The right to bear arms
I am so sorry to hear that the people of Burma are joining that long line of people who have been ruthlessly treated because they did not bear arms, and could not resist. Those people were first disarmed and then slaughtered and they include Armenians early in the 20th century, the Jewish citizens of Germany in the 1940s, the people of Bosnia in the 1990s and the people of Darfur today.
In Burma it is unlikely that monks will take up arms, though there are reports of the people of Burma trying to defend them. Despite estimates in the Western press that ten or twenty monks have been killed, the real figures are in the thousands.
The Burmese people have sent letters pleading with the UN to protect them. Is anyone surprised that an international body that did nothing to defend the people of Rwanda, did nothing to protect the people of Bosnia, nothing to stop the genocide in Darfur, and allowed oil corruption that deprived children of food and propped up a murderous thug in Irag, the unlamented Saddam Hussein, is unwilling and unable to help the people of Burma?
There are very few people who want to kill another person. Buddhism and Christianity call us to a different way of life. But who would want to stand idly by while his loved ones and his community, the monks of his temple, his farm and his children and his aged mother are violently killed?
The historic right of British citizens to bear arms is described here (scroll down). Can it be an accident that their right to bear arms coincided with their victory over oppression and the creation of representative government?
But we do things differently today, some will say. Do we? The evidence denies it. We would like to do things differently, but to insist on an ideology of disarmament in the face of armed brutality guarantees that the young and vulnerable, the precious and loved will be destroyed.