: : Why on Earth do you need a death penalty during your revolution?
: I'm not really saying that it's necessarily essential, I'm only saying that ruling out any particular weapon in advance is poor tactics.
Hmmm. The armchair general in me agrees with that, but the moralist in me won't accept it. I think there are some weapons that are so heinous they are beyond the pale: poison gas and napalm, for instance. We COULD use those, but their use should be considered not only beneath us, but beyond us as ethical beings; should we become monsters in order to win a war?
: : Self-defense is fully justifiable, and if a man is shooting at you and you shoot him first dead, that's awful but justifiable. Shooting a man who is in chains is murder.
: What do you do when the enemy does it first? Hold onto principle---or attempt whatever may break their advantage? That was Marx's point.
Forgive me for dredging up a cliche, but should we act like our hated enemy and in so doing, become our own enemy? There's profound truth in that proverb.
: : Lastly, I am certain that violence breeds violence, and that revolutions born in violence will lead to twisted, unforeseen consequences.
: And 'peace leads to peace.' Groovy...
Keep it up, Barry, and I'll start calling you "Snidely."
: Peace is an ideological weapon used by the ruling classes to prevent revolutions. If you know of any revolutions in which peace defeated violence, please enlighten me.
I may going out on a limb here, but I'd argue that the Indian liberation movement and the U.S. civil rights movement were examples of non-violent revolution.
: Also: When liberals support gun control, they demonstrate their support for the ruling class. Without guns there can be no revolution.
That's too simplistic. Liberals and others who favor gun control do so because of a sky-high gun fatality rate, not a pro-ruling class agenda.
One need only compare gun murder rates between the U.S. and other countries to see the logic in gun control (and I'm sure you've already seen those comparisons...but let's not open up a new topic of debate, okay?).
Also, I wonder, at which point does violent revolution become impossible? The guerillas of El Salvador had arms, and were on the brink of defeating the fascist government, when suddenly they were literally torn to pieces by advanced U.S. gunships which used high technology to locate them in the jungle and blast them to bits? When faced with overwhelming firepower, do you just hope for the best, or find another way?