|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |