In This Article NBC Appears to Suggest Arming the People for Freedom

M

MTT TL

New member
From now whenever the anti-gun media proposes that "we do not need X gun" I will be sending them this way. Because here it is where they appear to advocating the overthrow of a sovereign government by arming rebels with guns.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/25/12951032-myth-vs-truth-in-the-syrian-conflict?

Myth: The rebels are getting weapons and money from abroad and will soon finish off Bashar’s army on their own.

View from the ground: The rebels are fighting with almost nothing. I was with a rebel commander yesterday who has 48 men. Only 15 of his fighters have any weapons. He has almost no ammunition. He has one anti-aircraft gun, but not a single bullet for it.
Click to expand...
What the rebels say they truly need are arms that can pierce Syrian armored vehicles. They need 12.7 anti-aircraft ammunition. They say they need 14.5 ‘doshka’ rounds. They need armor penetrating RPGS. They need 60mm and 120mm mortars. They need 7.62 rounds. These are what commanders ask for whenever I meet them. These are what every rebel wants.
Click to expand...

Myth: The rebels want a NATO intervention

View from the ground: The rebels do not want American or European soldiers in Syria. Many rebels do not specifically even want a no-fly-zone, although I suspect many would welcome it. Mostly, they just want access to weapons.
Click to expand...
The conflict in Syria seems to be in its final stages, but how long this stage will last depends largely on what happens in the coming days and weeks and the amount of support the rebels receive.

All indications are that Assad is going to fall. But how many more Syrians need to go with him?
Click to expand...

Curious is it not? Advocate arming a people to free themselves out of one side of the mouth and disarming another at home?
 
Last edited:
We need to be armed right here right now. The first step in taking over a country is to disarm the citizens.
 
Who are you afraid of taking over the country?

Get this: the only way you're going to have a successful revolution is to get the army on your side or the militia (old term, look it up). That is, if that's what you have in mind. There's a minor problem in that the purpose of the militia is to prevent insurrection, so I guess it's something else you have in mind.

Watch the skies! Watch the skies!
 
BT, in some of the riots of the 1919-1920 period, believe it or not but some immigrant communities in the northeast successfully (and violently) resisted strongarm tactics by union busters, local politicians, and local police.

Some of my relatives were involved in some of those brawls; some of those brawls resulted in gunfire. There were some neighborhoods into which the goon squads would not roam.

Lucky for us we all get along much better now.

Too bad for the Jews they didn't get along so well in the mid-30's to mid-40's in Europe... But that was 70 years ago, right?

Too bad for various minority communities in the US prior to the advent of television... If middle Americans hadn't seen the tactics of Bull Connor et al, the Civil Rights movement wouldn't have been as successful as it was.

But that was 50 years ago, right?

And the AIM movement was 40 years ago or so...

Ruby Ridge, Waco...

Hmmm, seems there's some sort of bad stuff happening to people, at the hands of government (sometimes our own) at least every decade.

Do you ever stop to wonder why the Bloombergs, Pelosis, and Holders of the world are so eager to disarm the peasants? It always seems to be those who seek more and more power and prestige, who worry about normal people having access to weapons.
 
Yes and 1920 was 92 years ago. But the riots of the late sixties are still fresh in some people's mind. I keep reminding you that not only were people still remembering the assasinations of that decade but the cities burning down. Law and order was supposedly on everyone's mind and it was a conservative issue. It isn't the government. Say, is the a pro-union thread or an anti-union thread?
 
There is strong evidence of African-Amercians using firearms to protect themselves. Search on Deacons for Defense for one example.

They were clearly being persecuted by government forces or private organizations that were protected by the local governments.

I have a review article at work - but I'm not there.

MLeake - before we get too political, recall that the monied classes of both parties are not in favor of the 'lesser' folks being armed. One can come with myriad examples of such, past and present.
 
I will go along with what you say. There is, as you say, precedence. The English Bill of Rights (there was such a thing) stated that men were permitted arms suitable to their station, or words to that effect. In other words, all men are not equal. Here, for a while, that was not so. In fact, I'd suggest that some, but not all, of the creators of the orignal documents we hold so dear did not believe or mean everything they wrote. After all, they were mostly rich land owners and lawyers. The Declaration of Independence was written mostly by a lawyer.

But everyone else believe it. There was trouble right away. It took a few years to get things sorted out.
 
The English Bill of Rights (there was such a thing) stated that men were permitted arms suitable to their station, or words to that effect
Click to expand...
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law."

Blackstone had a few things to say about how weak that was, and the Framers listened when they drafted the Bill of Rights. That's why we have such comparatively forceful and specific language in our version.
 
In short, "suitable to their station" generally meant "but not as good as what the boss has."

It wasn't quite as bad as "serfs get pitchforks," but it was close. I read a breakdown somewhere just recently. I believe commoners (serfs) were allotted lances.
 
Glenn E. Meyer,

Bear in mind that Bloomberg won the Mayor's seat as a Republican. (Edit: Though, as of 2007, he is "unaffiliated," he won office as an R.)

Without getting too political, I bashed both sides at once. (Edit: Or, three sides at once, depending on how one views Bloomers.)

Regards,

M
 
Last edited:
With regard to "suitable to their station":

Feudal Japan: Only the Samurai class were allowed to carry the two swords. A farmer or merchant carrying them would be put to death.

Elizabethan England: Nobility and gentlefolk could carry handguns at will.

Feudal England: Chivalric code, ennobled in Elizabethan literature, really only applied to others of the knight's station or higher. The knight could be as rude as he wished with damsels of the lower classes.

(Edit: Note that while nobility was inherited, knighthood was usually achieved through prowess with weapons...)

Feudal Germany: Nobility declared war on the "upstart" peasant classes for a few decades.

Renaissance France: Dueling is common, but one can only challenge a person from one's own station, or one slightly lower. A baron would not challenge a peasant, he'd simply send goons to beat or kill him, or an official to imprison him.

Notice the pattern: Ruling classes don't like the lesser classes to have the same rules, and keeping the lesser classes disarmed enables this system.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that's pretty much correct. Of course, a lot of these more or less social rules that were as binding as something carved in stone were not written down, at least not until long after they ceased to have any meaning. There are still such rules.

In England those of the lower classes were still expected to be proficient with weapons. They made up the armies that were raised on demand, there being no standing army. In particular, proficiency with the longbow was the thing. There were local compeitions to encourage practice with the longbow and it generally paid off. Commoners also practiced with sword and buckler. This is where the militia tradition came from.

Generally speaking, only those of gentle birth could carry swords, although they were not really always practical battlefield weapons. You may not the way a gentleman's sword shrank over the years. At the time of the revolution, it had almost shrank to its present size, though if you've ever seen one, they were clearly still lethal. A small sword today is much too flimsy for real combat. Same thing happened with knives, although a few folks believe there's a real need for a Bowie knife, apparently.

All of this only applied to men.
 
From the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

The Declaration of Independence protects our right to revolution. Revolution requires arms. The 2nd Amendment intentionally protects our right to arm ourselves in order to protect ourselves from the government as well as each other. The Declaration and the Constitution were written by revolutionaries for revolutionaries. But our government refuses to give the Declaration any legal standing whatsoever. The government always rejects the citizen's right to revolution. No surprise.
 
BlueTrain said:
I will go along with what you say. There is, as you say, precedence. The English Bill of Rights (there was such a thing) stated that men were permitted arms suitable to their station, or words to that effect. In other words, all men are not equal.
Click to expand...

It was not a "Bill of Rights" as we understand it in America. It was a Declaration of Rights enacted by the English parliament in response to William & Mary becoming sovereigns in 1689 following the rule of King James.

Because the English system of government was not based on a supreme document (i.e. like our Constitution) the "Declaration of Rights" meant nothing more than any other law enacted by the parliament. In essence, what the parliament giveth, they may taketh away...

There's a lot of little-known history that shaped our Second Amendment... Kings and parliaments trying to block the bearing of arms by the other's supporters and such... A lot of that can be found here: http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html
 
The British attempting to remove the arms near Boston as well as in Williamsburg were the sparks that started the war, although those actions were not the reasons behind the revolution.

If citizens decide the government is so bad that a revolution is in order, then the consitution becomes a worthless scrap of paper, doesn't it. You have to start over form scratch. Be careful what you wish for. But in any event, it's a matter of who deciding what. Hardly everyone will be thinking the same way and by no means should you imagine that you're even in the majority, although as you know, there are ways around that.

Think back to the Continental Congresses and the Constitutional Convention for a moment. Those men did not all think alike and there were controversies that had to be overcome. Some would not even sign because something they wanted wasn't there. Most of the missing parts were of course added as the amendments. Note also that none of those men were self-appointed. They obviously wanted to be there but they were elected.

It took a while for things to calm down after the revolution, too. If you had been a loyalist, you were in for a hard time for a while if you stayed. Some long established things like the church were turned upside down. In fact, supposedly the name of the tune played by the band at the surrender of Cornwallis was "The world turned upside down." Cornwallis went on to be governor of India, so it wasn't the end of the world.
 
not advocating a revolution, just saying that the first step in taking over a country is to disarm the citizenry. Have you never read up on socialism and Marxism or communism.
 
All governments protect their authority. Washington had to put down rebellions within a few years of the formation of the US. If governments did not protect their right to exist, we would have an endless string of revolutions and virtual anarchy. The right to rebel lies with no document, no man's words scribbled on a piece of parchment. It's a God given right of people to control the kind government they live under.

Another thought: most revolutions are not as "clean" as ours was. It is unique among almost all revolutions in history, before or since. The reasons behind that fact would require a deeper dissection of the events than we can go into here, but in short, it was because the whole idea was unprecedented. The overthrow of the most powerful military on the face of the earth and the government that we installed was unheard of. That has installed a mindset in Americans, liberal, conservative, whatever, we all are sympathetic to people trying to overthrow dictatorial regimes.
 
Ben Towe said:
...The right to rebel lies with no document, no man's words scribbled on a piece of parchment. It's a God given right of people to control the kind government they live under...
Click to expand...

The cleanest justification that I have ever read is Locke's "Second Treatise of Government" wherein he lays the groundwork for government by consent of the governed.

It is free if you have a device that supports a Kindle reader. (Like a computer, duh! Or an iPad or other pad-thing or even a real Kindle.)

It's archaic, but if you care about living in a free society now is the time to read this revolutionary book. It wasn't published under a pseudonym at first because it was full of nursery rhymes.

MB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top