Molon Labe? Gimme a break.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meaning that -- if laws were passed next week -- you would feel compelled by principle to take a shot at an LEO coming to your house to enforce the law. Or that you would participate in lethal resistance against our armed forces. Come and Get Them.
Click to expand...

Yep. Without compunction.
 
Ah! Maybe I can see that “line in the sand†after all. There is a perception that “we†are “winning.†Legal concealed carry is expanding. The “assault-weapons†ban is expiring.

If these “victories†prove hollow, then we may see the line crossed. Our hopes crushed by new gun-control legislation, some gun owners may resist. I still wonder about how it would play out. Would there be open, active resistance—gun owners actually fighting the powers that be? Or would there be only secret, passive resistance—gun owners hiding our proscribed weapons from the “authorities�

And I don’t know if this is a good or bad thing.

~G. Fink
 
Humans are competitive, and only violent as an abberration. We are violent when we cannot find other solutions to a problem. We are hardly predators, only binocular vision and rudimentary canine teeth remains of a predatory heritage. We need weapons because we dont have claws, shells, and are fundamentally weaker than many other animals.
Click to expand...

?? Humans are not only predators, we are the ultimate predators--able to kill not just weak or sick animals but the strongest, indeed entire species. We don't hunt with our teeth, but with our brains and our tools. This does not mean we aren't designed to hunt. Indeed the human brain is set up to count, think ahead, play out hypothetical situations, and do all its other amazing things because these abilities were needed to hunt and kill. It's why we were able to figure out how to drive herds over a cliff, or to lure large predators into traps. Our brains are far more lethal than the claws of the biggest brown bear. If we're willing to use them that is.

So the only way you're going to eliminate violence short of divine intervention is by killing all humans on the planet. It's as fruitless and pointless as tring to end all suffering--which the PETA/Peter Singer types are obsessed with.
 
So the only way you're going to eliminate violence short of divine intervention is by killing all humans on the planet.
Click to expand...

Or, as I said earlier, somehow neuter us. Either way, a better question might have been: "Would you want to actually live on an earth where there was no danger or violence at all from the animal kingdom or other humans?" Think about it, no predators, no prey. No circle of life. Nothing out there could possibly hurt you, otherwise you could still use a firearms for self-defense. I imagine it would make life like a video game where one has used the GOD cheat so that they cannot die. It would have to be quite unsatisfying, to say the least.

I think that the person accusing me of not having the ability to think abstractly was wrong. I think I am able to envision such a twisted "utopia" all to well, and it isn't somewhere I want to go.
 
Which is more likely, TEOTWAWKI or peace in our time? If you had to choose one, which would it be?

Would you shoot the first cop who came for your books?

What's more powerful, my guns or my computers?

What liberal, idealistic gutless organization uses the phrase "Peace Is Our Profession" as a motto?
 
As for all the talk about a revolution... talk is good.

I'm sure there was much talk amongst our forefathers years prior to the American Revolution.

One can rant all day about how us "gun nuts" or "molon labers" sit in front of our computer screen and bravely type about how we will not surrender and how easy it is to say and talk is cheap, etc. etc. etc.

Well, I'm sure our forefathers spent many an hour at their desks in candlelight writing (in many cases, not all) similar sentiment to what we discuss here.

Go ahead. Rant how it is fruitless. I beg to differ.
 
Peace in any time is a fantasy. Never gonna happen. We haven't even made any headway towards limiting total violence yet. We've reduced open displays of violence at the personal public level some but otherwise? Nada. We're fighting as many wars for as many reasons as two thousand years ago and more. Murder is as common or moreso than ever. Rape, theft, abuse, assault. It fluctuates, moves from location to location and intensity waxes and wains but overall very little changes. That's the result of what we are. Our very predatory genetic nature.

And as I have said before, the US isn't immune from the tides of history, or that human nature. She isn't eternal. And considering our violent birth, equally violent coming-of-age and none-too-calm old-age I don't think there's any reason to believe our demise is going to be particularly peaceful, either.

We came in with a bang and we're probably going to go out with one, too.
 
JBT's are not that tough and not that determined. They like to depend on overwhelming numbers and technology. Look at the goon squad at Waco. They lost, what, 3 or 4 and they're still cryin'. If they ever mobilized in force they would meet resistance the likes of which they never anticipated. Resistance from behind every rock, every tree, every structure.
Their lives and the lives of their families would be at risk 24/7. They wouldn't do it very long for a paycheck.
 
What I will NOT do is put a bullet in Barney Fife on my front porch because the Senate happens to be particularly stupid.
Click to expand...
Notice that the Barney Fife on your porch has a gun and it's his job to put a bullet in you if you don't do what the particularly stupid Senate decided you should do.
 
Of course my vision of a peaceful world will never come to pass, but some of the reponses seem to indicate that the writers desire to possess weapons more than they desire a non-violent world.
Click to expand...
No, the responses show that a number of the writers are refusing to play a silly game. The whole concept of your proposition is ludicrously designed to funnel the reader to a predetermined conclusion. Then, when someone doesn't respond in the affirmative you can then point out that they are either A)incapable of thinking abstractly or B)obviously unreasonable, if not unbalanced.

Personally, I choose option C) This is a silly question designed to pigeonhole a person into one predetermined category or another.

What's more powerful, my guns or my computers?
Click to expand...
Depends on the situation. Which was more responsible for the allies winning WWII? All those M1 Garands, or Colossus at Bletchley Park? Your entire query lacks any sort of context.
 
Sendec,

If God made me that offer, I'd be sure to get it in writing! :D And even then-well, if violence is now no more, then certainly no one will mind my enjoying my guns, for the sheer enjoyment of the sound and the smell and of hitting the 10-ring. Right?

Seriously. I don't like the idea of killing anyone. If a meth-crazed punk breaks my front door down and comes at me, I don't want to have to shoot him. But I wouldn't have to shoot him if he didn't break my door down. I don't want to shoot the sheriff-I'm sure he has a family that will miss him. But as others have said, history follows certain patterns, and weapons confiscation is not the end of the problem. It is the beginning. if you doubt American history on that score, read the biographies of the men and women who founded the state of Israel.

(Trivia fact: Dr. Ruth, long before she became a "good sex" advocate, was a Resistance sniper)

I do not want a violent revolution. Mostly, I want to left alone. But I grew up knowing too many older people with numbers tattooed on their arms to think that I will not do what must be done. Maybe it will end for me at my front door. Maybe I will live to fight another day. Hopefully, I won't have to make that decision at all-except on THR ;)

-------
Better to be carried by six than be judged by history.
 
Justin,

My questions are rhetorical questions designed to provoke thought, not your gastric juices. After countless discussion of TEOTWAWKI, black helos, JBTs, voting from the rooftops, Wolverines!, ad naseum, why does the antithesis of all these equally outlandish and unlikely scenarios provoke such vitriol? These are'nt silly games? Bottom line, are'nt most shooting sports just games played with guns?

FWIW, I do this for a living, having been in LE all my life and now as a trainer for whats left in it. I spend hundreds of hours a year teaching good people how to hurt bad people. I've seen enough, and dealt enough, violence that I have realized that it is a treatment, not a solution. I've never met a combat vet who did'nt value peace as a goal.
 
Sendec, why do you think the scenarios are outlandish? They have happened before, many times. And indeed there are many parts of the world where they are happening right now. Armed resistance is not futile. It isn't always done for a just or noble cause, of course, but it's not futile or outlandish. There are many situations in our own history where armed resistance would have been the proper response, from the enslavement of entire races to the genocide of others.
 
The soap box, ballot box, and cartridge box, in that order.

Some will go farther than others, and some will stop sooner?

Some are talkin' loud but not walkin' very far...

So why haven't all the Patriots put their fortune where their mouth is, moved to Morton Grove or DC, etc to fight the good fight? Lexington and Concord were enough for the Minutemen, what are they waiting for? By the time the fight comes to them, it may be too late!

Lead the way! ;)
 
Cosmoline-

They are all equally outlandish - for any example of localized genocide or crisis you can cite I can cite another localized outbreak of peace and quiet. It's all a continuum anyway.

But last time I checked, the evil government, could'nt find the anthrax guy, could'nt frame Richard Jewel or convict OJ, cannot find Bin-Laden, could'nt arrest one gunhacker without causing a major incident, could serve a warrant without incident, spent who knows how long investigating the wrong guy at Sandia, cannot keep track of its own laptops and guns, cannot ensure that spies are'nt in the FBI, and cannot get its networks to actually work with one another, let alone spy on us, industry was held hostage by a guy with a Smith-Corona who lived in a plywood box, and on and on......And the UN? Ever read the bit about the Security Council deciding where to eat for lunch? Do you think they even take themselves seriously? Who are the Blue Helmets gonna be? The Pakistanis?

Reality check, kids. All that bottled water you laid back for the millenium collapse is gonna taste pretty funky right about now. Shumer, Feinstein et al have been at it forever and accomplished next to nothing in the big picture. They don't want to succceed anymore than you want them to - then what would they do ? Actually work on real issues? You think they want that? We survived 9/11, multiple blackouts, natural and unnatural disasters, wars, biowar and more. We invariably come out of these incidents in better shape than we were before they occurred. I am glad I had my guns thru all of these, but I actually needed and used my flashlights more.

Unfortunately, for some of you, we actually have it pretty good. There have been bad times, and there will be more in the future. But investing all your hope for the future in guns seems a little off.
 
But as several explained here, the RKBA isn't about guns. It's about government power. A firearm in and of itself is just a tool. But a government coming to seize that firearm is a terrible threat. I might decide to sell all my firearms, or buy more. But this isn't about some fixation on a mere possession. It's about the power of the state to control its people, and whether or not that power has any inherent limitations. That's something worth fighting, and killing, for.

What I see is different from what you see, apparently. You see a bumbling federal government that poses no threat to liberty. I see a massive, extraconstitutional regulatory state supported by armed, highly militarized set of police forces. If UK style gun control were to pass at the federal level, I would very much fear for my well being.
 
Guns aren't the answer to most problems. Acquisition of new skills, getting more exercise, other improvements to self are more useful. But guns are a bit like religious faith -- they sooth the soul and made glad the heart. And, in a narrow set of circumstances, they can be useful...either directly or as deterrents. Guns are also the mine canary of the civil rights. Any threat affecting them can be counted to yield gulags at its logical conclusion. The lack of competency of the Fedgov is a minor matter -- the Soviets were even less competent yet produced millions of corpses.

One other note: small arms are defensive in nature. Heavy ordnance and explosives are the way to bring the fight to the enemy without exposure to return fire. We have not seen the Iraqui levels of IED use here yet. Providence willing, we won't. Antis pushing, we may well.
 
RKBA is about a balance of power and is most useful as a deterrent measure. Firearms ownership without some discussion of the when, where, and how of their use does not provide a "spirit of resistance." Read my sig.
 
Oleg

Heavy ordnance and explosives are the way to bring the fight to the enemy without exposure to return fire.
Click to expand...

Largely true; however, I don't think that someone taking a single shot from a scoped bolt-action rifle from a well scouted-out position 300-500 yards from a high-value target would be subject to any return fire...hypothetically speaking, of course. Those of you who've read "Enemies Foreign and Domestic understand the reference.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Molon Labe!
Replies
0
Views
478
renaissance
R
C
  • Locked
Molon Labe
Replies
4
Views
752
jdege
J
R
  • Locked
Molon Labe!
Replies
2
Views
719
Mal H
Mal H
T
  • Locked
Molon Labe Karma Giveaway
2 3 4 5
Replies
102
Views
4K
czhen
C
P
  • Locked
Molon Labe - My Race Horse
Replies
4
Views
436
Larry Ashcraft
Larry Ashcraft
Back
Top