Mogadishu's fathers turn to the gun -- again

[Stretchman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.~

 

[doubleg]

Will he ship to a local ffl?

 

[pacodelahoya]

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]

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]

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]

This will keep going on until the AFRICANS do something about it.

 

[The Grand Inquisitor]

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]

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]

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]

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?



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