You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead hands...or not. - Page 14

BAC · June 1st, 2008, 05:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbornerangerboogie

I find the term MARTYR to be disgusting and vile given it's context and use today, I'd rather go down fighting as a Patriot or at least as a Freedom Fighter.

How are each of those different? Most of the modern interpretation of "martyr" comes from its Islamic translation, "shaheed" or something like it, which describes losing one's life in legitimate conflict or holy war (not suicide). That said, it looks like most other religions have their definitions for "martyr", the theme of all of them being loss of life in legitimate struggle. Wikipedia looks like it has a lot more information on the subject than I do, though.

-B

airbornerangerboogie · June 1st, 2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Army22rpr

This reminds of when I was stationed in FT Benning and we were called to help after Hurricane Andrew in 1992. Me and my warrant officer were driving around, just checking out the destruction and happened upon a pretty lady in a bikini in distress. Well..., we thought she was in distress, she was laying out in the front yard:) Any ways , there were punks driving thru almost all the neighborhoods and ransacking the damaged houses, all except one neighborhood that was armed and had posted lookouts at the major cross streets. They had managed to "discourage" the punks from entering by a show of force and their castles were protected. Not only theirs but their neighbors as well. The police did not have to worry about patrolling that section of town because it was taken care of. Now that I am stationed out in SOCAL I am thinking about talking to my neighbors about a plan of action like theirs for this hood. It doesn;t need to be extravagant, just know whose armed and willing to set up in the hood if ever any thing happens. Part of being prepared and having some food set aside with my ammo in case of an emergency.

Neighborhood defense should be a no-brainer as well as emergency stores, and a bug-out plan. The Katrina debacle should be a wake-up call to all armed citizens. If the people in the Andrew disaster had been in NO during Katrina, the NO mayor would have had the SWAT teams surround that armed community and forcibly taken their weapons. Get's me to thinking that at what point we should resist and what could we do to forestall gun-grabbing? Hiding weapons and stores is one answer, but creating a community defense plan is another. I might even go so far as to elicit the aid and encouragement of the city officials. I'm in a small town so it might be more workable than a large city. What are you'all's thoughts, mostly we tend to look to our families protection and safety, but it takes a community to provide for the "common defense".

SelfDefense · June 1st, 2008, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agentmel

This is an interesting thread and a situation we may very well face in our lifetimes. I think our founders understood this dilemma perfectly. I think that the most proper (although probably most costly) response is the one originally mentioned. "You can have my guns when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers." Kerbouchard was almost right: there is nothing we can do in such a situation to prevent the unjust confiscation of our weapons... except be willing to employ those weapons against those doing the confiscating. What is the point of having arms otherwise?

Let me get this straight. You think the point in possessing arms is to employ them against governmental confiscation? Otherwise, there is no point is keeping and bearing arms? Interesting perspective.

Quote:

Our right to keep and bear arms becomes a paper tiger the moment we are unwilling to employ them in our defense.

The point that most have missed is that using deadly weapns to prevent confiscation is not self defense at all. It is illegal rebellion. It is absolutely not the reason most of us carry guns, which is to protect one's self and one's family.

Quote:

It is a sad day when most of us seem to have forgotten that our primary self-defense need is not against civilian theft or assault, but from goverment theft or assault.

This is incorrect. The fact of the matter is that the Founders understood that an armed populace could form a militia to defend the United States of America. The struggle was not for self defense but rather for independence of a nation. The Founders were not stupid enough to provide a method for our newly elected government to be overthrown. The Second Amendment has nothing to do with rebellion against the United States government.

I find it strange that those who scream loudest about Second Amendment rights seem to miss the fact that the Second Amendment was ratified by the people to be part of the government. Without our current form of government the prohibition against infringing on our right to keep and bear arms is meaningless. We have also created a nation where the government cannot crash into our homes and search and sieze guns without a warrant. There will be no Federal confiscation of arms as long as we remain the United States of America. Not in any of our lifetimes.

Quote:

I have never been robbed by a street criminal, yet I never fail to be robbed every paycheck. In fact, I'd rather be held up in a dark alley, because I carry. I'd have a fighting chance and the criminal could only take what I have now. Against theft by the gov't, I (alone) have no fighting chance and they continue to take every chance they get, meanwhile trying to make it seem legitimate.

It is legitimate. The laws were passed exactly conforming to our way of government. The anti-government types think that the government is against the people so they will rebel against the government. It reminds me of rebellious teenagers. Although the anti-government types never seem to grow up. They think they can do better on their own rather than being part of our society. Sorry, but an individual has no chance to repel a nuclear tipped missile but as a society we can do exactly that.

Quote:

Additionally, even if the thief killed me, he'd only get what I had on me. The IRS will steal from me even after I'm dead.

The IRS does not steal anything. The representatives of the people have determined the tax rates and who and what is taxed. Perfectly legal. No theft whatsoever. To conflate taxation with criminal robbery is simply not a credible argument.

Quote:

Force perpetrated by the gov't (or its agents) is no different from force perpetrated by common street thugs and should be opposed by whatever means necessary. That said, passive opposition, as in hiding your guns and lying to the "authorities" may be the best option for the short term.

It is simply not smart intentionally martyring one's self for a principle. It sounds more like what you would hear from muslim fanatics than citizens of the greatest nation of Earth. We are not at war with our government; if you are dissatisfied with government then you can ELECT leaders that agree with your views. Shooting them sounds like the tactics of thugs in a third world nation. Oh, freedom fighters...

airbornerangerboogie · June 1st, 2008, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAC

How are each of those different? Most of the modern interpretation of "martyr" comes from its Islamic translation, "shaheed" or something like it, which describes losing one's life in legitimate conflict or holy war (not suicide). That said, it looks like most other religions have their definitions for "martyr", the theme of all of them being loss of life in legitimate struggle. Wikipedia looks like it has a lot more information on the subject than I do, though.

-B

A martyr is one who dies for their belief, but in the interpretation of the christian martyr, they die without defending themselves, only bearing witness to their beliefs. The radicalized Islamic Martyr dies's but takes as many infidels with them as possible. Neither one is palatable, at least to me that is.

Kerbouchard · June 1st, 2008, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SelfDefense

The point that most have missed is that using deadly weapons to prevent confiscation is not self defense at all. It is illegal rebellion.

All rebellions are illegal. I thought that went without saying since thats, well, kind of the point.

Quote:

We have also created a nation where the government cannot crash into our homes and search and seize guns without a warrant. There will be no Federal confiscation of arms as long as we remain the United States of America. Not in any of our lifetimes.

It happened in Kansas. It happened in N.O. It happened in D.C. It happened in IL. It has happened a lot of places. Please do not make such erroneous generalities.

Quote:

The IRS does not steal anything. The representatives of the people have determined the tax rates and who and what is taxed. Perfectly legal. No theft whatsoever. To conflate taxation with criminal robbery is simply not a credible argument.

It most definitely is robbery, but that discussion belongs in a 'Who is John Galt?' thread.

Quote:

It is simply not smart intentionally martyring one's self for a principle. It sounds more like what you would hear from muslim fanatics than citizens of the greatest nation of Earth. We are not at war with our government; if you are dissatisfied with government then you can ELECT leaders that agree with your views.

When the people who benefit by government handouts outnumber the people who earn the money to provide the government handout The Democracy becomes a sham.

BAC · June 1st, 2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbornerangerboogie

The radicalized Islamic Martyr dies's but takes as many infidels with them as possible.

That's not true at all. It's true the concept has been misused, but most scholars (and practitioners) of Islam are against the concept of suicide, whatever the reason. What the militant wings preach is not what the majority follow. What I was pointing out is that the word "martyr" has gained a bad connotation because it's been wrongly associated with suicide-attacks, or attacks where one's own death is expected. You yourself pointed out that it's deeper than that. It requires that you die bearing witness to your own beliefs (usually religious) in a just fight.

If your fight is a just fight, if it's your beliefs that you are fighting for, and you die, you are a martyr. Then again, I'm also reminded of the phrase "Martyr is another name for crappy fighter."

-B

airbornerangerboogie · June 1st, 2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BAC

That's not true at all. It's true the concept has been misused, but most scholars (and practitioners) of Islam are against the concept of suicide, whatever the reason. What the militant wings preach is not what the majority follow. What I was pointing out is that the word "martyr" has gained a bad connotation because it's been wrongly associated with suicide-attacks, or attacks where one's own death is expected. You yourself pointed out that it's deeper than that. It requires that you die bearing witness to your own beliefs (usually religious) in a just fight.

If your fight is a just fight, if it's your beliefs that you are fighting for, and you die, you are a martyr. Then again, I'm also reminded of the phrase "Martyr is another name for crappy fighter."

-B

The radicalized Islamist are the ones that are killing innocents, which is why I stand behind my original post. The term marytr for better or worse changed meaning on Sept. 11, 2001 to all in the western world.

stormbringerr · June 2nd, 2008, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kerbouchard

Looking at the Katrina nightmare and some of the other threads, it seems a popular statement is 'They can have my guns when they pry them from my cold, dead hands'. While I certainly feel strongly about the issue, but I don't know if I feel that strongly about it.

In New Orleans, what they did was certainly unconstitutional, and while I would be very opposed to relinquishing any of my weapons, I am not sure how I could resist or even if I would. I imagine the officers were not open to a discussion on ConLaw, and I have had on occasion the unfortunate circumstance where an on site LEO and me have had disagreements about what the law clearly said. In that circumstance, I went along with the LEO, with Yes, sir's and No, sirs, and we sorted it out later, and it worked out just fine. This situation doesn't seem to be one where you can agree to disagree and work it out later, because the fact of the matter is you either disarm yourself in a dangerous situation, or you keep your arms and put yourself in a more dangerous situation where you are now effectively resisting LE while they are in the commission of their duties.

For instance, in TX, even if it is blatantly an unlawful search ,seizure, or arrest, you cannot resist the search and seizure, as that would be illegal. The only time you could resist is if the officer used unprovoked force that was greater than necessary to carry out that search, seizure or arrest.

So, I guess my point/question is, there really isn't anything I can think of to stop somebody from unlawfully confiscating any or all of my weapons. I understand after the N.O. fiasco, most LE probably recieved more training, but it's worrisome to know that even in hindsight, I don't have any better answers about what to do, than what they were forced to do when it happened.

have you ever read the book(thank god i had a gun) by chris bird? the story that takes place in N.O. during and after katrina? those people are lucky they kept their guns.they also hid a lot of the neighbors guns by request.i don't let anyone know about all my guns

rdoggsilva · June 2nd, 2008, 03:32 AM

What we did in 1774 was considered a illegal rebellion by the British. Read the Federalist Papers also what our founding father had to say about a rebellion against the Federal Gov.

BAC · June 2nd, 2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by airbornerangerboogie

The radicalized Islamist are the ones that are killing innocents, which is why I stand behind my original post. The term marytr for better or worse changed meaning on Sept. 11, 2001 to all in the western world.

Again incorrect. Suicide terrorism kills innocents regardless of who does it, and the Islamic fundamentalists simply don't top the list. I highly recommend Rober Pape's "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism." Religion is not a dominant factor in those who commit suicide attacks, and of those who do employ suicide terrorism the Tamil Tigers of Sri Lanka (Marxist secular group) are considered the world leaders. The two largest Islamic states were responsible for none (read: zero) of the 400+ suicide attacks during the 1980 to 2004 period the book addresses.

That it's a popular notion doesn't make it correct, and the American public has a nasty habit of being a bit behind the curve on this subject.

-B

June 2nd, 2008, 03:32 AM	#139
rdoggsilva Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Utah Posts: 591	What we did in 1774 was considered a illegal rebellion by the British. Read the Federalist Papers also what our founding father had to say about a rebellion against the Federal Gov. __________________ John Steinbeck: Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he's too old to fight, he'll just kill you.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode