I thought this was a bad idea when Linda Thompson was pushing it back in the 90s and my opinion has not changed. [Read]
I think saying it will be called off if they don't get a full thousand is pretty much the guarantee that no one will have to go through with it. Maybe I'm wrong, I certainly have been before, but this looks to me like it was never intended to be anything but a publicity stunt.
[Via Florida Guy]
I expect a negative outcome if this goes on.
ReplyDelete"Non-violent civil disobedience" is a good tactic, and has been developed pretty well. But it is solely for disarmed people. The left/pacifist crowd uses it all the time, often to good effect; however, they use it because they think guns are evil tools and have disarmed themselves.
Yes, the famous Gandhi used non-violent civil disobedience, because being disarmed is the situation into which he was forced by circumstances; the British had disarmed the Indian people. If the Indian folks had guns, Gandhi may well have used them. He says so.
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." ~Mohandas Gandhi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth , page 446
Again, and you can read their own literature, it's a great tactic for disarmed people.
But it's a horrible tactic for armed people.
It accomplishes exactly the wrong things like starting a Fort Sumter or getting guns confiscated, lives ruined by arrest, jail, carry permits yanked.
Those are bad, but the worst outcome being a demonstration of the ineffectiveness of arms.
If shooting does break out by accident, the marchers are going to be decimated. The American Revolutionary soldiers of 1776 may has well have announced a date upon which they would march armed into some British stronghold, just to prove how the Redcoats should respect them.
Non-violent civil disobedience tactics do work and firearms do work; however, they do NOT mix.
Who is going to actually sign up to get the ass either shot off or, gassed, beaten and tossed in jail, replete with a loss of gun rights?
ReplyDeleteIf, at this point in time, the makes the people who don't participate pussies, so be it.
No good can that I can imagine come of this.
Gandhi went further than that.
ReplyDelete"Had we adopted non-violence as the weapon of the strong, because we realised that it was more effective than any other weapon, in fact the mightiest force in the world, we would have made use of its full potency and not have discarded it as soon as the fight against the British was over or we were in a position to wield conventional weapons. But as I have already said, we adopted it out of our helplessness. If we had the atom bomb, we would have used it against the British."
-Mohandas Gandhi, 16 June 1947)