So, I guess the NRA would say Egypt would be a better situation if everyone had a gun?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

:evilgrin:

Of course they would.

I've already seen the sentiment on various newspaper comment boards and forums.

Imagine today, if everyone was armed.

EDIT: Found some numbers on DU....Credit to DBoon:

Number of Privately Owned Firearms
The estimated total number of guns held by civilians in Egypt is 1.9 million1

The rate of private gun ownership in Egypt is 3.52 firearms per 100 people

In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, Egypt ranks at No. 371

In a comparison of the rate of private gun ownership in 179 countries, Egypt ranks at No. 1152

Firearm Regulation - Guiding Policy:
The regulation of guns in Egypt is categorised as restrictive13

Guns in Egypt are regulated by the Ministry of the Interior7

In Egypt, civilians are not allowed to possess long guns7

In Egypt, private possession of handguns (pistols and revolvers) is permitted7

In Egypt, only licensed gun owners7 may lawfully possess firearms and ammunition

Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Egypt are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, hunting, target shooting, personal protection, security7

An applicant for a firearm licence in Egypt must pass background checks which consider criminal, mental and domestic violence7 records

Where a past history, or apprehended likelihood of family violence exists, the law in Egypt stipulates7 that a gun licence should be denied or revoked

In Egypt, the law requires7 that any possession, sale or transfer of a firearm be recorded and retained in a centralised, official register

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x369401

So, seems to be pretty good gun control and a relatively small number of privately owned guns. Given the situation, I'd say that's a good thing.

[Mojorabbit]

1. There seem to be plenty of armed people

They just are not using them.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

4. How can you tell that? If there were, don't you think todays clashes

would have seen a lot of gunfire?

The pro-Mubarak camp are using Molotov cocktails...would they not be using their guns if they had them?

I don't know....I'll look into it and let you know.

[Mojorabbit]

19. I don't know the numbers

but I have been watching nonstop for days and have seen plenty of people armed or mentioning arms. I am so glad they are not resorting to using them.

[DainBramaged]

5. All those rocks are really handguns out of ammo

:eyes:

[egressingsparrowdrop]

6. Here's a rightwinger, for what it's worth, saying people are not allowed to carry firearms in Egypt.

http://forums.redflagdeals.com/events-egypt-prove-case-gun-ownership-999443/

He/she thinks the current events make the case for gun ownership. Unbelievable.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

9. Updated the OP to incude Egypt gun numbers and gun control info...n/t

[pnwmom]

24. I've seen sticks and bottles. Not guns. n/t

[Mojorabbit]

28. Then you have not been watching

like I have been because it certainly has been on the live feed.

[rfranklin]

2. If people on the streets started shooting police and soldiers...

the military would probably retaliate with some of those missles and bombs that we have sold to Eqypt and hundreds, if not thousands, would die.

[FBaggins]

7. So you assume that the government would NOT use force if the protest is unarmed?

And if they do use deadly force, I'm sure that you'll be happy to see the protesters slaughtered rather than shoot back, right?

[rfranklin]

16. You have no idea why Ghandi was so effective, do you?

Or Martin Luther King, Jr.?

You are living in a Wild West fantasy.

[Lurks Often]

20. You're delusional

Gandhi and Martin Luther King were successful, because in a large part the British rulers of India and the American government, were IN GENERAL, fairly decent.

You put Gandhi or Martin Luther King in an Iran, North Korea, China or in the former Soviet Union, they would have either spent the rest of their lives in a camp somewhere or more likely would have been taken out and shot.

[shadowrider]

57. Or it could have gone like this

In NK, China or Soviet Union:

Officer enters building
Are you guys Gandhi and Martin Luther King?

Yes, yes we are

BANG, BANG

Now take them out and bury them

[FBaggins]

62. Oh nonsense.

Why bury them when you can put their heads on a pike to keep others from making the same mistakes?

[shadowrider]

65. A point you have made n/t

[Euromutt]

86. More precisely, large parts of the British and American electorates were fairly decent

The thing to bear in mind is that both Great Britain and the United States were democracies at the time (albeit decidedly imperfect ones) and thus subject to pressure from those members of the electorate who sympathized with the Indian independence movement and the African-American civil rights movement. Both Gandhi and King understood that resorting to violence would almost certainly alienate, or at least marginalize, those sympathizers, and their decision not to do so was a tactical one, not one of principle (though Gandhi succumbed to believing in his own legend later in life).

[FBaggins]

23. Probably better than you.

They were effective because the people they opposed were capable of recognizing their own failures and were at least to some extent open to change.

Were Ghandi in Tienamen Square... he would have been executed.

[pnwmom]

25. That's what I've been thinking all day.

This would be even more terrible than it is.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. Who says the Police and the Army are the ones needing shooting?

Also, the police HAVE been involved in gun battles with civilians.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. The NRA prefers second amendment solutions to everything.

When your only tool is a hammer...

[dipsydoodle]

8. Is there actually any point

in referring to the US Constitution with respect to any country outside of the US where it is a meaningless subject with has no merit or standing whatsoever ?

[Ozymanithrax]

64. Since the OP opened it up...Yes, there was a point.

Second amendment solutions is a euphemism for killing political enemies when there is no other way. So are, Egypt has had a successful fight against a dictator without a massive armed population.

[shadowrider]

66. It ain't over till it's over. Let the gov't start losing and we'll see what happens n/t

[badtoworse]

83. The NRA is no slouch with a ballot box - nt

[FBaggins]

10. And they would probably be right.

A disarmed public only makes sense where you can trust the government/military.

Is that who we're rooting for here?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

12. Hope u donned

ur tinfoil.

Seriously though, you think if the public was well-armed this situation would be improved?

Especially in light of events today, I can't believe you really believe that.

The protests have been peaceful, until now, and as peaceful protest it accomplished much. If everyone had shown up with guns I doubt those accomplishments would have occurred.

It's just a simplistic, Hollywood movie mentality to think that having a gun makes your opposition roll over and give you what you want without a fight. There's a better way, and Egyptians have demonstrated that.

[FBaggins]

21. I guess it depends (and I haven't seen any of today's events).

If the government decides to suppress the protesters violently and there's massive amounts of blood in the streets... I just don't see how the moral position is wishing that the bad guys were the only ones who were armed.

The reality there is obviously more complicated. I don't know that we have a clear grasp of who the "good guys" are in this situation... but I sure don't like the notion of a disarmed public bulldozed by a tyrannical government. If that's what's happening... then yeah, I'm going to wish that they could defend themselves with more than spitballs.

It's just a simplistic, Hollywood movie mentality to think that having a gun makes your opposition roll over and give you what you want without a fight.

It's naive to think that "without a fight" is an option here. Using a gin doesn't make your opposition "roll over and give you what you want"... it makes them die. When one side is using them against another... and the other is unarmed?

If everyone had shown up with guns I doubt those accomplishments would have occurred.

There's a difference between having guns and using them. You would bring them to a protest... you would have them in case the government decided to thumb their nose at you and crack down.

Several hundreds (or perhaps a few thousand) protestors were killed a bit over two decades ago in Tiananmen Square, and, of course, many were arrested, tried, and executed. China has made some progress since then, but the government is essentially unchanged and the people are far from free.



Sometimes it isn't a good thing that only one side is armed.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

34. So, what you're saying is...

...if a citizenry, such as pro-democracy Tiananmen square protesters, has weapons then they will be able to fight back against their government's military to get what they want?

Do you think Chinese citizens at Tiananmen, even if each and every one of them had an AK-47, would have stood a chance against the military?

It would have just escalated the situation, and many more protesters would have been killed.

You said
"If the government decides to suppress the protesters violently and there's massive amounts of blood in the streets... I just don't see how the moral position is wishing that the bad guys were the only ones who were armed."
In a situation like that, I don't see any increased morality to the citizenry having guns. It helps nothing...gains nothing. It only escalates the bloodshed, and in the end the tanks will win. Is it your "moral position" that more dead citizens is a good thing?

The only way a citizenry, armed or not, is likely to escape the yoke of a dictator is with the support of the nations military or outside intervention. No offense, but the idea of armed citizens taking their nation back by force from a dictator that has the support of the military is a Hollywood notion.

Tiananmen was a turning point. People died, and nothing immediately changed and China is still not a democracy, but it did bring changes. The world was outraged and the protesters had the respect and support of us all. If they had guns and it had turned into a gunfight many more of those pro-democracy voices would have been silenced forever and the condemnation and shame of the Chinese government would have been tempered.

[FBaggins]

63. Close enough.

Do you think Chinese citizens at Tiananmen, even if each and every one of them had an AK-47, would have stood a chance against the military?

Nope. Not if "armed citizenry" was limited to the Chinese military vs. just those in the square.

But do you think that they represented only themselves?

It would have just escalated the situation, and many more protesters would have been killed.

And it would have been a "shot heard 'round the world".


The only way a citizenry, armed or not, is likely to escape the yoke of a dictator is with the support of the nations military or outside intervention.

You can't think of any contrary cases? And you chastize others to learn their history?

the idea of armed citizens taking their nation back by force from a dictator that has the support of the military is a Hollywood notion.

Because "the military" is a uniform (pun intended) block? Do you know how a dictator gets the support of the military? Does the military not come from the people? What changes when they put on a uniform?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. MLK did wonders preaching non-violence but there were armed supporters

protecting him and his family many nights.

Being armed and being peaceable are not mutually exclusive.

But if being armed did guaranteee violence why should the autorcrats be the only ones who are allowed to be armed? To me that just re-doubles the argument in favor of arming the people.

A saying I recently grew fond of is, "One sword keeps the other in its sheath."

[pnwmom]

27. The military hasn't been fighting them. It's these

"pro Mubarak" people.

[FBaggins]

33. That's correct (as far as I know)... why bet lives that it won't change?

Mubarek is just a nice guy and would never do that?

[pnwmom]

35. You think if everyone down there had guns they wouldn't be using them?

I think it would be even more of a madhouse.

[FBaggins]

37. Yes. I think that having a gun does NOT mean that you're going to use it.

So what you're saying is that you think the crowd is an unruly mob without self control... and it's the government agents who have self restraint?

You're saying that you believe that people are only peaceful when they have no other option?

That's naive, wouldn't you say?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

40. It's also naive to think if everyone had a gun in this situation

they wouldn't get used.

Not calling the protesters an "unruly mob without self control"

But it is a large crowd. Individuals exert self-control, not crowds. All it takes is one individual.

The vast majority of those protesters want to protest peacefully. If they all had guns, the vast majority would not use them. Some would though, especially when charged by counter-protesters.

But I guess that would be a good thing, huh? Let them settle it with gunfire. Last man standing wins. Yee ha.

[FBaggins]

42. Hey... as long as you're ok with the ones getting used all belonging to Mubarak

I guess you'll be fine.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

45. I guess you're right. More guns would be great

then when things get hot, everybody can shoot each other. Or if the military decides to squash the protests, instead of running for their lives and living to fight peacefully for democracy again the protesters could fire their Ak-47s and get turned into pizza sauce by the military tanks.

Better everybody die...when you're right you're right. Thanks for showing me the way.

[FBaggins]

49. Lol... you missed that, didn't you?

if the military decides to squash the protests, instead of running for their lives and living

So the prefered result is to have the military in total control and the crowd recognize that they're just stuck with that?

living to fight peacefully for democracy again

Really? You don't think they (and the military) learn a different lesson?

And, of course, there are always the ones who run for their lives and live to... be rounded up by the regime, tried and then executed. Their future protests will be very... um... "peaceful" won't they?

[egressingsparrowdrop]

53. Learn your history

Tienanmen Square protesters accomplished more without guns than they would have with.

Your response is simplistic and red herringish.

The military IS in total control. It's got nothing to do with the "prefered result," it just is. A million protesters with guns stand no chance against tanks and planes...can you agree with that?

There are many democracy protesters who survived Tienanmen square and continue their valuable work. If they had had guns they would be gone.

It's all very laudable and heroic sounding to say every should have a gun and then they can use it to fight the government/military for what they want. Sounds tough and sensible, especially when you inject the red herring alternative that they will all die anyway. Reality is a bit more nuanced than that.

I, for one, am glad there are few guns at this protest. Are you?

Do you think if they all had guns they could still rightfully claim to be a peaceful protest, or that the military and the world would be as sympathetic to them? I suspect you will just answer "sure, so long as they didn't use them."
You're just arguing, you're not thinking.

[FBaggins]

59. Ok... if you stop inventing yours.

Tienanmen Square protesters accomplished more without guns than they would have with.

Really? I suppose that's true... if you assume that the protestors in the square represented only themselves... and not a larger disgruntled citizenry. Is that what you assume?

A million protesters with guns stand no chance against tanks and planes...can you agree with that?

No. In fact, not even close. That shows a deep ignorance of military history. The two most powerful militaries in the world have many years of experience with tanks and planes not resulting in "total control" in Afghanistan. This country won its freedom with a comparatively rag-tag bunch against the most powerful, best-equiped military in the world.


Do you think if they all had guns they could still rightfully claim to be a peaceful protest

Amazing that you can be corrected on that multiple times yet pretend that nobody will notice it. It has nothing to do with whether they bring the guns to the protest. If things remain peaceful, they don't need them. An armed citizenry doesn't mean that they walk around "packing" all day long like cowboys. It means that if the government gets violent, they have the ability to defend themselves.

Your comments re this protest and the one in China show an incredible narrow-minded focus on just what you can see on your TV. The people in the protest represent a far larger number of people around the country and the government knows it.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

85. LOL

Fighting an insurgency against an occupying force a la Afghanistan and eventually tiring them out until they leave is hardly the same as taking up arms against your own nation, which controls all aspects of your society, has a large RESIDENT military, and knows who everyone is and where they live.

But you would be happier if everyone could go home and get their gun right about how, huh?

Maybe you just get a kick out of seeing people get killed.

[RegieRocker]

11. You have got to be kidding!

You really think evil dictators when asked to leave by unarmed people they will just get up and leave? ROFLMAO and can't stop!!! Well hell why do we need a military force? We must not have called Saddam Hussein and asked him politely to leave. Quick call the Pres and fill him in right now. He will be grateful for all the money it will save. I was against the Iraq war long before it began and against the Afghanistan crap now
So don't try and spin this it makes you look immature.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

15. Huh?

The military = the civilian population?

If my spin makes me look "immature" your spin makes you look far less than intelligent.

Your analogy to the Egyptians peacefully demonstrating in the millions to get rid of their dictator, with their own military giving them tacit support by refusing to stop them, is the American military overthrowing Saddam?

Jesus Christ man. A military force being armed and able to take out a dictator like Saddam has NOTHING to do with arming a citizenry. Citizens have no military structure and leadership. If this citizenry was armed and decided to bring their guns to their protest, would you predict the Egyptian military response then? And who would win that battle?

These are citizens, not the American military.

whatever you're smoking, I want some.

[RegieRocker]

22. Way way out there you are.

I will try and bring you back to reality. The Egypt military is not run by civilians. Dictators never leave peacefully unless threatened with their life. Dictators have people protecting them with guns. Now tell me how can unarmed civilians convince a evil dictator to leave without guns? Didn't our own revolution take guns? Wasn't the revolutionaries civilians? Wasn't the revolutionaries the military? So in essence civilians became a military when they armed themselves and became united. Fantasy Land is your friend.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

29. I didn't say the Egyptian military was run by civilians

nothing even close to it.

I don't have patience for you, sorry. Work on your reading comprehension.

Edit: if you want to take another crack at it, deal with this question..which you conveniently ignored once:

If this citizenry was armed and decided to bring their guns to their protest, would you predict the Egyptian military response then? And who would win that battle?

[RegieRocker]

38. Run go ahead. You can't handle the truth and reading comprehension

Lol that would be you.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

41. I can't handle reading comprehension?

That doesn't even make sense. Point made, thanks.

[kctim]

13. Ah, the "if" game

Would there need to be protests against a dictator IF they had a 2nd Amendment?
Would they be fighting for freedom today IF they had had a 2nd Amendment for the past say, thirty years?

Funny how people are so willing to grab at anything in order to try and justify their fears.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

17. So, guns = freedom?

And a lack of guns = dictatorship/no democracy?


You play your "if" game. Ignore all the democracies in the world with no 2nd Amendment...countries with strict gun control. I guess you'd just say those countries...Canada, Britain, etc...are just RIPE for being taken over by a tyrant dictator!

I, however, prefer to play the reality game. The reality is that more guns on the street today would mean a lot more bloodshed. Argue that, if you can.

Don't bore me with your prediction that Egypt would have been a happy democracy long ago IF everyone could have easily owned any gun they wanted.

[FBaggins]

26. Close.

The case for debate is neither of your ottions... it's "Guns in the hands of a dictator combined with an unarmed population". What do you get in that situation?

Well... you get a case where you are relying on the better angels of that dictator and/or the military that implements his will. If they can be shown the error of their ways and elect to relent... great.

If not? Blood in the streets.

[RegieRocker]

39. Way too many people living in fantasy land.

[shadowrider]

58. Pay attention to the pic in my sig line, then ask the inhabitants of those countries

if you're correct.

Betcha you get an overwhelming "YES"

[kctim]

43. I merely point out

that your opinion that strict gun control = peaceful protests is no more valid than anothers opinion that such protests would not be needed IF they had a 2nd Amendment.

That "reality" you choose to believe is created by fear and is only one of the different things that 'more guns on the street' could lead to. It really is no different than the "reality" others choose which asks just how much bloodshed there would be IF the military decided to start mowing down all those forcibly unarmed protestors.

I made no prediction that Egypt would be a happy democracy IF they had the individual rights we do. One can easily look at their history of individual freedoms and compare it to ours and come to their own conclusion.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

46. Woah. Don't put words in my mouth, please

I said fewer guns is a good thing at this protest.

I DID NOT say strict gun control equals peaceful protests.

This protest has obviously been less than peaceful today. Fewer guns in the mix today is a good thing.

[FBaggins]

47. "fewer guns" is ONLY a good thing if you trust that things won't get violent.

If you have such faith in the current regime to play nice... fine. I hope you get lucky.

This protest has obviously been less than peaceful today. Fewer guns in the mix today is a good thing.

Right... because "less than peaceful" can be a good thing if only one side has the power?

[Recursion]

14. The NRA would say there would never have been a Mubarak...

...if the Egyptian population had been as armed as the US population.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

30. yeah, and a couple folks here are saying the same

they have little understanding of Egyptian history.

[Recursion]

32. *shrug* I've been there a few times

and can more or less speak the language, though that doesn't make me an expert on Egyptian history by any means. But the hypothetical NRA argument I presented isn't absurd on its face, at least.

[spin]

69. Has there ever been a Mubarak in American history since our Constitution was ratified?

We have the longest lasting written Constitution in the world. The Constitution limited the power of our government and gave citizens rights such as freedom of speech, press, peaceful assembly and religion. It set up a system of government with three equal branches so that one branch couldn't become too powerful. Citizens have the right to vote and have legal protections against a tyrannical government that would jail them without trial and torture them without mercy.

But our government is far from perfect. Fortunately the founders created a system where the Constitution can be modified. This has happened only twenty seven times including the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.

As a final guarantee of freedom, our government trusted its citizens enough to allow them to own firearms. We can argue all day about the ability of lightly armed citizens being able to overthrow the most powerful military in the world. Much would depend on if the military would oppose a revolution against a tyranny or dictatorship with the support of the majority of the citizens.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

We do have to be careful of our "War on Terror" which is being used as an excuse to erode our rights.

“Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”- Benjamin Franklin

[Jakes Progress]

18. NRA. The ZPG solution.

[DainBramaged]

44. The people in Egypt protest even though they could lose their lives

the gun paranoid of America are afraid to walk out of their houses without their crutch.....and would probably retreat when confronted by a real army or police presence.....

[spin]

71. You always claim that those who legally carry firearms do so out of fear ...

which is merely a means to rationalize your own fears.

You have very little reason to fear any person who has a concealed firearms permit as they are people who have had a background check, have been fingerprinted, have had eduction in the legal aspects of carrying a firearm and how to safely handle a firearm. Many have also passed a proficiency test on a range.

The state of Florida publishes a monthly summary report on its concealed carry program. In the 23 year period of time from October 1, 1987 to December 31, 2010, Florida issued 1,902,769 concealed weapons permits of which 780,595 are currently valid. Only 168 licenses have been revoked because of a crime involving a firearm committed after the license was issued.

People who have CCW don't live in fear, in reality they are merely people who chose to be prepared in the unlikely event they are attacked by an individual who intends to seriously injure or kill them. If that happens they have a realistic chance of surviving the attack and in many cases they will succeed without firing a shot.

If you are attacked in a similar fashion, you have an excellent chance of ending up in a hospital or six feet under.

There's very little chance that my house will burn down, but I have fire alarms and fire extinguishers. I don't live in fear of my house burning to the ground but I do have a plan of action that I will take if it catches fire.

I don't advise that everyone run out and get a concealed carry permit or even buy a firearm. That's an individual choice and requires a lot of careful thought. You obviously have an irrational fear of firearms and firearm owners especially those who legally carry. I don't consider that a serious problem as it seems to be relatively common but I do feel sorry for you.

[Edweird]

36. Bookmarked.

[Upton]

48. Women have been raped

homes and businesses have been looted during this uprising. I wonder if the victims would agree with you that it's a "good thing" they didn't have the means to protect themselves..

[Electric Monk]

52. ...and women are never raped or businesses robbed at the point of a gun?

Your argument is moot.

[kenny blankenship]

50. they like to say that "an armed society is a polite society"

so I guess if they were armed and polite like Americans, they'd be having a nice, polite bloodbath over there right about now.

[slackmaster]

51. According to information in the OP, any Egyptian who can pass a background check can get a handgun

If he or she really wants one. With a requirement to get a license to buy a handgun, that puts Egypt's handgun laws on a par with those of North Carolina or Massachusetts.

Silly hypothetical question is silly and hypothetical.

[egressingsparrowdrop]

54. And there are less than 4 guns for 100 civilians. That is the point.

Not to mention there is more to the laws than what you wrote. They also have to convince an official that they require a gun.

The law is secondary to the fact that few of them have guns...maybe because they're not as mentally unstable in their thinking about guns as so many Americans are...whatever, it doesn't matter.

They aren't a heavily armed civilian society and they are peacefully claiming their freedoms.

[slackmaster]

55. I think the low rate of gun ownership has a simpler explanation than your mental-stability theory

According to the CIA World Factbook, per-capita GDP for Egypt was $6,200 for the year 2010, compared to $47,400 for the USA. For most people in the USA, a gun is a completely discretionary purchase (i.e. not a necessity like food or shelter). A decent handgun costs no less than a few hundred dollars, which would be out of reach for most Egyptians.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=Egypt&countryCode=eg®ionCode=af&rank=137#eg

Even in the USA, gun ownership is lowest among the poorest people. We have a few unwittingly regressive people among our ranks on DU who would try to reduce gun ownership by making either guns or ammunition prohibitively expensive.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. But, it would increase the body count and make Mubarak's case for "stability" at any price.

"Apres moi l'deluge" worked for Louis XIV and Mubarak's giving it a try.

[jeepnstein]

61. Civil disobedience...

It's powerful. Of course it doesn't do much for you when they send in the goons riding a herd of camels. They may even prevail if Mubarak doesn't have them mowed down and imprisoned.

The protesters have, at some level, the support of the Army. At least they have the Army sitting on the fence. Nobody's shooting at them in any meaningful way so they don't need to shoot anyone back.

If I were a property owner guarding against the looters and arsonists, then I'd sure want to be armed.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. As of today, Mubarak's supporters have come out with deadly force

So, I would say, in this particular case, the NRA would be right, since the Mubarak opposition protestors outnumber the molotov cocktail throwing scum supporting Mubarak.

[shadowrider]

70. But at least they have Molotov cocktails and not guns

Things would get nasty if they did.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Missing sarcasm tag?

The bomb-throwing assholes are hitting buildings occupied by, for instance, children. If the people protecting housing, museums and whatnot had more firearms, throwing molotov cocktails would become a very unhealthy occupation.

Bonus points if you make him drop the molotov cocktail at his own feet.

[shadowrider]

73. My fault

I thought it was obvious and didn't need the tag.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. No, I should have known.

You did fine.

[Edweird]

80. Now the guns are out. Only 'certain people' have them. Care to gues which side they are on?

[HankyDubs]

74. trying to provoke violence

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/nationworld/sns-rt-news-us-egypt-casualties-trib-20110202,0,2856020.story

"Egypt says 1 dead, 403 wounded in Cairo violence"

One death came from a soldier who fell off a bridge...no gunshot wounds.

Just imagine how much more blood could spill...if only the NRA ran Egypt as it does our congress. So sad...what they need is more guns!

The Mubarak thugs are trying to incite violence because abandoning non-violence principles is the only thing that could defeat the protesters now.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. They could easily do the same by pretending to be protestors

and attacking the military directly.

That's usually how it works. And they ARE getting small numbers of guns. Plenty for a false flag attack.

[friendly_iconoclast]

77. Save your breath- they only see what they want to see.

And have you noticed:

Nobody here bitching and moaning about what the NRA "wants" or "thinks" has actually quoted the NRA? At *all*?....

You'd get more verifiable fact out of:




"I saw the baby!"

[beevul]

78. You say that...

"Nobody here bitching and moaning about what the NRA "wants" has actually quoted the NRA? At *all*."

You say that as if its outside the norm.

After all, some posters here still believe that the nra wants to eliminate background checks, wants to "arm everyone", is against any gun regulations at all.

Cop killer bullets...plastic undetectable handguns...rifles that can shoot down airliners...

Its all the same...

[Electric Monk]

79. re: "arm everyone"...

Republican reps push for mandatory gun ownership

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/02/gun_law/

Republican politicians in South Dakota have filed a bill that would require every citizen in the land-locked virtually empty state to buy a gun as of next year.

The bill, put forward by Sioux Fall representative Hal Wick, would require every citizen over 21 to buy a firearm "suitable to their temperament, physical capacity, and personal preference sufficient to provide for their ordinary self-defense".

The only people who would not be required to buy guns under the proposed law would be those already banned from owning guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

81. And the NRA is mentioned *nowhere* in that article, nor in the linked original

Thank you for making my case for me.

[spin]

82. If Egypt was as well armed as the United States ...

they might have had a government that was more responsive to citizens and less of a dictatorship. Therefore this uprising might have never happened.

The United States has the longest lasting written constitution in the world. Of course, there are far more rights in it than merely the right to keep and bear arms. Rights which the Egyptians do not have. Still, the ultimate guarantee of our rights is the fact that we have an estimated 300 million firearms in our nation. If we were disarmed as many here wish, the military would have taken control of our government and shredded our constitution years ago, or a dictator would have risen to power and we would walk like Egyptians.

[shadowrider]

84. Right about now, I'd say yes.

The only ones with guns, and they're using them, are the pro people. The anti people are gettin shot and killed.

Arms both sides, maybe it changes. It's awfully easy to shoot people in the head if you know for a fact they ain't gonna shoot back.