That it wasn't a 'Battle' ... That was the Point

That Time the NRA Tied the Tiananmen Square Massacre to American Gun Rights - The Trace:

 Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University, tells The Trace that if the Chinese students had handguns at Tiananmen Square, “the result would have been an even worse disaster than what occurred. The students were outmanned by huge numbers” — an estimated 10,000 troops — ”and there is no way that, even armed, they could have won that battle.”

The egrigious comments made at the "The Trace" website demonstrate how far The Left is from understanding the underlying character of the American Citizenry.

In 1989, citizens in Communist China rallied by the thousands to protest against governmental controls on their (non-existent) political rights     There were thousands of unarmed (by fiat) citizens; there were thousands of armed troops, along with tanks, sent by the government to put down a 'riot' by 'hooligans'.

Not a protest by citizens, but a "riot by hooligans".

There never was a battle; nor was a battle planned by the protesters.

Instead, there was a massacre by armed government, with tanks and mortars to back them up, against their own citizens.

Think about that.


ABC Breaking News | Latest News Videos

Today in America ...

... free citizens demand their First Amendment Constitutional Rights to protest, to assemble, to speak; and they are not machine-gunned by federal troops because of one of the Constitutional Rights which has received a lot of bad press in the past few decades:  the Second Amendment.

Yes, the Chinese in Tienanmen Square would have still been massacred; against tanks, and massed troops with fully automatic weapons, any citizen who tried to fire upon the Government Troops would have been shot down, or crushed by tanks.

Which, by the way, was exactly what happened.   But what if those unarmed citizens had been armed?

They would still have been machine-gunned, still have been crushed by the treads of tanks, and the "rebellion" would still have been crushed along with their bodies.

... but in America there is a constitutional right to be armed.   And as bad as the Chinese devastation of their own people was, an American devastation would not be entirely one-sided.

That would result in more than a highly publicized protest; that would result in a Civil War.  One which was not sparked by regional differences, or a demand to Secession  as our own Civil War was.

This would have been clearly understood as a People demanding their right against a Totalitarian, Tyrannical government ... and  it would have resulted in blood being shed on both sides.  It wouldn't been 10,000 troops against unarmed civilians.  It would have resulted in many, many deaths on both sides.  American troops are reluctant to fire on unarmed civilians, but they are more reluctant to fire on armed civilians who are protesting their rights.

OREGON:

Earlier this year we witnessed an attempted protest by ranchers in my home state.  It wasn't settled by the murder of hundreds of protesters; it was settled by the murder of a single leader of the protest.

(And aren't we SO much more 'civilized' than the Red Chinese?)

WAS this a murder?   It was a protest, not a battle.   One can't help but wonder how Andrew J. Nathan, a political science professor at Columbia University might have compared it to Tienanmen Square.

The only difference between China and the current administration in America is that the Chinese government is at least open in it's thuggery; the current administration in America is more .....
,,, selective.

It's nice to live in a civilized society, isn't it?