I don't think that it really matters that much how the guns got there, Swag. Once they're there in great quantities, they're almost impossible to get rid off. The cycle of violence in many parts of Africa has been repeating itself for the last 50-60 years; in some cases the very same weapons used in the seminal post-colonial independence movements are still being used today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler
Guns do prevent Tyranny because a government has to ask itself if it could survive frequent and possibly "long term" attack on it's infrastructure from well hidden "rebels/insurgents" within the population base.
|
I understand that argument, and I think it's valid to a degree, but it's too simplistic to really hold water for very long. Why are there so many tyrannies in Sub-Saharan Africa? There are plenty of guns there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swaghauler
Without trying to sound too harsh; Your assumptions about the North during the Civil War are wrong. The North OUTGUNNED THE SOUTH in both cannon and manpower in EVERY major battle of the war.
|
How am I wrong when that's exactly what I said? "Correlation of forces" means manpower and war-making material (existing and capacity). I clearly stated that the North enjoyed superiority in the correlation of forces. It's a perfect example. At least 1/3 of the national population, much of which was already armed (thanks, directly, to the 2nd Amendment), rebelled against, and was defeated by, the Federal Government (in only four years). The idea that 100% of the civilian population would actively support any armed rebellion is simply not realistic. If that was indeed the case, then yeah, governments wouldn't ever behave tyrannically.