Armed defense?

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

Just some thoughts from the litterbox...

quotes:

"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." - Ghandi, Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, Chapter XXVII, Recruiting Campaign, Page 403, Dover paperback edition, 1983.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." - The Dalai Lama, (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

"The world is filled with violence.  Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." - James Earl Jones

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." (Noah Webster, 1787)

"Though defensive violence will always be 'a sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men."  St. Augustine A.D. 354-430

===============================

Contrary to certain sentiments (and a recent Ridley Report video), many "peaceful" movements that saw success were either not so peaceful or were forced into the choice by government disarming the people. Ghandi did not start out as an advocate of civil disobedience, but was left no other choice once the British government disarmed him and others seeking their freedoms. Ghandi said that he thought their cause could have been completed years earlier had they not been disarmed and equated their cause against the British with the American Revolution. Speaking of which, the American Revolution wasn't started on a whim. They had spent years trying "civil disobedience" before the last straw... The last straw came when General Gage attempted to confiscate the arms of the colonists. The Boston Massacre had already occurred (Minutemen were practicing on Boston Commons when the British troops... and remember, they were ALL still British at that point... were ordered to fire on the minutemen). Because of the open defiance of the minutemen colonists, the government decided to confiscate the colonists firearms. The colonists had already gone through a long series of asking politely for redress of grievences, then civil disobedience (the Boston Tea Party is but one example), and open defiance of the government (crown). There are numerous examples where peaceful acquiescence or civil disobedience has not worked. Just ask the Jews living in the Warsaw Ghetto.. Oh wait... you can't... they're all dead. Even then, a small group, armed with only a few pistols, were able to hold off the German Army intent on murdering them for well over a month. To wit...

"I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees." - (variously attributed to: Charles Houston, Zapata, FDR and a few others... regardless, the sentiment remains the same)

"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason, (3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - William Pitt, (Nov. 18, 1783)

"God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to guard and defend it." - Daniel Webster, Jun. 17, 1825 -  from a speech at the foundation of the Bunker Hill monument commemorating the soldiers of the American Revolution.

===============================================

I applaud the pacifists, the non-violent civil disobedience believers. You can claim that you will never use a firearm against someone "of authority", and that certainly is everyone's belief to exercise or not as they see fit, but if it is your child(ren) who will be forced into a life sentence of slavery, are you not willing to sacrifice yourself for their future, freedom, liberty, and very life? Granted, spending time away from family while incarcerated for some civil disobedience is a sacrifice, but is that only as far as you're willing to sacrifice for the future of your loved ones? No one who is truly a freedom loving person wishes to cause another harm, but isn't it an abrogation of your sacred duty not to do whatever it takes to protect and defend you loved ones from the murderous hands of others (whether common criminal or tyrant)? Make no mistake about it, for history has proven that, every genocide (almost universally promulgated by governments against their own subjects... ummm, citizens) has been preceded by the government disarming those very same subjects! It is hard to have it both ways... You can not say in one breath that if they come to take your guns, you will give them up rather than take a stand, and then say in the next that you will defend your life, rights/property if they are in imminent danger because that is somehow different than giving up the means to defend that life, rights/property. Thus the relevance of the phrase "Molon Labe". It states unequivocally to anyone wishing to deprive one of the means to defend and protect their life (and those of their loved ones), liberty, rights and property, that you wish them no harm; but that you are ready, willing and able to take a stand to defend and protect your life (and your loved ones), liberty, rights and property. It is basically an open declaration of a "line in the sand". I am certainly no one to criticize either position on this... The non-violent civil disobedience, willing to go to jail, stand that people have taken is nothing less than admirable. The non-initiation of force, but willing to take whatever measures are necessary to protect and defend their family and loved ones, stand that others have taken is no less admirable... and deserves as much credibility for the sacrifices of those (willing to back up their "line in the sand") who chose to follow that path. At least in the foreseeable short-term, the two are not that different, as neither wishes for there to be violence and both hope for a peaceful resolve to the redress of grievances which both share in common... and is that not what the FSP movement is all about? Getting to a (hopefully peaceful) resolution of the redress of grievances?

Take care...

[Kat Kanning]

I'm sorry for hassling you, leetninja.  Carry on about your stickers.  You want me to split off everything after your initial post?

[Ryan McGuire]

It'd be nice to know if the guy standing next to you at a party or rally or such is going to start shooting if the gov't starts confiscating guns.

This is a very important point, and one I try to gauge my friends by. The world we live in, at least around here, is no where close to being a place where shooting the government people is the right decision. If you shoot a cop, you'll be dead, the press will eat whatever's left of you and anyone who you've associated with, and ultimately government will create more laws because of it. I'm with you Kat, I don't want to associate myself with anyone who has itchy trigger fingers for government bureaucrats. I won't be going to any "partys or rallys" and end up shooting cops. If I ever shoot government people, the world will be a much bleaker place and it will be because I went to a gunfight. Everyone that comes with me to that gunfight will know what they're getting their selves into beforehand.

I wouldn't be likely to put a sticker like that on my car and I'll let Claire Wolfe explain why:

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

Molon Labe was originally a battle cry, it is a threat, and it should be reserved as such. Strapping it to my car is telling the whole world that I will shoot them if they try and touch my guns. Not the perception I want people to have of me.

However, I think I know exactly where you're coming from leetninja, and I'm not accusing you of anything. The sticker's probably harmless, so you do what you want. Certainly most people won't take it the same way I have, and most people won't even know what it means. I just like to be precise in my language and let people know where I stand, so that's my analysis.

[erisian]

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

True enough... for now.
But if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in res ipsa loquitur violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People. They should therefore expect, and receive, armed resistance in the defense of law and liberty.

Defense against armed illegal action does not constitute the initiation of violence. Armed illegal action does.

[Ryan McGuire]

if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in res ipsa loquitur violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People.

I don't think that anyone alive today can violate the constitution. No one alive has signed it. Even those government people who have sworn an oath to it, have in no way entered into any agreement with me. One does not betray me by violating the constitution, but rather by agressing against me.

Other than that, I don't disagree with anything you said.

[erisian]

I don't think that anyone alive today can violate the constitution. No one alive has signed it. Even those government people who have sworn an oath to it, have in no way entered into any agreement with me. One does not betray me by violating the constitution, but rather by agressing against me.

The United States Constitution is "the supreme law of the land", so I would argue that it can be violated like any other law.

The betrayal is against the People collectively, as they are Sovereign. (At least in theory)

[Kat Kanning]

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

True enough... for now.
But if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in res ipsa loquitur violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People. They should therefore expect, and receive, armed resistance in the defense of law and liberty.

Defense against armed illegal action does not constitute the initiation of violence. Armed illegal action does.

It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence.  How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet?  Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.)  Stop cooperating as much as you can.  They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.

[leetninja]

America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards.

True enough... for now.
But if the government would send armed agents to disarm the People, then those agents would stand in res ipsa loquitur violation of the Constitution, and their oaths to defend it. They would be traitors against the People. They should therefore expect, and receive, armed resistance in the defense of law and liberty.

Defense against armed illegal action does not constitute the initiation of violence. Armed illegal action does.

It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence.  How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet?  Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.)  Stop cooperating as much as you can.  They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.

Yea that non-cooperation seems to go *REALLY* well right?  Stop paying them (taxes, speeding tickets, fines, town fees, registration for vehicles, etc?) - lose your home, probably lose your job, and go to jail, media makes you out to be a "nutty activist" and then you lose everything.  Good plan ...

Just let them come into your home, search and seize as they see fit without justification and then try to fight back through the system that they designed to stop you at every turn in hopes you will get your property back ... right? 

Werent people just evicted from their home for this kind of thing? voted out by their own city council, people that they appointed, their "peers" that make up that council ...

Remember if the Kop comes to your house and you tell him "no i wont let you in" he will point the gun in YOUR face, cuff you, and then do as he pleases anyhow.  if you resist that then you will be arrested and charged.  if you hold a job at a reputable company you will lose it, you can be charged with a felony if he wants to be a dick and then you will have something that will pop up on all background checks preventing you from getting a new or better job and god forbid you try to get a firearm - if you lie on the check its another felony and if you dont you are sent on your way! 

I think it would be better said:  They can't deal with 10 million people who are armed and ready to die for their rights and what they truly believe in and not cooperating with them.

[Russell Kanning]

So you are saying non-violent non-cooperation doesn't work?

Yea that non-cooperation seems to go *REALLY* well right?  Stop paying them (taxes, speeding tickets, fines, town fees, registration for vehicles, etc?) - lose your home, probably lose your job, and go to jail, media makes you out to be a "nutty activist" and then you lose everything.  Good plan ...

[erisian]

It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence.  How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet?  Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.)  Stop cooperating as much as you can.  They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.

I'm all for nonviolent noncooperation... to a point. But if the government initiates armed illegal action such as gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, against the People, in violation of the Constitution, then the responsibility for protecting and defending the supreme law of the land falls to the People.

Nonviolence tends to be ineffective against armed criminals who have no intention of respecting your rights, your life, or the law.

[leetninja]

So you are saying non-violent non-cooperation doesn't work?

erisian said EXACTLY what i was going to say to this ...

I'm all for nonviolent noncooperation... to a point. But if the government initiates armed illegal action such as gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, against the People, in violation of the Constitution, then the responsibility for protecting and defending the supreme law of the land falls to the People.

Nonviolence tends to be ineffective against armed criminals who have no intention of respecting your rights, your life, or the law.

Can't really say much more ...

[Peacemaker]

It might be a better plan to not answer armed illegal action with violence.  How about trying noncooperation since it's "not time to shoot the bastards" yet?  Stop paying them. (Not meaning you in particular erisan, talking to people in general.)  Stop cooperating as much as you can.  They can't deal with 10 million people not cooperating with them.

I'm all for nonviolent noncooperation... to a point. But if the government initiates armed illegal action such as gross violation of the 2nd Amendment, against the People, in violation of the Constitution, then the responsibility for protecting and defending the supreme law of the land falls to the People.

Nonviolence tends to be ineffective against armed criminals who have no intention of respecting your rights, your life, or the law.

This makes me think of Hurricane Katrina when "our boys" went home to home, taking away people's guns (when they needed them the most) and the people just handed them over.  I understand this was under the "emergency" umbrella, in one isolated area, but still, people just handed them over.

If it was announced "All weapons, in 50 States, shall be turned in on May 1st," then I would think there would be a number of those who wouldn't oblige, and would have to be "dealt" with.   Seems like the Dissenters would do well to ban together, in such a scenario.

Shortly after that, I think the USA should change it's name to the United Socialists of America (USA) and the title President, be replaced with the title: King.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

Shortly after that, I think the USA should change it's name to the United Socialists of America (USA) and the title President, be replaced with the title: King.

Haven't you been following the news?    <- smiley captioned for those who need it...

[Russell Kanning]

so since the cops are armed and violent ... non-violent opposition cannot work?

I am asking this because I really don't want to hang out with folks on this forum who think my way of living is useless ... I am attempting to attract those non-violent non-cooperators with evil out there. I don't have the time or inclination to hang out with or call friends those that make violent threats against wrongdoers.

[tony]

so since the cops are armed and violent ... non-violent opposition cannot work?

I am asking this because I really don't want to hang out with folks on this forum who think my way of living is useless ... I am attempting to attract those non-violent non-cooperators with evil out there. I don't have the time or inclination to hang out with or call friends those that make violent threats against wrongdoers.

This sound a litle like previouse dictator speech "either you are with us or you are with terrorists..."