 |
| Back in the day, when they had guns it used to be regarded as distinctly uncivil. Wonder when that changed, and what caused it? Image (May 2 1967) via CineSource Magazine. |
It's
David French day here at Rectification HQ:
Deranged militiamen spoiling for a fight against the federal government make for good copy, but what if they’re right? What if the government viciously and unjustly prosecuted a rancher family so as to drive them from their land? Then protest, including civil disobedience, would be not just understandable but moral, and maybe even necessary.
You are so right, and don't even talk about the guns they're toting. I mean is Oregon an open-carry state or isn't it? (
It is.) So what part of nonviolent civil disobedience says you're supposed to be unarmed? I mean think how effective Rosa Parks would have been if she'd been packing when she got on that bus.
No comments:
Post a Comment