I’m blown away by a comment over at Robb’s, from someone who is not a supporter of our cause:
You think the anti-Obama stuff is a kick because you live in a redneck area that supports that kind of thing. I think it’s nutty and out of touch because I live in area more consumed by the Iran elections. No one here cares about guns.
One reason I’m not wrapped up in it is because I think it will end tragically, and I find that to be depressing. These protests and demonstrations only continue until the regime musters the will to put it down. That they haven’t is probably because the political elite that rules Iran are using the situation to jostle for power among themselves. Once the new arrangement is worked out, and it won’t be a liberal arrangement, they’ll squash the protesters like the Chinese did at Tiananmen Square.
It takes more than rocks and harsh language to get rid of a regime who’s willing to kill its own people to preserve itself. I think this regime is willing to do that. Anyone who is “consumed by the Iran elections” should give a shit about guns, because they are about to see what a people with no guns does in the face of a government that has them. Submit or die. Those are your two choices. An armed population doesn’t guarantee you won’t end up doing the latter, but it can absolutely prevent the former form being a choice, and the people just might end up taking out enough of the totalitarian thugs that they run out of men to send.
The only way things will end well for Iranian liberals is for the regime to split, and for half the men with guns to stop taking orders from the government. I’ve seen no indication of this happening yet in Iran.
Is this what Obama meant by “uncleanching its fist?”
The Iranians are the new poster-children for the 2nd Amendment – and what happens without gun-rights.
NJSoldier:
You shoulda read some of the comments made by some folks over at huffington post, when the police started firing on the protesters, a few commentors stated that this is what happens when the people are unarmed and needed their owns, they ended up getting attacked by other commentors! Claiming the guns only escalate the problem and such, and that guns have no place in a Democracy……Gee escalate the problem, when people are already getting shot and killed……
Doom.
Several of the Ayatollahs are not happy about the violence and even at the top, there is some reason to fear the repercussions of a brutal put-down. And even if it gets crushed, the lessons of this uprising will not be lost on Ahmidinajad(?) et al.
I love you fellows! Have I told you that before? I truly do! I have finally found an erudite gun website where people “get it!” The guys at work keep telling me armed citizens cannot take on their government with its tanks and planes, and thousands of soldiers, etc. I keep pointing out the Russians, East Germans, Poles and even our Founding Fathers as evidence to the contrary – armed citizens are free citizens! Disarmed citizens are slaves of tyrants! Every time I see those thousands of unarmed Iranian citizens protesting and dying in Tehran I imagine them all armed with AK-57s and see a MUCH different result – a much better result! I see what you all have been describing on this post. An oppurtunity, a hope, a chance at freedom. Thank you all!!! God bless you! – Arnie
Thanks Arnie. I am a political pragmatist, but I do think an armed population places outer bounds on the amount of power the government can wield over the people. If one believes in popular sovereignty, the only way is really means anything is if the population can say no to the government, at gunpoint, if it becomes necessary.
Through out history, the price of having tyrants has been blood, and the price of freedom has been blood, and probably always will be. For those who fought for freedom, the question is- who’s blood?