"They have guns so what can we do?"

[derby378]

Pro-democracy hero Aung San Suu Kyi walked free after more than seven years under house arrest, welcomed by thousands of cheering supporters outside the decaying lakefront villa that has been her prison.

Her guards effectively announced the end of her detention Saturday, pulling back the barbed-wire barriers that sealed off her potholed street and suddenly allowing thousands of expectant supporters to surge toward the house. Many chanted her name as they ran. Some wept.

A few minutes later, with the soldiers and police having evaporated into the Yangon twilight, she climbed atop a stepladder behind the gate as the crowd began singing the national anthem.

...

"She's our country's hero," said Tin Tin Yu, a 20-year-old university student, standing near the house later Saturday night. "Our election was a sham. Everyone knows it, but they have guns so what can we do? She's the only one who can make our country a democracy. I strongly believe it."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/as_myanmar_suu_kyi

(Emphasis mine)

[proteus_lives]

1. There is a point there.

It's a shame that many would ignore it.

[tucsonlib]

8. A Point There, Maybe, But Irrelevant Here

Our 2000 election was also a sham. And we HAD guns. So what? Had we used them in protest we'd have been slaughtered and/or arrested. Maybe the Myanmar government fears an armed populace, but this ain't Myanmar.....

:silly: :toast:

[PavePusher]

9. The guns weren't used...

because things aren't nearly bad enough to go down that route yet.

As you would know with a brief review of history.

[proteus_lives]

10. Not really a good comparison.

Bad as 2000 was, it wasn't a "get your gun" situation.

"Had we used them in protest we'd have been slaughtered and/or arrested."

I don't think it would turned out so neatly.

[Atypical Liberal]

24. Guns can't beat apathy.

>Our 2000 election was also a sham. And we HAD guns. So what?

Aside from the fact that our election system still appears to work, though barely in the face of financial interests, the simple fact is guns can't beat apathy nor ignorance.

Having the tools to resist tyranny don't help when the people who own them are apathetic or ignorant. This does not mean that having the tools available is not worthwhile.

[era veteran]

31. Burma n/t

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. Net recommendation: 0 votes (Your vote: +1)

*sigh*

[Hoopla Phil]

3. Kick and Rec!

[sharesunited]

4. Relevance to America? Teabaggery. The Union defeated the Confederacy.

Whose side would YOU have been on?

[TheWraith]

5. Me? I'd have been on John Brown's side.

Armed slaves are no longer slaves. But congratulations on continuing to gibber incoherently.

[sharesunited]

7. Your supposed constitutional rights don't amount to diddly in a society armed and dangerous.

[lawodevolution]

13. No, your desire to force your views on others is kept in check by

The ability of the people to arm themselves. Imagine you become frustrated and you decide to start your own guerrilla group to force your views on the people, y'all wouldn't last long.

[TheWraith]

15. Again, you're lacking a coherent message. Try again.

I know it's not easy when you don't have evidence on your side, but still...

[sharesunited]

19. Did this wife and these children possess constitutional rights?

Only in theory.

Dad's gun rights preempted and invalidated them.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/11/13/pennsylvania.family.killed/

[Straw Man]

23. Wrong.

Did this wife and these children possess constitutional rights?

Only in theory.

Dad's gun rights preempted and invalidated them.

No, you're wrong. It was Dad's decision to commit murder that robbed them of their rights. The transgression would be the same regardless of the implement used. Unless you can find a constitutional right to commit murder, then your line of reasoning fails.

[derby378]

25. When all else fails, bait and switch

We're talking about Burma/Myanmar here, but thanks for playing.

[cleanhippie]

6. Not on YOUR side, thats for sure.

You would be on the side of the Myanmar junta state. Thats what would become of this country if YOUR ideas were put in place. Thanks, but no thanks.



Notice: Guns did not embolden this post.

[proteus_lives]

11. You would have had a Confederate boot on your neck.

Why?

Because the Union beat the Rebs with force and firearms. And we know how icky you think those are.

[sharesunited]

12. The point is, they staged an armed rebellion which the establishment finally put down.

And they did so as true believers in the righteousness of their cause.

[proteus_lives]

14. Once again, you prove you don't know what you're talking about.

What the CSA did and what might happen today are two very different things.

[spin]

17. Agreed ...

We definitely wouldn't have large armies marching around and engaging in battles in farmer's fields.

Instead we would probably have an long and bitter guerrilla war.

Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular warfare and refers to conflicts in which a small group of combatants including, but not limited to, armed civilians (or "irregulars") use military tactics, like ambushes, sabotage, raids, the element of surprise, and extraordinary mobility to harass a larger and less-mobile traditional army, or strike a vulnerable target, and withdraw almost immediately.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerrilla_warfare

It's hard to say how successful a revolution in our country would be. However our nation has a lot of well trained fighters courtesy of our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Indeed, our success in Iraq and Afghanistan is questionable and we may well find all our advanced technology and expensive equipment was unable to effect a lasting change in either of these two countries and that we were defeated by simple tribesmen with determination and deep religious beliefs.

[Straw Man]

18. The point?

The point is, they staged an armed rebellion which the establishment finally put down.

And they did so as true believers in the righteousness of their cause.

So did the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto. So did the Chechens. So did Nat Turner. So did Wat Tyler. What exactly is your point?

[Kennah]

26. Same thing happened in 1775 ...

... but it ended differently.

[RSillsbee]

20. Point of historical accuracy

The Confederates had no interest in invading the North, they simply wanted to be allowed to leave the union

[proteus_lives]

21. I knew that.

But it wasn't the point I was trying to make.

And the Confederates did invade the North, they just had no intention of holding it.

[spin]

16. If my ancestors were even in America at the time ...

we would have been living in New York and Pennsylvania.

Being a "Yankee" I would have fought for the Union.

The Civil War was not an overwhelming or easy victory for the North. Had Lee won at Gettysburg he might have been able to get foreign aid. If he would have simply ignored Gettysburg and instead marched on Washington, he might have forced Lincoln to divide the country.

Conclusion

It is not hard to picture the following scenario. Jackson survives, and continues to lead a superior force against poorly lead Union troops. At Gettysburg, Stuart warns Lee of Union troop movements, allowing Lee to capture the high ground. The British break the Union blockade, allowing the Southern economy to flourish and the troops to be re-supplied. Key railroads remain in Southern hands, allowing for troop movement and provisioning. And the Mississippi River stays in Southern hands, forcing the Union to fight on two fronts.

Had the Confederacy achieved these five goals, they most likely would have won the war. The Confederacy would probably have become their own country and the United States would today consist of thirty-nine and not fifty states.
http://clevelandcivilwarroundtable.com/articles/society/south_won.htm

[SteveM]

27. My Mom's ancestors cleared out of S. Carolina to Florida in the l850s...

We figured they saw it coming.

Indians, runaway slaves, turpentine convicts, draft-dodging Crackers: when you gotta clear out, go to Florida. It's not cost-effective to find you.

[safeinOhio]

28. Seems torches and pitchforks work

just about as well. Historically speaking.

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. They do, as long as the people in power with guns refrain from using them.

Unfortunately, history shows us that civil disobedience only works against 'civil' societies.

Too often, you get a Peterloo, Tlateloco or Tiananmen Square.

[safeinOhio]

30. I'd say we are lucky

to not live in a early 19th century, 3rd world or communist country.

[PavePusher]

32. You trust to luck.

I'll go with Citizens being able to bring force against their government servents at need.

[safeinOhio]

33. I'll go with Sam Adams

"In monarchy the crime of treason may admit of being pardoned or lightly punished, but the man who dares rebel against the laws of a republic ought to suffer death"
Samuel Adams

[PavePusher]

34. I doubt that he intended for people to suffer tyranny gladly.

I think you are either missing or ignoring a wide band of context.

[safeinOhio]

35. In a democratic republic

the tyrants can be voted out. In a monarchy they can't. That is what he is talking about.

[PavePusher]

36. Umm, no. Pretty much by definition, if they can be voted out, they ain't Tyrants.

Of course, if you are under a tyrant, you're probably no longer in a D.R., no matter what it's called by then. (DPRK, anyone?)

So I guess I see your point.

[AJAX22]

37. The argument could be made

That if the system forces you to select between two candidates with roughly the same policies with regard to key issues, while the major leadership structures of the nation remain unchanged, the system could be tyrannical even with the ability to change figureheads.

I don't necessarily endorse that argument, just wanted to bring it up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. I am on the side of the working people, union members, and students. All of which you are not