28 July 1914

nirvana wrote: So do you think it's right that after a coup de etat or hostile takeover of a nations government, if the people react in opposition the corrupt state can use military force to stamp out all dissent?

I think the question should be should people who are trying to exercise their democratic and human rights be violently oppressed, or should they receive armed protection?

If the police and military refuse to provide -to the people they ought to serve- that protection then who does, and if the police and military do not serve the interests of the people but of a corporatist, political and industrial elite, what course of action do you suggest?

nirvana wrote:
Just for you nirvana...