Which brings me full circle back to my original comment:
Is the abilty of only certain groups to employ armed resistance against authorities really a good thing? If being armed is an effective method of resistance, but it is only available to a small group, and off-limits to others by way of violence and harsher legal consequences, is it really furthering the greater good? Or are there more equitable ways to resist?
I’m not making an argument that armed protests might never be applied or that they must never happen. I’m asking if a method that is only available to a few is all that good, or if it might be better to push for change that didn’t require and encourage escalation with deadly weapons.
