Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

>> If your police force is corrupt, then yeah, you probably need guns...
> 
> That's the whole point. There is no guarantee that in any given country in
> the world, this kind of situation cannot come into being, by whatever
> means. If it comes into being while citizens are armed, they at least have
> recourse to arms to protect their lives and freedoms from a blatantly
> unjust and / or corrupt oppressor.

I don't believe this argumentation.

> What would the recourse be of British citizens, for example, if your
> government slowly, by degrees, enacted new, oppressive laws (take a look at
> the BNP, for example...!) so that at the end of the process it is illegal
> for a British Citizen of Pakistani descent (or those who even LOOK
> Pakistani!) to live in certain areas (for a start), and maybe later not
> being allowed to work, or own his own business...? And later being expelled
> from the UK or interned, or eventually put into a gas chamber?
> 
> It happened in Germany, Italy, Cambodia, Yugoslavia, Russia, Argentina,
> Rwanda, the Congo... and its called ethnic cleansing.

You can't prevent that by putting the right to bear arms into a 
constitution.

If a government (or, let's rather say: society) wants to go for ethnical 
cleansing, first thing they'll do is cut down the rights of bearing arms 
/for that group of people/.

And the rifle enthusiasts will scream "Hooray" because /they/ will be 
allowed to keep their rifles, while there will be /some/ reason why "the 
others" shouldn't have them.

They may even happily come to the aid of the governmental forces, so 
that you'll have the majority of the personally-owned firepower 
/against/ the oppressed.


No, the individual's right to bear arms doesn't protect minorities 
against a corrupt government. The world isn't as simple as that.

Post a reply to this message