Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> On Nov 29, 2008, at 4:49 PM, Joseph Catron wrote:
>
> It'd be a lost cause to try to defend oneself against the USG, but as
> a principle, it shouldn't be despised.
There are a number of ways; the Iranians defended themselves against the Shah's army by something like a mammoth 5th-Ave Easter Parade, rpeated day after day. (if you've seen any of the films). It broke the army's back: The generals told the Shah that the troops could not be depended on to fire on the crowds. No guns in the final battle, but low-level combat off and on along the way had been involved. Mostly non-violent but NOT based in non-violence as a principle.
But this has nothing to do with the Second Amendment debate. Only an idiot would think that insurgents planning to use guns need legal permission. And when did law eer interfere with owning any contraband that was generally in demand? Weird is the word for those fussing about "Second-Amendment rights."
Carrol