Street,
If I'm a soldier or policeman and I have someone shooting at me (or threatening to shoot at me), then I guess I would have to consider them "unruly".
Listen, if I'm in a potentially hostile environment overseas or even here, as someone responsible for the safety of my troops, I'm going to play it conservative until I know who's friend or foe.
The question they would ask is "Why do you feel you need a gun right now? We can't afford to risk the lives of our troops simply to preserve that specific civil right." Hopefully, the leader on the ground will be wise enough to realize that he might make more enemies if he comes down too hard on the population in his area of responsibility.
Street, you're just going to have a little faith that American boy/girls are going to subjugate their fellow citizens in install a dictatorship. These people were sworn in to uphold the constitution of the United States, and I haven't known too many who take that oath lightly.
I like "bullet launchers" as much as the next guy/gal. But I don't equate losing my right to hold a personal weapon, for any period of time under martial law, as equivalent to permanently overthrowing the constitution.
Cooler heads will prevail. Take a note from the Vietnamese. They didn't need to win immediately. So long as they believed they would prevail, they knew the foreigners would eventually depart.
There is a big difference between temporary suspension of civil rights and permanent suspension. There won't be too many of us that will stand for the latter.
It's bad for business... <vbg>
Regards,
Ron |
