Bahrain Government Opens Fire On Its Own Citizens!

Bahrain forces fire on protesters; 50 injured - Yahoo! News


I wonder if Bahrain has anything like the U.S. Second Amendment which allows them to bear arms (for example, when their own government turns against them as cited in the link above)? Those poor Bahrainis are effectively defenseless without firearms. Those poor, poor defenseless Bahrainis...

 

Unfortunately for them, the guys with the guns are not on their side like they were in Egypt.

 

Indeed. All the more reason for an armed populace.

 

I'll presume that Libya doesn't guarantee its citizens the right to bear firearms either:

Doctors in Benghazi (Libya) said Friday that 35 bodies had been brought to the hospital following attacks by security forces backed by militias, on top of more than a dozen killed the day before. Standing in front of Jalaa Hospital morgue, an eyewitness said that the bodies bore wounds from being shot "directly at the head and the chests."

Nor Yemen:

Yemeni riot police in the capital shot dead a protester and injured five others on Saturday when they opened fire on thousands marching in the 10th day of unrest rocking the country.

 

Bahrain is not the US. It is barely a country. Their security people are foreign hires. They have no stake in the country or it's people. Nothing but hired guns but of course guns are the solution.

Hey NRA! If guns don't kill people, why to we send people to war with guns? To not kill people?

 

I thought people killed people. The choice of weapon is immaterial. For instance, Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.

 

Please explain (in detail) how an armed populace would solve this problem specifically in Bahrain.

I agree it is a horrible situation but your statement contains no real logic.

Pea shooter VS. military.

 

The choice of weapon is VERY important actually OKC. Most U.S. soldiers are trained to kill the enemy with guns not automobiles.

I would surmise that millions have killed more people with their cars than your gun. I would also surmise that many of those were trained U.S. soldiers that killed more with guns in the line of duty than they did with cars.

I might be going out on a limb here but bet if you asked them they would tell you they INTENDED to kill people with guns and NOT with cars.

I could be wrong but HIGHLY doubt it.

 

Well it is a good thing that so many Americans own fierarms is it not, after all if Gov Walkers National Guard were to dare open fire on Innocent protesters then they could respond in kind This is what the O/P is getting at I believe

 

Not really. They're trained to kill with guns, knives, bombs, hand grenades, poison, clubs and even pieces of string! The point is that they're trained to kill. Would you rather be armed or unarmed when facing someone intent on taking your life?

 

Our only interest in Bahrain is the giant military base located there. Whether they actually get democracy is a secondary concern regardless of all the lip service we pay to the idea of democracy.

 

An accommodating dictator is just fine and dandy to the government...as long as he takes our money and we can have control over him. It is only when the dictators do not go along with us that we want to overthrow them. North Korea and Iran are the prime examples of that. Most all the middle east is an example of how we have no problems with dictatorships over democracy.

We would have paid lip service to the poor people in Egypt if their military had kept the dictator in charge but we wouldn't have done anything about it. That is the real 'fine line' that the President walked in the situation. And we will have no problems if the military there never gives up power as long as they keep taking our money as they have in the past.

 

It's also a piss poor foreign policy and answers the question, "Why do they hate us?"

 

As my mom used to say....If you are looking for an argument, you're going to have to change the subject.

 

Well then if we follow your train of thought on this one the protesters should come to the demonstrations with string because choice of weapon doesn't matter?
Personally I'd feel better with a gun but it seems they don't have that option does it.

 

No, unfortunately they don't. Thank the U.S. Constitution for guaranteeing its citizens that right, though.

 

More innocent civilians have been killed by abortion since Roe V Wade than WWI,WWII, Korea, Vietnam and both Gulf wars combined, and all without a gun.

 

It's easy to take someone else's choice away when you'll never be in the position to have to make the same choice. As far as unborn children go, if a parent is willing to abort them, what kind of parents would they make anyway. Your position forces others to live by your values even if they are unfit for the task you want them to take on. I don't believe you or anyone else has the right to speak for my unborn child. You asserting your values on my decision and the life of my unborn child conveniently ends once the responsibility for raising that child begins. Is there a shortage of children I am unaware of?

 

Moen, I'd like to know your stance on abortion.

- Do you believe it's OK to abort at the moment of conception?
- Is it OK to abort mid-term?
- Is it OK to abort just before the child is born?
- How do you feel about partial-birth abortion?
- Some people believe in post-birth abortion (where the child can be killed up to 2 years of age). How do you feel about that?
- A woman and a man are needed to create a child so should it be only the woman's decision to abort?
- Does the man have any say in the matter at all?
- When do you believe a fetus becomes a human being?
- Do you believe the government should pay for counseling for women who desire psychiatric assistance after having aborted a child?
- Should the government pay for an abortion if it's based only on the woman's decision and not medically necessary (in other words, elective surgery)?
- Philosophically speaking, should the child/fetus/gamete/human being/baby (whatever one wishes to call it) whose life is about to be taken have any say in the matter?
- The Declaration of Independence states (and I'm paraphrasing) that all men are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights, among them Life... and to secure these rights, governments are instituted... First, do you consider the Creator "God" (or some other supreme being), do you consider the Creator "Mother" (or "Mother and Father"), do you consider the Creator "biology" (or "nature") or do you consider the Creator something else entirely? Secondly, at what point is man endowed with life and thus secured the right to life?

Sorry if I went off on a tangent from the original topic of this thread, but I hope you don't mind me asking these questions here.

 

I'd like say first off that my beliefs are my beliefs and I would never force anyone to live by what I believe. I am highly uncomfortable with late-term abortions but at the same time I know the vast, vast majority of abortions take place when the fertilized egg has divided to the point where it is about the size of a grain of rice. Focusing on the relatively few late-term abortions that take place skews the conversation and forces people to talk past each other.

I believe the right to bring life into this world is the sole consideration of the person or persons involved and no religious organization, no government organization, and no medical organization has the right to force anyone to bare a child if they choose not to do so. The "what abouts" are meaningless in my opinion before the person or persons involved make their decision. I wish late-term abortions didn't happen but if it is a decision the persons involved are comfortable with, they have to live with it not me. I know that if you are not ready to be a parent, you probably will not make a very good one. No one can legislate whether or not people are going to have sex so trying to legislate the consequences of having sex is just as dumb.

Thanks for asking.