“If you hold a gun and I hold a gun, we can talk about the law. If you hold a knife and I hold a knife, we can talk about rules. If you come empty-handed, and I come empty-handed, we can talk about reason. But if you hold a gun and I only have a knife, then the truth lies in your hand. If you have a gun and I have nothing, then what you hold in your hands isn’t just a weapon, it’s my life."
This is only true for exactly as long as the weapons are held, though. Unless you plan on holding someone at weapons -point for life, the power eventually reverts.
Sometimes they did. It’s not like nobody got shot in the Rwandan genocide. Lots of people did, and when it happened, it went like it almost always does, the people with guns killed a bunch of people with impunity unless the people they were shooting at also happened to have guns.
I’m hearing a lot of things that are true but I’m getting confused as to why they were said. Like what does the Rwandan genocide have to do with the post other than the almost unnerving lack of firearms involved? Ik you aren’t the one who brought it up but just had to ask.
The Rwanda genocide wasn’t carried out with guns as the primary weapon. It was machetes and fire.
It was volumes of people, primarily. An oppressed underclass poisoned with fascist ideology who overwhelmed they’re wealthier tribal neighbors not unlike how the French ended up butchering their aristocracy at the end of the 18th century.
Had the Tutsis been more heavily armed, they might have given as well as they took.
“If you hold a gun and I hold a gun, we can talk about the law. If you hold a knife and I hold a knife, we can talk about rules. If you come empty-handed, and I come empty-handed, we can talk about reason. But if you hold a gun and I only have a knife, then the truth lies in your hand. If you have a gun and I have nothing, then what you hold in your hands isn’t just a weapon, it’s my life."
This is only true for exactly as long as the weapons are held, though. Unless you plan on holding someone at weapons -point for life, the power eventually reverts.
That’s why weaponizing ideas is such an insidious practice. Give a man a gun he carries around in his mind and you have a never sleeping army.
The Rwanda genocide wasn’t carried out with guns as the primary weapon. It was machetes and fire.
It’s only very rarely one-on-one like a movie gunfight.
Now imagine if someone came in there with a gun. That would change things. In which direction, I couldn’t say.
Sometimes they did. It’s not like nobody got shot in the Rwandan genocide. Lots of people did, and when it happened, it went like it almost always does, the people with guns killed a bunch of people with impunity unless the people they were shooting at also happened to have guns.
I’m hearing a lot of things that are true but I’m getting confused as to why they were said. Like what does the Rwandan genocide have to do with the post other than the almost unnerving lack of firearms involved? Ik you aren’t the one who brought it up but just had to ask.
It was volumes of people, primarily. An oppressed underclass poisoned with fascist ideology who overwhelmed they’re wealthier tribal neighbors not unlike how the French ended up butchering their aristocracy at the end of the 18th century.
Had the Tutsis been more heavily armed, they might have given as well as they took.
The genocide ended with the victory of the rebels led by Kagame. They were mostly Tutsis.
The armed Tutsis did indeed hit back.