Rangoon is seething with frustration after last year's failed protests, which were led by monks. The government's callous handling of the cyclone in May which killed at least 140,000 people has increased popular anger.They ought to knock that kind of talk off. It's not pragmatic and they're going to scare yellow people.
Some now talk about taking up arms against the government after the failure of last year's non-violent protests.
A group of young men in a Rangoon bar spoke openly about wanting to attack the army. "If we could find guns, we would do it," said one English-speaking teenager. "I marched last year, we were shot at and we had nothing to shoot back with."
[Via Tom H]
You'd think after more than 170 million had died after being disarmed by their gov't, the word would have gotten around......
ReplyDeleteYeah, but if they got a shipment tomorrow, they'd still have a snowflake's chance in hell with out a modicum of practice. See, that's the well-regulated part.
ReplyDeleteAnd what good are weapons and skill if they do not have the arms at hand during a peaceful protest, even if they weren't expecting violence. That's the "bearing" part.
tjh, i seriously doubt that your personal comfort level with government in the US, what with our constitution, has anything to do with how badly the oppressed people of burma want guns, whether they'll pass a range qualification of your design or not.
ReplyDelete"man fights with his mind. his hands and his weapons are simply extensions of his will, and one of the fallacies of our era is the notion that equipment is the equivalent of force."
cooper.
The Romanians had little more than their bare hands when they took down Ceausescu and his thugs.
ReplyDeleteWhen enough people are ready to put their lives at risk, the government falls.
Jonathon:
ReplyDeleteI think you've misunderstood my post. I plucked an abstract from the story, and used it as a barb to stick in disarmer philosophy. In this case, I was pricking at creative (imaginary) interpretations of the Second Amendment. I note that the Second Amendment simply explains a natural right which belongs to every member of the human race, including those in Burma.
Truth be told, I attempt to follow the lead of the author of this blog, but my commentary is apparently little more than a chintzy, dollar-store version of David's.
I understand that the Burmese are oppressed and at the doorstep of desperation. I also understand that the weapons are largely symbolic at this stage; that they may, however, inspire courage among the oppressed, and fear among the oppressors. I believe the founders of this country understood this as well.
I've never made it a point to conceal the fact that my personal comfort level with our government is very low, and that my courage-meter runs somewhere between 'chickenshit' and 'steady'. I would be nice if a majority of the Citizens of this country now sent a volley of words, so our grandchildren don't have to face a volley of bullets in the future--in much the same fashion as Burmese protesters of today.
As said before, (tongue, firmly in cheek)
ReplyDelete;-)