(August 19, 2011 at 5:24 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "the revolution was not without violent clashes between security forces and protesters, with at least 846 people killed and 6,000 injured." And if the civil disobedience fails to produce meaningful change, then what?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Egyptian_revolution
To use Egypt as an example. If the "less violent?" revolution works, that's a 1 in the w column for humanity, without doubt. That being said, I personally would be unwilling to assume that violent tyranny had ended in the world based upon this particular case. As long as there are people willing to leverage a firearm against you, you should have the right to defend yourself with a firearm. It would be difficult to do this, if you weren't allowed access to firearms.
You can't seriously believe access to fire arms would availe you anything against a loyal army armed with tanks. Come on.
If civil disobedience fails, and the army remains loyal to the tyranny, the only thing that you can do that will get you anywhere is to work on undermining the army's loyalty to the regime. If the army has been very loyal, shooting at it with private firearms will not undermine the army's loyalty.
