Mogadishu's fathers turn to the gun -- again


PDA






rchernandez
February 21, 2007, 10:35 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070218/wl_nm/somalia_conflict_guns_dc

MOGADISHU (Reuters) - Abdi Nur already had a hand gun. But to protect his wife and three children in Mogadishu, he has just had to buy an AK-47. And as if that wasn't bad enough, prices have just doubled, because everyone else wants one too.
ADVERTISEMENT

The lightning war that drove out an Islamist movement and installed the internationally recognized government in the capital last December has done nothing for the security of ordinary people.

"My neighbors have been attacked several times by thugs with machine guns, that is why I bought the AK-47," said Nur.

"There are thugs who terrorize us day and night. And there are others who hide amongst our homes and fire mortars and rockets at the government, which fires back and hits us."

When the government swept in with the help of Ethiopian forces, it sought to disarm a city of 1 million people that is notorious for its anarchic streets but had found a measure of security in six months of strict Islamist rule.

But few guns were handed in, and now they are back on the streets.

Like dozens of residents, Nur has taken matters into his own hands by joining a vigilante street patrol to resist both the armed street criminals and the organized guerrillas.

"We patrol the streets day and night, in shifts," he said.

"I had a pistol in my house but that's no good. I needed a bigger gun."

In a city where gun law has been the rule since the dictator Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991, it isn't hard to find one -- if you have the money.

ARMS MARKET

"Insecurity has increased the demand," said a gun dealer at Mogadishu's Cirtogte market -- meaning "sky shooters" in Somali -- who declined to be named.

"An AK-47 used to cost $200 before the government took control of Mogadishu. It now costs up to $400. A pistol that went for $230 has now gone up to $400."

Pistols and AK-47 semi-automatic rifles -- the legendary Kalashnikovs -- are the most sought-after. The mortars and rocket-propelled grenades that are being fired at Ethiopian and government troops almost daily are also in demand.

"There are three categories of people buying arms," the dealer said. "Ordinary people, gangsters and some who are preparing to fight the foreign troops. They are buying small and heavy arms including mortar bombs in bulk."

He said most of the weapons at the market were left over from a huge arsenal belonging to the Islamists, who had controlled Mogadishu and much of southern Somalia since June.

Although the government had blocked a main arms smuggling entry point, business was still good.

"I decided to deal in guns because of the huge profits. You can easily make over 100 percent," he said, smiling.

"I'm a businessman, I just want to make money, not to kill people. Whoever buys the weapons is responsible for their use."

The government is pinning its hopes on an African Union peacekeeping mission that is due to take over from the Ethiopian forces to try to restore stability and disarm the city.

It will face not only threats of resistance from Islamist fighters but a gun culture that reaches into almost every street and family.

As the dealer says: "There are enough weapons in the country to fuel war for another decade."


An example of SHTF on a country-wide/regional scale. Note their "choices" for arms...AK's, mortars & RPG's! This must be contributing to the shortage of RPGs locally :)

If you enjoyed reading about "Mogadishu's fathers turn to the gun -- again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
The Grand Inquisitor
February 21, 2007, 10:42 AM
Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming. In the half century since the end of colonialism Africa has dealt with both genocidal oppression from corrupt governments as well as oppressive and harmful economic policies from the industrialized world.

Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak.

jlbraun
February 21, 2007, 10:54 AM
@The Grand Inquisitor

You're going to get flamed for that comment, but before that starts:

I have said several times that arms possessed by the peoples of Africa may not be a bad thing, for the reason that it makes the conflicts long, and visible. The death rate in conflicts where everyone is armed is in the range of perhaps tens of thousands every few months, but the conflict runs for years.

Consider the opposite of we listen to the UN. Disarm everyone, an armed thugocracy steps up, and starts genociding their tribal enemies. Millions are killed in a matter of months, then a period of relative peace and stability sets in - and the UN cheers.

And we in the West consider the latter state of affairs preferable because we don't have to hear about the genociding as long, if at all. Millions are genocided, but because it's peaceful now, that's preferable to a state of ongoing war with relatively low casualties.

DMK
February 21, 2007, 11:07 AM
Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming. In the half century since the end of colonialism Africa has dealt with both genocidal oppression from corrupt governments as well as oppressive and harmful economic policies from the industrialized world.

Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak.

Consider the opposite of we listen to the UN. Disarm everyone, an armed thugocracy steps up, and starts genociding their tribal enemies. Millions are killed in a matter of months, then a period of relative peace and stability sets in - and the UN cheers.

And we in the West consider the latter state of affairs preferable because we don't have to hear about the genociding as long, if at all. Millions are genocided, but because it's peaceful now, that's preferable to a state of ongoing war with relatively low casualties.

This is going to be an interesting thread. Let me get some popcorn and a cold beer... :)

go_bang
February 21, 2007, 11:11 AM
Don't feed the troll.

DMK
February 21, 2007, 11:14 AM
Don't feed the troll.Actually it's an interesting opinion. I can't say I agree, but I'm looking forward to seeing him defend it.

vrwc
February 21, 2007, 11:17 AM
Quote:
"Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming. In the half century since the end of colonialism Africa has dealt with both genocidal oppression from corrupt governments as well as oppressive and harmful economic policies from the industrialized world.

Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak."




That worked well in Rwanda and Cambodia

Please watch innocents betrayed and check back in with us

El Tejon
February 21, 2007, 11:18 AM
I like how the blissninny reporter thinks that "semiautomatic" AK-47s are being sold in the streets of Somalia.:rolleyes: :D

The media cannot tell an automatic rifle from an automatic first down and yet they want to write gun laws.:rolleyes:

Zundfolge
February 21, 2007, 11:19 AM
Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming.
Complete disarmament is impossible. The only groups of people you can be guaranteed to disarm are the poor, the peaceful, and the law abiding.

Thats why all forms of gun control always fail (that is assuming your goal is to end violence ... if you're goal is to disarm the underclass that your jack boot might more easily find their throat then gun control is a rousing success).

Read the essay linked in my sig. (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml)

go_bang
February 21, 2007, 11:40 AM
Actually it's an interesting opinion. I can't say I agree, but I'm looking forward to seeing him defend it.

Well, he hasn't which so far proves my point.

I fail to see what is so interesting about his opinion, since it's basically the same tripe the anti-gun crowd banters on about in the US.

Lonestar.45
February 21, 2007, 11:48 AM
Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak.


Taking away the weak's only means of self defense doesn't free them from domination. The wealthy and powerful will ALWAYS have weapons.

If you lived in that guy's neighborhood in the article, would you turn in your AK and allow yourself to be disarmed? Who would you turn to to protect your wife and children?

ceetee
February 21, 2007, 11:52 AM
Here is the key:

Like dozens of residents, Nur has taken matters into his own hands by joining a vigilante street patrol to resist both the armed street criminals and the organized guerrillas.

"We patrol the streets day and night, in shifts," he said.

"I had a pistol in my house but that's no good. I needed a bigger gun."

What's that you ask? Armed citizens, seeing after their own safety? With no "government" to take care of them? (Sound familiar?)

Optical Serenity
February 21, 2007, 12:00 PM
I do see the point that RKBA is only viable in a country that has a tradition of law abiding citizenry. Somalia, does not. There is no rule of law there.

Vitamin G
February 21, 2007, 12:41 PM
"An AK-47 used to cost $200 before the government took control of Mogadishu. It now costs up to $400. A pistol that went for $230 has now gone up to $400."


An AK-47 costs $400 in both Mogadishu and the USA, but i can sponsor a starving kid for $0.23\day?


Umm...

romma
February 21, 2007, 12:46 PM
I wish I could buy a real AK-47 period. You know, with the selector switch!

ArfinGreebly
February 21, 2007, 01:15 PM
What??
Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming. In the half century since the end of colonialism Africa has dealt with both genocidal oppression from corrupt governments as well as oppressive and harmful economic policies from the industrialized world.

Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak

***?

Well, let's see, genocide in Africa has pretty much only happened to disarmed populations.

no "2nd Amendment" tradition
Whoa! Let's get something straight.

When THIS country was formed there was no "2nd Amendment" tradition. The 2nd Amendment was created to guarantee the RIGHT to bear arms. The right preceded the amendment.

No, African countries don't have a 2nd Amendment, and thus no tradition for it, but the RIGHT of a man to be armed for his own defense -- recognized or not -- exists nonetheless.

The common man in Africa recognizes his right to self defense, even if his government doesn't. You don't "fix" that by disarming the whole continent (as though that were even possible).

Self defense is much much older than guns. Guns are simply today's tool.

Now, expunging oppressive governments from Africa?

I could get behind an idea like that.

Zundfolge
February 21, 2007, 01:21 PM
I believe the fact that Africa has no "2nd Amendment" tradition is a big part of the reason its such a hell hole.

Vitamin G
February 21, 2007, 01:45 PM
I'm sorry, but i have to go back off topic again...

An AK-47, which is plentiful in Africa, costs as much an one in America.
Food, which is scare is Africa, can be had for $0.23 per day????

Reverse supply and demand?


Back on topic...
It seems with all the hatred, bitterness, and generational aggression, that its really a choice between dying slowly, or dying quickly, or moving.

bogie
February 21, 2007, 01:56 PM
I call it the "Utopian Society" theory. If "guns go away" then people don't get killed.

However, the way it usually works is that one group's guns go away, and the other group kills 'em all. Or at least tries really hard to.

And in Africa, it seems they don't necessarily need firearms - they're not squeamish about hacking their opponents (or the wives/children of same) to death...

Rem700SD
February 21, 2007, 01:57 PM
Grand Inquisitor,
The flaw in your, and in any gun control logic, is that by disarming a populace we can eliminate violent intent. This is impossible as these concepts are independent of one another. Where there is desire, one will find means and opportunity. As is well documented, guns are not needed to commit genocide in Africa. Any implement will do.

Dan

DogBonz
February 21, 2007, 02:21 PM
And the 2A because the framers believed (rightfully so) that these were the most important rights given to Man by his Creator (or by reason, or what have you) that were natural, and thus could not be taken away or given up, but only buy corruption.

Therefore, if you believe that you have the right to keep and bear arms for the same reason, that in is an inherent right, so do these people.

The Grand Inquisitor
February 21, 2007, 06:03 PM
I didn't get back to this because I wasn't available, not because I was fearful of discussing the issue.


I fail to see what is so interesting about his opinion, since it's basically the same tripe the anti-gun crowd banters on about in the US.

My opinion has nothing in common with typical pro-control discussion brought about in this country. Gun control in Africa and in the US having NOTHING in common.

I'll admit that the idea of disarming Africa is utopian and nigh-impossible, but it is sound in theory. Also, it would be foolish to fully disarm a dangerous situtation and then leave it to fall trap to random club violence.

The problem in Africa is not exactly guns--it's the mind-set that exists that is fully willing to use guns to resolve problems.

There is a lot of talk here about the "universal right to self-defense", and while we can debate whether that is true, there is very little "self-defense" happening in Somolia; in actuality, there is more armed banditry and use of arms to gain positions of power over the non-armed. Problem is, is that this situation creates an arms race that will never end with peaceful interaction (which I'm assuming is what we are all working with as an eventual goal).


When THIS country was formed there was no "2nd Amendment" tradition.

I would disagree. While there obviously wasn't a tradition before the 2nd Amendment was written, there was a strong tradition in the colonies of civilian ownership of small arms and this tradition helped foster a situation in which civilians owner firearms and used them legally and peacefully. The 2nd Amendment is basically a covenant agreement between the government and the citizens that allows civilians to own firearms with the agreement that they be used within the laws.


because the framers believed (rightfully so) that these were the most important rights given to Man by his Creator

This will take us to places we do not wish to go, but I do not if there are a set of universal rights given to humanity, but if there is such a set of rights, I believe the first would be the right to life. The right own guns is by no means universal and written upon the cosmos. Rather, the right to own is purely an agreement between a government and its people.

Now, expunging oppressive governments from Africa?

I could get behind an idea like that.

That's the idea. I think any idea that involves helping Africa would include a big reset button when it comes to most of the governments. Even the regimes that are considered "stable" are run by oppressive oligarches (see Gabon and Omar Bongo Ondimba, the "Dean of Africa" who has ruled since 1965).


Also, I don't know why anyone would bring up Cambodia when it comes to gun-control, but Cambodia is one of my areas of study and the rise of the Khmer Rouge had nothing to do with gun control, but rather it was related to devastation of Cambodia by American bombing runs from 1968-1972.

ArfinGreebly
February 21, 2007, 06:28 PM
When THIS country was formed there was no "2nd Amendment" tradition.

I would disagree. While there obviously wasn't a tradition before the 2nd Amendment was written, there was a strong tradition in the colonies of civilian ownership of small arms and this tradition helped foster a situation in which civilians owner firearms and used them legally and peacefully. The 2nd Amendment is basically a covenant agreement between the government and the citizens that allows civilians to own firearms with the agreement that they be used within the laws.
Well, almost.

There was a tradition in English Law of alternately permitting and requiring the populace to be armed.

The covenant was not so much "allowing" the civilians to own firearms, but recognizing that the ownership and use of the means of self defense and protection of the general community was, as much as anything, a natural right. The Second Amendment enshrined this recognition and forbade government tresspass in the matter.

The Second Amendment is not about the government's "permission" to keep and bear arms. It's about constraining government's historical tendency to restrict and abridge civilian ownership of arms.

because the framers believed (rightfully so) that these were the most important rights given to Man by his Creator

This will take us to places we do not wish to go, but I do not if there are a set of universal rights given to humanity, but if there is such a set of rights, I believe the first would be the right to life. The right own guns is by no means universal and written upon the cosmos. Rather, the right to own is purely an agreement between a government and its people.
No.

A right is not "an agreement between a government and its people."

A right is a natural state of affairs. In this case it is a right that governments throughout history have often trampled and seldom recognized. It's not a contract. It's tightly bound to one's right to life.

One's right to life is abridged to the degree that one forbids his defense of himself, his family, and his community.

Governments do not dispense rights. They may or may not recognize them, but the right exists (as a state of nature, if you prefer) nonetheless.

My right to my life, and my right to defend my own life, and my ownership of the means to defend my own life are not something I am required to negotiate with anyone.

Governments arrogate unto themselves the "authority" and power to "regulate" rights, but this is an illegitimate assumption of said authority. It is not theirs by anything by the most craven of "decrees" by those who seize power. It is the right -- nay, the duty -- of the individual to do whatever is needed to claim his natural rights.

Government will not willingly relinquish its hold, government must be made to do so.

Professor K
February 21, 2007, 06:39 PM
Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming. In the half century since the end of colonialism Africa has dealt with both genocidal oppression from corrupt governments as well as oppressive and harmful economic policies from the industrialized world.

Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak.

Well I'd be for complete disarmment too, if it was possible. But thing is, it's not. Read David Kopel's "A World Without Guns" essay. http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml

Basically, even if everyone handed in all their guns, they could just make or get new ones no problem. I once made a gun out of a small piece of pipe from a pen, and a superglued .40S&W case with no primer as a breechblock (I could have used any other piece of metal that fit around the pipe like that, but a .40S&W case was available, so thats what I used.) I used matchhead powder, a piece of paper for wadding after the powder, some lead sinkers as the projectile, and more paper for wadding to keep the projectile in and build some pressure up. I used 1/8 inch of visco fuse for ignition. I shot it, and it recoiled 5 feet (it was just laid on the ground, I wasnt gonna hold it for it's first shot), and sounded at least as loud as a .22.

My point is, one can make something to expel projectiles pretty easy. Do you need an AR-15 to kill someone? No, all you need is something like what I made with basic knowledge of how a gun works. You can take away all the guns ever, but people will still make more. The genie is out of the bottle with guns, and nobody can put it back in.

Dave Kopel also even made an impossible scenario where gun powder stopped burning. Basically, without gun powder, you need muscle power to operate a weapon, thus leaving the weak under total mercy to the strong.

But the other scenario is that airguns would have progressed more. Airguns were better than firearms basically until cartridges were invented. You could fire more without reloading, and there was no smoke. They were used as snipers in many black conflicts with black powder weapons. Today we got full auto airguns with almost the same power as a .22, which can easily kill.

Your argument for "lol only americans should own guns cuz we invented the second amendment" is very flawed. It is a basic HUMAN right, that a man or woman has the means to defend itself. America did not invent the concept, it's as old as humanity, and America did not invent the concept of arms control among the serfs/lesser people, it too has been around since the beginning of government.

Either way, guns are here to stay. Anyone that wants a gun or other deadly weapon enough will get one.

The Grand Inquisitor
February 21, 2007, 06:59 PM
A right is not "an agreement between a government and its people."

In some ways I agree with you, but I would disagree in only a practical and realpolitik sense.

The 2nd Amendment, and further all of the Amendments, should exist beyond all forms of control and should be the guiding lights of our democracy.

Only the most drugged and mind-controlled think this is the case. As it exists currently, the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms exists at the behest of the government. The very second that the government believes itself to be threatened by the populace, the 2nd Amendment will disappear due to some very unfortunate incident similar to the Tasmanian massacre which made way for the near-total revocation of ownership rights in Australia.

It's true that if firearms were banned there would be new weapons devised---anyone who doubts such a scenario need only look to the nearest prison to see the bright new generation of designers of sharp, pointy things.

I don't know why people are addressing me like I am an active anti-gunner----I'm an active shooter and very pro-2A, but I believe that the preservation of life is vitally important and is, in fact, more critical, than the right to own weapons.

Stretchman
February 21, 2007, 07:09 PM
Who neds a gun, when there's the coumpound bow? The staff? The venerable baseball bat. A sap. A knife. A garrotte. A piece of pipe. A cow's jaw bone, for crying out loud. Even a rolled up magazine. A fork. Poison. Water is pretty dangerous too, let's outlaw that.

Heck, my bare hands. My feet. Elbows, knees, even the forehead. Let's make people soft headed cripples, then they'll be safe. Well, safe from other people. But not bears, or mountain lions, or feral dogs. Gators. Poisonous snakes. STDs.

Newscasters who believe that Anna Nicole and Britney Spears are news, and HR 1022 isn't, are the most dangerous people I know.

pacodelahoya
February 21, 2007, 07:11 PM
Only the most drugged and mind-controlled think this is the case. As it exists currently, the 2nd Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms exists at the behest of the government. The very second that the government believes itself to be threatened by the populace, the 2nd Amendment will disappear due to some very unfortunate incident similar to the Tasmanian massacre which made way for the near-total revocation of ownership rights in Australia

Pray tell, how is it going to disappear?

The Grand Inquisitor
February 21, 2007, 07:26 PM
The same way fully-automatics, SBS's, SBR's, AOW's, DD's, etc...

Just because you can get NFA weapons by selling your soul doesn't mean that they are still fully available like they were pre-NFA, GCA, AWB, crime-bill, etc, etc.

The people who are running this country may be corrupt, but they aren't dumb. There will not be typical looking "bad-guys" walking house to house picking up your guns, but rather it will be a gradual burn and before you know it they'll all be gone.

The 2nd Amendment is relitvely short, which lends to very strong interpretations. You generally do not see people saying, "Well, I believe the 2A means *some* gun control...", but rather you have people who read it as 100% control or 100% free.

All that said, as it is, the United States government currently owns a monopoly of violence, meaning that they can cause more hell in a shorter amount of time than anyone else, which is why they are in control of the second amendment.

pacodelahoya
February 21, 2007, 07:35 PM
Well, that's your opinion.

My opinion is, if the politicians try for another gun ban of any type, I think there will be widespread civil disobedience. If they push for any type of confiscation, there will be civil war.

Everyone, and I mean everyone I talk too(all ages and political leanings) are pretty much fed up with our gov.

With the borders wide open, the war in Iraq, runaway spending and the never ending encroachment on all of our civil rights, it's not gonna take much spark to set off the gasoline that the gov has been pouring out.

Zoogster
February 21, 2007, 08:03 PM
Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming. In the half century since the end of colonialism Africa has dealt with both genocidal oppression from corrupt governments as well as oppressive and harmful economic policies from the industrialized world.

Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak.

That is like saying blacks in America should be disarmed because it is them and thier neghborhoods (being replaced with hispanics), thier hip hop culture, and thier gang problems and unwillingness to tackle them that makes guns in thier possession dangerous. That since they are responsible for most of the murders in the nation, and are a small minority we should restrict them.

Well most firearm laws we all have are the direct result of attempting to do just that. From the 1968 National Firearms Act which is the start of FFL licenses, documenting of firearms, ban on felons possessing etc which was aimed at disarming activists in that civil rights era. To "Saturday Night ****** Town Specials" which were cheap and affordable enough for poor blacks and therefore widely owned by them, which were banned under "Saturday night special" laws. To banning firearms in and around government buildings across the nation as a result of activists like Malcom X and his Nation of Islam followers, and later the Black Panthers, who liked to walk around armed, and to keep them from legaly posing a threat to legislators. To the cited reason behind "assault weapon" bans to decrease gang violence among many other laws attributed to "stopping gang violence".

However in America we are all equal under the law, so you either have laws for everyone, or no one. So we all suffer because of ideas like yours that some people are part of a culture that does not understand responsible ownership and needs to be restricted. That inevitably restricts every person.

It works no different internationaly when you support the UN restricting some nations and encouraging and pressuring "small arms" control of "the less civilized African nations without a 2nd amendment tradition". That inevitably effects us all and makes those that still retain RKBA the minority instead of keeping it the norm. It is not long before it rebounds in your face and your one of the few left being pressured by the UN to wake up and join modern times and get rid of RKBA.

The Grand Inquisitor
February 21, 2007, 08:27 PM
Zoogster, I'm sorry, but I don't think that your correct. I do not subscribe to the "less civilized" arguements, much less any discussion of inner-city crime and minorities.

paco---As much as I wish things were different, I do not forsee any situation in which the American people would take to the streets and make serious changes to the government. Personally, I think the controls the government has in place are extremely strong; foolish distinctions like race, "red/blue state", Anna Nicole Smith, and other differences are actively used to divide Americans and keep them fat and happy so long as they don't take a serious look at the nation they live in.

Zoogster
February 21, 2007, 08:31 PM
That is exactly what you subscribe to, you just see it differently at an international level because it does not as obviously directly effect your political views about guns.

Restricting nations you feel are less capable and thier small arms ownership in the world is the same as restricting less capable communities at the national level. In a world where we are expected to practice what we preach, that kind of logic and perspective will turn on us all.

It is not long before the UN is saying "well what about you?" Then our politicians say "yes your right" and we join the "modern world" and get rid of old ideas like RKBA.

Wes Janson
February 21, 2007, 08:32 PM
I have to agree with Inquisitor for the most part. It's not going to be/has not been a single act of legislation and confiscation, but rather a slow process to remove until nothing is left but toys (if that). Which is part of what makes that approach so dangerous: people gradually get used to increasing levels of control if spread out over decades. Punctuated equilibrium, so to speak.

As for Africa...in a certain sense the problem might be reduced if Soviet small arms weren't so widely available, but as has been said before that's only part of the problem: it doesn't address the underlying social issues that are causing the violence. Without AKs there would still be significant levels of violence. There's no way to disarm them, so it's purely a theoretical point of discussion. I'd say the real solution would be massive efforts to reform/replace governments, install infrastructure, and create functional economies. Sadly this doesn't seem to be a high priority in the West.

Matt King
February 21, 2007, 08:32 PM
Like dozens of residents, Nur has taken matters into his own hands by joining a vigilante street patrol to resist both the armed street criminals and the organized guerrillas.

I love it. An honest citizen tries to protect his family and his neighborhood, and he is branded a vigilante.~ :rolleyes:

doubleg
February 21, 2007, 08:34 PM
Will he ship to a local ffl? :evil:

pacodelahoya
February 21, 2007, 08:41 PM
TGI, at the risk of thread drift, I agree that the powers that be are happy to give us bread and circuses.

At some point, all civilizations collapse, and I honestly feel that our time is soon. People are starting to see through the white wash. Gov needs to back off and let us regain our freedoms, but you and I know that won't happen, never has, never will. That leaves but one other choice and it ain't gonna be pretty, but sometimes you have to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Is that what I want? No, I'd like the gov to stay within it's bounds. Is it gonna happen tommorrow? Next year? In ten years? Don't know but happen it will if things keep going the way they are.:(

The Grand Inquisitor
February 21, 2007, 08:41 PM
Restricting nations you feel are less capable and thier small arms ownership in the world is the same as restricting less capable communities at the national level.

Wrong. These nation-states are "less capable" in the sense that they are generally impoverished, but that is not for the lack of natural resources (sadly, a great deal of poverty is caused BECAUSE of the natural resources).

Africa is in the state is in purely because of constant, continual, and massive corruption, poor internal rule and dishonest and greedy international intervention.

Millions of people in Africa have died because no one is willing to intervene and help. With the curent and ever growing disaster AIDS is bringing to Africa, things are only going to get worse, and it is silly to pretend that things will change by themselves.

Zoogster
February 21, 2007, 08:43 PM
As for Africa...in a certain sense the problem might be reduced if Soviet small arms weren't so widely available, but as has been said before that's only part of the problem: it doesn't address the underlying social issues that are causing the violence.

The same exact reason given for bad inner city neighborhoods. "If only the weapons were banned things would be safer, sure it is not the only problem there is underlying social issues etc...but stricter gun laws would help."

Truth is it undermines everyone RKBA, and leads to such a strict enviroment that government can taste and almost see a disarmed populance and cannot help but reach out and make it so.

The genocide in Rwanda where over 800,000 were massacred in 3 months in a place smaller than most US states, was mainly done with machetes, taking guns away did not do anything except make those they targeted easier victims for the mob mentality.

doubleg
February 21, 2007, 08:46 PM
This will keep going on until the AFRICANS do something about it.

The Grand Inquisitor
February 21, 2007, 09:29 PM
The same exact reason given for bad inner city neighborhoods. "If only the weapons were banned things would be safer, sure it is not the only problem there is underlying social issues etc...but stricter gun laws would help."


Sorry, you're the only one making such an arguement.


paco -- I think you're 100% right on. As more and more people become aware of the things that are happening, the means of control become less and less subtle, which allows for more and more people to become aware of what is happening.

Sadly, those "unsubtle means of control" generally mean people are being killed and herded into "free-speech zones".

mordechaianiliewicz
February 21, 2007, 10:34 PM
Look, doubleg said that this will continue until AFRICANS do something about it, and he is correct. This vigilante it sounds is likely an example of this.

Control of arms is a losing proposition for all of the reasons stated.

And as far as the "contract" thing, the only things I wish to "contract" to the government (in more or less all situations) are policing duties concerning "mala en se" laws, roads, and a handfull of other things. The only reason I have for that is that without a government equally providing these services, the people who don't have money or means will be up sh&^ creek.

And, if the government abrogates it's duty I'm all for making it go bye bye. And replacing it with something better.

Fortunately, in the US, we have a political process that doesn't involve bloodshed for getting that done. Africa will have to develop the same.

Look at Europe in the Dark Ages, realize that Europe became powerful after it settled the problems of warlords and ethnic cleansing. Africa simply is in that stage of existence, and will have to fight hard before it gets out. And, it will need "vigilantes" armed, protecting neighborhoods, and developing a Second Amendment before that process of healing can begin in ernest.

Now, concerning Paco's comments, and Grand Inquisitors, Paco is right, but only to a certain point.

The government holds this party only as long as the keg can produce pints of beer for our flagions. Earlier, when they began started this, we were getting Sam Adams, Shiner Bock, and Newcastle brimming out of our glasses.

Now, it's Miller Lite and Pabst Blue Ribbon, half of it head, and only half a glass.

The government quits being able to provide (and that is certainly what is going on concerning not defending the border, being insolvent in SSI, commiting us to foreign wars we don't want, and which the government can't explain, pulling huge loans from foreign powers, and finally selling the country to foreign corporations, often out from under it's former owners) and the party's over.

When the party goers wake up, and are having a huge hangover, there will be hell to pay.

Zoogster
February 21, 2007, 11:34 PM
it will need "vigilantes" armed, protecting neighborhoods, and developing a Second Amendment before that process of healing can begin in ernest.
Exactly. What we see as the duty of the state now, our founding fathers saw as the duty of every citizen. They need to progress to a state where thier economy is so successful they can fund a police state that functions through capability like much of the western world today. However in the meantime those in charge need the will of the people behind them and general acceptance and support from the people for thier word of law to be obeyed to be capable of progressing to that point. That means a majority of the population must be of the same opinions and mindset. There will be rivalries that cannot be solved through diplomacy though, so it takes warfare until one side dies or submits. It does not make the winning side right or wrong, it simply allows progress of a central entity that has the support of the remaining people. Our own civil war accomplished this in our nation.

However from a human lives perspective, how long of casual small arms clashes would it take to reach a death toll of 800,000 like in Rwanda, and even higher right now in the Sudan? Probably years right? Surely longer than the 3 months it took in Rwanda? So even daily fighting with small arms arguably saves more lives than everyone being disarmed, and a mob exacting tyranny.

Again, this is fuel for my arguement that large parts of Africa require serious and complete disarming. In the half century since the end of colonialism Africa has dealt with both genocidal oppression from corrupt governments as well as oppressive and harmful economic policies from the industrialized world.

Having everyone armed in Africa is helping no-one, there is no "2nd Amendment" tradition and in countries without law, guns are merely another way for the wealthy and powerful to dominate the weak.
More civilians were killed by governments than the death toll of all wars combined in the 20th century. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-3790227.html
That link gives an account showing Stalin's killings of civilians far exceeds anything Hitler ever did. Yet Stalin was never defeated, and so we make a bigger deal of Hitler because even though both were awful, only one was defeated, for that is the way History is written.

In my opinion a death here, and a death there far exceeds a policy of leaving the option of a systematic highly effecient large scale killing which can be accomplished in days in the hands of a central authority.
That option in the hands of anyone is far too great a risk, and that risk is only truly realized when the population is disarmed and its individuals are well documented.

Telling other people of other nations they should surrender all authority and power to thier government just because it would stabalize things and make us feel better is beyond selfish or foolish. Personaly I do not think that should ever be done, but if it is, it should only be done after the government has proven itself to its people for generations that it can be trusted.

pacodelahoya
February 22, 2007, 07:32 AM
Personaly I do not think that should ever be done, but if it is, it should only be done after the government has proven itself to its people for generations that it can be trusted.


Just as ours has done, right?:rolleyes:



Not busting on you Zoogster, just making a point.(actually, the same point you make)

If you enjoyed reading about "Mogadishu's fathers turn to the gun -- again" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!