These are Iranians dancing to Pharrell William's Happy. The dancers were released, but the director is still being held as of now.
Tyrannical regimes arrest people who hike into their territory. There were even rumours that the Albanians shot machineguns at wind surfers who strayed too close to their territory.
Just think of what would happen to someone who criticises the regime (or would be really stupid and advocate overthrowing it). And if you walked around carrying weapons (although some of these countries that is acceptable behaviour--after all, they will gas you or wipe your asses off the map with more firepower than your puny weapon is capable).
Think about that the next time you decide to call the US repressive.
Repressive--you haven't fucking seen repressive.
Showing posts with label tyrants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tyrants. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 21, 2014
Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Tyrannical Government--the reality
This is Homs in Syria:
The headline which accompanied this picture reads:
Syrian army crushes key rebel stronghold in Homs
There is this description of the Syrian Army's attack:
Does Halabja mean anything to you?
If the US were truly a tyranny, you would have quietly disappeared in the night never to be heard from again.
Or, as Matthew White says about the old gun control=genocide argument:
The headline which accompanied this picture reads:
Syrian army crushes key rebel stronghold in Homs
There is this description of the Syrian Army's attack:
“In every single second you can hear the sound of mortars and rockets and air strikes,” said an activist calling himself Abu Rami speaking from Khalidiya. “The regime is so close you hear the sound of them launching the missile, and then you hear them land.”The Syrian rebels were armed, but seriously outgunned by a force which had an objective of crushing the rebellion:
Last week one rebel fighter said the outlook was so bleak that he and his colleagues went to battle in suicide belts, to detonate should they be captured.A truly tyrannical regime has no qualms about wiping out any rebellion, no matter how much force it takes or what kind of force is needed.
“If we are captured we use it when we are crowded among the soldiers,” said Adnan, 27.
His voice tired and his tone hopeless, Mohammed, the activist who had just managed to flee, said: “Most of my friends have died fighting in Khalidiya these last years. Now I have no news about the ones that are left.”
Does Halabja mean anything to you?
If the US were truly a tyranny, you would have quietly disappeared in the night never to be heard from again.
Or, as Matthew White says about the old gun control=genocide argument:
Frankly, this list is a pitifully weak argument against gun control, simply because most of the victims listed here did fight back. In fact, if there's a real lesson to be learned from this roster of oppressions, it's that sometimes a heavily armed and determined opposition is just swept up and crushed-- guns or no guns.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Militias, Tyrants and Ancient History
I thought I would repost and elaborate on a comment I made:
Also, don't forget that tyrrants can usurp power, which is why the militia is "well-regulated"--that is under civilian control (and the Domestic Violence Clause exists). The entire standing army v. militia debate was about how much control would there be over the military. And makes it far more likely that the Second Amendment was intended on addressing the militia, not private arms, since the US Constitution says it is intended to address the common defence.
Let's put it this way, there is far more evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the "Well-regulated Militia" than private arms.
A well-regulated militia was seen as a bullwark against the establishment of a standing army (large military apparatus).You have to remember the Tory quip about the War for Independence that they would rather be ruled by "one tyrant who was 3000 miles away than 3000 tyrants a mile away".
The founders were well aware of ancient history (Roman and Greek) and knew that tyrants wanted a large military.
In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it. This is how the Greeks understood the word 'tyrant': they applied it indifferently to good and bad princes whose authority was not legitimate. [Rousseau, "The Social Contract"]
IOW, if "Chief" Kessler wants to kill tyrants, then the next time he needs to make sure it's lethal shoots himself.
Also, don't forget that tyrrants can usurp power, which is why the militia is "well-regulated"--that is under civilian control (and the Domestic Violence Clause exists). The entire standing army v. militia debate was about how much control would there be over the military. And makes it far more likely that the Second Amendment was intended on addressing the militia, not private arms, since the US Constitution says it is intended to address the common defence.
Let's put it this way, there is far more evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the "Well-regulated Militia" than private arms.
Labels:
ancient history,
militia,
Militias,
standing armies,
tyrants
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

