So Should The Brave IRA Freedom Fighters Hand In THEIR Weapons ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Battler...

As I already said:
1)The IRA are terrorists.
2)But the internationaly involved UK government is more detremental to the worlds' freedom than the IRA.
3)Anything that weakens and embarasses the UK government is beneficial.
4)The IRA isn't going to vote in the UN for more international gun control programmes. The UK is.

Now simmer down. Are you an English soldier or something?
 
Why has the IRA gotten as far as it has? Because of it's use of weapons. The British government didn't agree to give them anything until lives were at stake. Once the threat of violence is gone, the British will continue with business as usual.
 
I will repeat. The vast majority of the people of Ulster, who are mostly Protestant, wish to remain part of the UK. They have repeatedly expressed their wish to do so at the ballot box. Why should they not be allowed to?

After the American War of Independence, many Loyalists fled to Canada. Many Canadians, who wanted liberty came to the US. Many Americans wanted to force union with Canada, but the majority of Canadians did not. BUT, WE DID NOT RESORT TO BLOWING CANADIAN WOMEN & CHILDREN TO BITS AS THE IRA HAS DONE!

------------------
Fred J. Drumheller
NRA Life
NRA Golden Eagle
 
Shin-Tao:

I stand by the core of what I said : The IRA doesn't stand for anything worthwhile.

Trust me, I'm not an English soldier, and actually have a lower opinion of Blair than I do of most colon parasites.

You are correct - UK IS more detrimental to freedom than the IRA, and I see your point that embarassing the UK/keeping them busy is kinda cool.

However, I don't think the IRA are inherently agains gun control. Like many others, they just want to be the ones with the guns.

Like leftists and freedom of speech.

If they won they would be just as bad as the UK. Only reason why they aren't now is that they don't have any power.

As someone else posted, the enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

Battler.
 
Well, you're right, Battler. I don't like the IRA. Never have. Many in their leadership are Marxists. But I'm glad they keep the London Government so upset and stressed.
If the London government stopped being a Socialist Orwellian comittee on public safety, I'd wish death and destruction on them.

I'll put it this way: The IRA is a foul disease. I don't like this disease, I don't want this disease. But I'm glad my enemy has this disease.

And keep in mind what George said. You and I could be declared terrorists at the stroke of a pen. And the sheeple of our country would think of us as such, and support our elimination.
 
Let's regress a few generations and regard the definitions of classes of people to better understand where we are today.

Yassir Arafat was once labeled a terrorist, and is now what, a respected individual.
Winner of the 1994 Nobel Peace Prize
http://www.nobelprizes.com/nobel/peace/1994a.html

Consider this then, when coining the phrase terrorist. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1997/vo13no19/vo13no19_arafat.htm

Oh, that "Current Issue" thing on the left sidebar wasn't my doing. Just convenient..(hehehe).

The Brits also considered the American Colonists terrorists, perhaps not the exact word, but with the same degree of contempt. The rest is, ummm, history.

I'm not Irish, or British. I'm not European-American. I'm American.
I've no understanding of the battle between the IRA and the British, simply because I've not studied it.

To hand over my firearms as a conditional to a guarantee of truce, or peace. Sorry, but I'll have to keep them to insure personal safety.
I thought England went through this once already in the last century.
Disarm the citizens, then have to have someone else resupply them(Americans) with arms to fight an enemy.

And as a condition of everlasting peace & love there, I suppose the UN will be stationed permanently. How convenient for the NWO.

A government that cannot trust it's people being armed, cannot itself be trusted.

Best Regards,
Don



------------------
The most foolish mistake we could make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.
Adolf Hitler
 
the label of terrorist or patriot is applied by the winner of the conflict. let an outside power come into the US, take over lands controled by your family for centuries, charge you rent for those lands, starve your people while food is exported to Britian at discount prices, call you traitor to the crown when you fight back, make you change your religion or face cultural genocide. if these things happened in the US most of my friends would be fighting back, if the only backing we could get was from a Marxist state so be it. those that would not fight back are cowards, sheep and traitors. so sit in your ivory tower and condem the IRA. i think Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry would have understood the IRA better than your posistion.
remember we kicked out the Brits not once but twice by force of arms. we were the sudicous rebels and terrorists then

------------------
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what is for lunch.
Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote.
Let he that hath no sword sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22-36
They all hold swords, being expert in war: every man hath his sword upon his thigh because of fear in the night. Song of Solomon 3-8
The man that can keep his head and aims carefully when the situation has gone bad and lead is flying usually wins the fight.

[This message has been edited by riddleofsteel (edited May 09, 2000).]
 
Well, the founding fathers may have wanted to get away from the British; but they made their new nation MEAN SOMETHING, by enumerating (some) rights, etc.

The IRA are not like the founding fathers.

I'm not calling them Terrorists - that's a subjective term as someone described. And I think that NOONE should give up their guns. And I want people like Blair to crawl up their own b**ts and disappear.

One thing to realize is that the marxist elements in the UK ARE a little more sympathetic to the IRA than others. That's probably what made these talks happen in the first place.

Battler.
 
Does anyone seriously believe they will really
turn over the good stuff in their armory? A
militant minority engaged in a centuries-old
struggle? They'll turn in some old shotguns
and hunting rifles, the auto's and semi-Auto's will go into "long term storage" (love
that euphimism), and the politicians will
hail themselves as peacemakers. If things
don't go as promised-back out come the guns.
Regardless of how you feel about the IRA no
one could be naive enough to think they'll
truly disarm.
 
I am calling them terrorists. They are. Detonating carbombs in crowded public places is inexcusable.
The founding fathers, if given time-delay explosives, would not have used them to blow up fellow Americans in crowded Philadelphia market places. Sorry.
 
they would have done so in a heart beat. modern militaries, like nato and the un do essentially the same d*mn thing. and our little boy and girl soldiers participate.

i wonder what the splinter groups have? especially how much semtex?
 
I love the way they have changed the term to "disarmament".

Laying down your arms in the face of superior force is called SURRENDER. And when you surrender, you get whatever the winning force decides.
I have a feeling that my Irish brothers over there as a populace know that this is a bad idea, but their leaders are playing politics and the court of PC public opinion is being won against them.
Propaganda has been so well used that people are calling it disarmament, when all it is is outright surrender. Once that happens, they will get whatever the British elitists feel like doing, which is what the Brits have always been good at: ruling and oppressing people, which is always preceded by disarming them.
 
For some reason I am reminded of "The Light that Failed" and the "Gatlings teaching fuzzy wuzzies". While I do not apporove of bombing civilians, I also want to remind that Dresden '45 and Tokyo '45 were bombings of civilians. The only difference is the delivery method. Are people who can afford an aircraft somehow more noble than those who hand-deliver their explosives? That sounds liek an argument in favor of spiritual superiority of mounted knights over dastardly longbowmen (c.1425)

------------------
Oleg "peacemonger" Volk

http://dd-b.net/RKBA
 
No, Oleg.
Obviously delivering an explosive from an aircraft does not make it exusable. I do not aprove of the bombing of residential areas. There was no excuse to do so. But there is still no excuse to deliver your explosive via old Cooper Mini either.

There are numerous ways to fight an opressive occupier that does not include blowing up morning shoppers or fragging every man and women in a crowded pub.

But in all fairness, not every cell and brigade in the IRA is the same. They aren't that centralized. But the ones that were fragging pubs and hosing civies are dead wrong in thinking those actions justified.
 
I cannot believe what I just read...

You are taking the RKBA and perverting it to justify the support of terrorists. Pathetic.

The IRA kills unarmed men, women, and children indescriminantly. They could care less if Americans are involved, so long as their funds continue to flow from the northeastern United States.

They are fighting the English, who have been there for hundreds of years. Far longer than Europeans have inhabited this hemisphere.

They, the Irish, have no RKBA. Neither do the English.

They are allied with staunch enemies of the United States.

They are Marxists, socialists, leftists. The last I checked, none of these support the concept of allowing the general population access to firearms.
 
A word on the "war" analogy:

The Irish are not at war with the English.

The English are not at war with the Irish.
 
Whatever your opinion of the IRA at stake is a much larger issue, the UN's campain to eliminate small arms the world over. The UN tries to foist its will on countries that have lax gun laws. In the Central American countries of Guatemala and El Salvador where national CCW permits are readily available the UN is working diligently to change the laws. They want to eliminate private ownership of guns in those and all other countries. I don't believe in conspiracies and I don't think this is the result of anything more than the UN's utopic attempt to "build" better socities.
------------------
So many pistols, so little money.

[This message has been edited by Tecolote (edited May 10, 2000).]
 
My father was a Mason--my mother Orange Lodge, I am staunch for Ulster.Despite that I would not support the handing in of arms--it is meaningless,and makes no difference.I refer again to Vietnam.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top