Libya Demonstrates Pro-Gun Message?

D

DRBoyle

New member
Might get deleted so apologies in advance if this breaches any rules.

This isn't about the politics of that situation at all. Instead it's about how that situation demonstrates that anti-gun people really have no arguement.

Coupled with the real truth that most of us know, guns don't kill people,
the situation there demonstrates that even armed with military weaponary
a revolution is still isn't a surety.


Crime being symptomatic of so many issues the least which is firearms availibility. The real damage to any society is done according that old adage,
the pen is mightier than the sword.

All told the lasting argument it is that firearms and ownership comes down to two kinds of people. Legal and illegal. The number of the illegal kind
really cannot be stopped and it's a fallacy to think so. While at least in the legal sense, it encourages govenrment to actually govern in the best interests of the people to keep the crime rates down.

It just appears that the fighting in Libya indicates for all to see that the mere possesion of a firearm even on a large scale cannot be held accountable for any change in a society. Be it a simple neighborhood going downhill type example, or a nation in the grip of in fighting.

It's that level of dishonesty that the anti-gun supporters tend to enforce.

Don't want to turn this into a political discussion at all. The point is that the anti-gunners look more and more conclusively ridiculous (dishonest?) of late.


Your thoughts please?
 
Last edited:
DRBoyle said:
This isn't about the politics of that situation at all. Instead it's about how that situation demonstrates that anti-gun people really have arguement.

Don't want to turn this into a political discussion at all. The point is that the anti-gunners look more and more conclusively ridiculous (dishonest?) of late.

Your thoughts please?
Click to expand...
You have me confused. Your post opens up saying the anti-gunners have an argument, and then you close saying they look dishonest.

Which side are you on and what is the point you're trying to make?
 
Thanks for that response Aguila Blanca. I really should proof read more often.
:eek::(

Original sentence should read "that anti-gun people really have no arguement."

On the side of pro-gun.

Will edit that first post and get back to the question you raised here if you still think that's appropriate or needed.

EDIT: Original post edited. What I think the Libyan situation demonstrates is the level of dishonesty on both the collective and individual notion of gun ownership, anti-gun supporters have been perpetuating.
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting to see what happens in Yemen. I seem to have heard that more Yemenis than Americans are armed. Yemeni girls have told me that their father taught them how to use an AK-47. I failed to ask if it had a happy switch.
 
The level of arms in the population is a resource, one which can be used to make a difference, but one which, by itself, does not make a difference.

An armed populace does not guarantee a successful revolution, and a disarmed one does not positively preclude the same. However, the general presence of arms does go a long way to increasing the possibility of success.

Where is the Soviet Union today? Gone. Why? Because the leaders at the time agreeed to disband it. Without arms, revolution is possible, but seldom succeeds unless the leaders agree. With an armed populace, it isn't necessary for the leaders to agree with the revolution, only to defeat them.

And yes, the real defeat must be in the hearts and minds of the people, more than on the field of battle.

Look at history, where various groups have siezed power, and disarmed the population to retain that power. Without the resource of arms, it is much more difficult for resistance to be effective.
 
In Tunisia and Egypt we saw "relatively peaceful revolutions" - the people managed to convince enough of the army and/or police to join in that the dictators caved. I remain convinced that there's still a role for guns in this type of action, but it's not in armed conflict "on the streets". Shooting the soldiers/police you're trying to convert is counter-productive unless there's no other choice! Rather you protect your leaders/organizers from after-hours midnight raids by the really psychopathic "secret police" or "the regime's militia" types.

This is exactly what Dr. King did in the early days of the 2nd US Civil Rights movement...Liberals today don't like to talk about it, but if you visited MLKJr's house circa 1955 or so, you'd find an armed camp hunkered down against the KKK. Yet the next day out on the street in plain view of God and everybody, him and his followers would be unarmed. This wasn't hypocrisy nor am I criticizing him in any way - rather, it was good tactics in both cases for very different situations. What you do NOT want happening is the whole "get grabbed in secret and disappear" routine.

In Libya we see what happens when "plan A" falls flat. And that's when you need LOTS OF GUNS!!!
 
Appreciate both the move to appropriate forum (not a delete) and the inputs from members.

When thinking of the topic and watching the news the real pitfall was to fall into the notion that 'you might just as well remove firearms'. After all, they don't really change anything (?). For the better or worse.

However with the responses here it seems there is some validation of the notion that firearm ownership (legal, upright citizen etc) is just ultimately a good thing.

Hadn't factored into the possibility of a resistance in Libya, for example.

I think it's that nebulous area of when things go sideways that anti-gun people like to operate. As opposed to the open ended nature a rifle/gun has by mere existance. Oh yeah, don't mean to demonize anti-gun people either. It's the arguement/stance which is the problem.

Summarizing, it just seems the only real concrete thing firearms do is allow citizens to rightfully defend themselves if need be. Be it the individual case or as 44 AMP stated, collectively as a resistance. It's just seems like the building block in relation to firearms.

Everything else is a matter of chance/fate/oppurtunity etc and contingent on so many other factors.

Leaving this thought for now, it's not hard to understand why in terms of firearms usage the discussion and exchange of tactics has been something slightly more guarded than the technical knowledge of firearms.

Thank you for your inputs and leeway into this topic so far.
 
DRBoyle:
However with the responses here it seems there is some validation of the notion that firearm ownership (legal, upright citizen etc) is just ultimately a good thing.
Click to expand...

It is a good thing. A firearm is a tool, no less than a chainsaw is a tool. There is a sliding scale of when tools are needed and used. As long as a citizen doesn't misuse a tool, the government should have no interest in preventing him from having it.

Let's look at firearms. What can they be "legally" and "responsibly" used for? Collecting, hunting, target shooting, teaching safety, teaching responsibilities to our next generation, etc. They can also be used for self defense of our properties, our loved ones, and our own lives. If things get really dicey, we can use them to defend our communities, state, or even nation. I'd hope we'd have the help of our military and police, and not have to fight them. Egypt is an example of the former, whereas Libya exemplifies the latter.

If we believe that all men and women are created equal, then it should not be an allowed moral choice for some men and women to forcibly disarm other men and women, providing the ones they attempt to disarm have not broken the social contract. If the ones doing the governing have weapons, then so too should the governed. Remember, in our nation, the governors are provided with their power through the consent of the governed. I don't know about anyone else, but I have given no one any consent to remove my right to keep and bear arms. It's a natural right, so I cannot give it away. It is unalienable, meaning it belongs within me. Our 2A "PROTECTS" the right, as opposed to "CREATES" or "GRANTS" that right.
 
I mentioned in another thread a long time ago that the mere (legal) possession of weapons is a highly symbolic thing, in the same way that voting is, in a way, symbolic. But if you don't vote, the symbolism of that is lost and I suppose it is, too, if you don't have a weapon, or worse, don't like privately held weapons.

At the time of the revolution and later, when the constitution was written, people might say that all men were created equal but apparently they weren't too serious about it, given the details that were overlooked. Yet many men took that very seriously and there was a strong spirit of egalitarianism, at least among some men. It sometimes manifested itself in frequent duels, often fought over the expressions of free speech that offended someone's touchy honor. However, wars are not won with dueling pistols or concealed pocket pistols. In the French Revolution, the Soviet Revolution and evidently in whatever is going on in Libya, actual army units were in the forefront of actually making the revolution happen. I suppose they have ways of preventing that in China. In the American Revolution, the existance of an organized (and well regulated) militia no doubt helped to make the revolution possible, as well as the existance of colonial legislatures and locally elected leaders from the gentry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top