When the people are overwhelmingly on one side, arms don't mean much. Look at
Yugoslavia right now, or Khomeini's revolution in Iran, or the Russian
revolutions of February and November 1917, in all of which the men with guns
moved over to the side of the people, and minimal blood was shed. (In Russia, the
Civil War began months later, first with German aid and, after Germany's
surrender in World War I, with the aid of fourteen countries that intervened,
aided the anti-Communist forces, and lost.
Bill Mandel
PNFPNF@aol.com wrote:
> Am I naive or are yes/no debates re gun control (or, for that matter, re
> whether the left or right--old or new of either--was bigger at the start of
> the 1960s) are not likely to get resolved here? Discussion of each, however,
> is bringing up some fascinating history.
> One point, re the first--was it James Bevel or someone else from the civil
> rights movement who said another reason for nonviolence here is "they have
> bigger guns" (or the like--I am sorry--I do not have the exact quote). I
> still rather agree with that point--and yet I share Roz's feeling. While the
> US is hardly Chile (or vice versa, for all the former's trying), what would
> have happened had Allende armed the people? (This is the old militia/1776
> argument, I know.)
> Paula
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 10/06/00 EDT