Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 9/17/2001 6:31:36 PM EDT
There are many (Bill O'Rielly is one) that are advocating the bombing of Afganistan's "Remaining" infastructure so that what is left of the country shuts down completely. No food, no water, etc... Of course, you know that the theory is that the people will lose support for the Talibad and throw the bums out. The hole in this theory is that in order for this to happen, the people must have the ability to remove the government peacefully, or be powerful enough to remove it by force. The people of Afganistan have neither ability. There are people that are actually faulting the average Afgan for failing to already do this. The RKBA cause could be advanced by simply showing the sheeple that the founding fathers' true intention of the 2nd is to give the people the means NOT be dominated so severly. Here is the perfect example! While I don't want to appear opportunistic, this approach should be taken now, while the sheeple have temporarily lost their "It can't happen here" attitude. A comparison can easily be drawn. We fault them for not doing it, when they have good reason for not doing it, while at the same time, trying to eliminate (or minimize) firearms ownership at home. As we all say, the 2nd isn't about hunting.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 6:44:49 PM EDT
I could be wrong, but I believe the Taliban are just one of a number of warring factions fighting for control, all armed, and they just happened to win for whatever reasons. If this is the case, then someone might argue that the “people” were already armed and use the RKBA argument against us. Something along the lines, “Had they all been unarmed, then they would not threaten the stability of the country.” On the other hand, if someone more astute than I in regards to the Afghanistan situation has knowledge that the majority of the populace are not armed, nor members of these warring factions, then they could argue that had the populace been armed, they could take out the factions and put in place a civil government.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:06:58 PM EDT
It's a vicious circle.
Link Posted: 9/17/2001 7:26:29 PM EDT
Yup, it's a circle alright, but we at least have a position that can be defended with a reference to a current event on everyone's mind. The stability argument is indeed a common debating topic, but I always counter that one with "If we all did that, we'd be flying the jack, sipping tea, and wondering what the queen mother was doing."
Top Top