Classic self-defense: African villagers arm themselves with homemade weapons

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/african-village-vs-rape-cult/all/1

This really distills the essence of what being armed is all about, and what the consequences are when you have no means to defend yourself.

The people of Obo used to be at the mercy of the LRA, who would raid villages with machetes, kidnapping the boys and girls of the village. The boys would be brainwashed and made to fight, while the girls would be used for sexual trophies and breeding stock.

The people of Obo, too poor to purchase weapons, made their own home-made shotguns and ammunition.

THIS IS THE RIGHT OF ALL PEOPLE EVERYWHERE!

Everyone deserves the right to have tools to stand up against those who would attack them, without having to resort to a physical contest of strength. Everyone. No one should be left at the mercy of anyone stronger than they are that chooses to abuse them.

Anyone who is against the right of people to keep and bear arms is positively and absolutely for allowing weaker people to forever be at the mercy of stronger people who choose to abuse them.

It's as simple as that.

[ileus]

1. Don't the realize guns don't solve conflicts?

[lawodevolution]

2. They should make an example and die rather than touching a.... A......... GUN.

[ileus]

8. BradyCo. didn't tell them guns kill people? LOL

[Euromutt]

3. I have one major objection to this article

It's this passage:

But there’s a downside to DIY security. In arming itself and taking on intelligence tasks, Obo is essentially giving up on ever receiving help from Central African Republic’s impoverished government. That can only further undermine the government’s tenuous legitimacy — and could fuel wider instability in the future.

You can't jeopardize what doesn't exist. If the CAR government is unable to protect its citizens from thuggish cults like the LRA, any perceived stability resulting from its perceived legitimacy is just that: perceived. It's an illusion, and I for one find the idea the private citizens protecting themselves is bad thing because it threatens an illusory legitimacy on the part of their government to be repulsive in the extreme.

And yet this idea is remarkably commonplace. We find it back in Ramsey Clark's Crime in America (1971), in which Clark argues that an armed citizenry is an insult to government on the basis that a "state in which a citizen needs a gun to protect himself from crime has failed to perform its first purpose." We see it every time someone cites Somalia as an example on this board. This is cargo cult thinking, believing that attempting "to recreate successful outcomes by replicating conditions associated with those outcomes, even though those conditions are either effects and not causes of those outcomes"; that by restricting citizens' ability to use force in self-defense, you'll magically eradicate the reason they want to be able to defend themselves in the first place.

At the end of the day, to paraphrase Jefferson, "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" to secure the rights of the governed. Government exists to serve its citizens, not the other way round.

ETA: While I applaud the efforts to provide the people of Obo with a better radio and connect them to a wider intelligence-sharing network, intel is of limited use if you don't have the means to act upon it. Somebody needs to run these people a few crates of inexpensive but decent quality hunting guns, and the ammunition to operate them; after the threat passes, they can use them to hunt for food.

[gejohnston]

4. or a good battle rifle that could serve both purposes?

like the FN/FAL, which I understand were pretty common in Africa at one time.

[Euromutt]

10. I was thinking Remington 870 Express shotguns and 7600 rifles

They have the advantage that they're operated in very similar fashion, both pump-action with the cross-bolt safety in the same place, which would make instruction easier, and the fact that they're primarily civilian hunting weapons (albeit chambered for "military" calibers) would make them a bit more "politically correct" than dedicated military weapons like FALs. Moreover, with synthetic furniture they'll be both durable and inexpensive.

[Atypical Liberal]

5. I agree.

I agree, but I'd say that most of the stability of civilization is perceived and illusory.

[krispos42]

7. Lee-Enfields and plenty of ammo.

Teach them to shot accurately and snipe the hell out of any murderous group that shows up.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. A government-minded brain-fart:

...Clark argues that an armed citizenry is an insult to government...

I can think of fewer more repugnant ideas than that. :puke:

As I see it, the more often the government is INSULTED the less often the people are ASSAULTED.

[Euromutt]

26. Government isn't a natural person; it can't be insulted

For what it's worth, Clark's assertion that "a state in which a citizen needs a gun to protect himself from crime has failed to perform its first purpose" is entirely correct. Providing protection to the citizenry is the first purpose of the state. Where he goes wrong is in thinking that the citizen needing a gun for self-protection is the cause, rather than the symptom.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

35. Absolutely. On target, as usual.

I will add that the protection of individual rights, such as the right to protect one's self, is at the top of the list.

If the murder rate would be reduced by 50% should all civilian firearms be banned, this would be highly unacceptable.

"You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
It is better to die in a struggle for freedom than to live in bondage. Churchill said that. Wallace said that before Churchill and Leonidas said it before that. Someone also said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to relive its mistakes.

[DWC]

6. These people have earned my ultimate respect

They are doing everything in their power to defend their homes; their families; and their lives. I am researching methods to support their cause.

Thank you for this post.

Semper Fi,

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Hoyt]

11. Do you honestly feel at mercy of something like the LRA if you had to leave your guns at home?

[gejohnston]

12. Umm no, I don't think anyone said that. But

it is worth discussing in the broader context. On the other hand, the way Rick Scott is fucking up the state...............................

[Atypical Liberal]

14. About 1.3 million people in the US think so.

In 2009, there were 1.3 million violent crimes in the United States. Violent crime is violent crime, and it happens all over the world.

I don't carry concealed weapons, mostly because my two primary destinations outside the home, work and university, don't allow firearms, which means I would have to leave them in my vehicle, which I think is unsafe.

But it is undeniably true that when I am unarmed, whether in my home or outside of it, I am at the mercy of anyone stronger than I am who wishes to assault me.

The right of self-defense is a universal right. No one should have to resort to a physical contest of strength to defend themselves, and people who think this is acceptable should be ashamed of themselves.

[HankyDubs]

15. somehow I manage

Yeah I manage to go everywhere I wish to go, without living in terror because I don't have a gun.

You should try living without irrational fear. It's fun!

[X_Digger]

19. Projection again? Telepsychology?

Did the hat come with the costume, or did you have to make it yourself?

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

39. Dang, I missed the wharrgarble from 'Name Removed'.. *sadface* n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

30. Be Prepared.

somehow I manage Yeah I manage to go everywhere I wish to go, without living in terror because I don't have a gun.

And I fully respect you choice to go about unarmed if you so desire. All I ask is the same respect in return for people who choose to go about armed if they so desire.

You should try living without irrational fear. It's fun!

Ah, the old "irrational fear" canard.

I am extremely unlikely to have a house fire, and I never have experienced one in all my 40 years. Yet I have homeowner's insurance, smoke detectors, and fire extinguishers.

I have been in two car accidents in my life, yet I still wear seat belts every time I get in my car.

I have never had a flat tire, yet I carry a spare and a jack in my car.

I've only ever locked my keys in my car once, yet I still have a roadside assistance plan.

I've never been a victim of carbon monoxide poisoning, yet I still have carbon monoxide detectors.

We do all of these kinds of things not out of an irrational fear, but because the remedies for these unlikely situations are simple and inexpensive to procure. Since the cost of the tools is so low, and the consequences of not having the tools in the rare case they are needed, it is simply prudent to avail oneself to the tools.

But I fully respect people who make the choice not to do so.

[Hoyt]

20. People attracted to guns as equalizers should be ashamed too -- especially when it's overkill.

[Euromutt]

22. I'll think about it, when you give a rational, objective explanation why.

I'm not holding my breath, though.

[PavePusher]

33. I get a chuckle out of the "overkill" characterization.

He seems to imply that the Citizenry owes the criminal a sporting chance.

What an odd, twisted, disfunctional idea.


http://store.schlockmercenary.com/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=P-R37

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. re: an odd, twisted, disfunctional idea

Giving "a sporting chance" to the criminals. Wrong.

rule #13: In combat, there are no rules, always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.

;)

[Atypical Liberal]

31. Absolute BULL SHIT.

Guns ARE equalizers. Ask the villagers of Obo. Ask them to feel ashamed for standing up to knife-wielding cultists kidnapping their children using firearms.

When it comes to protecting my children, there is no fucking "overkill".

[Euromutt]

23. Of course not, but the difference is a matter of degree, not principle

PolSci 101: authority is the legitimate exercise of power, and the legitimizing factor is that that power is yoked to responsibility.

A government that refuses to accept responsibility for protecting its individual citizens, and liability for failing to do so, thereby abdicates the authority to deprive those citizens of the means to defend themselves.

Whether those citizens need to defend themselves against murderous cults like the LRA or against muggers is merely a matter of degree. The principle is the same.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[friendly_iconoclast]

17. I take it we can put you in the "an armed citizenry is an insult to government" camp?

Bigotry- It's what's for dinner!

[HankyDubs]

18. i take it I can put you in the "make some shit up camp"

Bigotry, again with this hilarious charge. Oh the poor oppressed white suburban gun owner! Let's compare his plight to people who actually have been subjected to bigotry...and then have a good larf.

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[gejohnston]

21. you do a good job of making shit up along the guy that

really thought you can buy a machine gun at Wal Mart

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

25. sshhhh....

...I've got this bridge I wanted to sell him...

[HankyDubs]

28. so, no actual defense offered

the idea that gun owners face "bigotry" is completely preposterous. Compare that to people who actually face bigotry (many at the hands of gun owners). What a fucking joke.

I wanted to sell you guys a bridge, but it seems you already "own" one. It's called the "Duh Scury Gubbermint Gunna Take Are Guns" Memorial.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

24. Let's compare some privileged, pretty white women to those African villagers, shall we?

Let's say that a particular girl from the village is kidnapped, raped, and killed. That is terrible, an affront to humanity and a crime to be defended against with force, up to and including potentially deadly force.

Now let's consider the victims of a non-bigoted (at least racially) criminal:

Bundy was superficially handsome, charming and charismatic, and used these qualities to full advantage.<6><7><8> All of his known victims were attractive young women and girls who usually had long, straight hair, parted in the middle. He usually approached them in public places and gained their trust by feigning injuries or disabilities, or by impersonating an authority figure. He would then overpower and restrain them. Most were sexually assaulted and murdered at a secondary site. On a few occasions he simply broke into dwellings in the dead of night and bludgeoned the victims as they slept. He sometimes revisited his secondary crime scenes for hours at a time, grooming and performing sexual acts with the corpses, until they reached an advanced state of decomposition. He decapitated a number of victims and kept several heads in his apartment as mementos of his crimes.<9>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy

These women, at least the white ones, were not the victims of racial bigotry (unless, of course, you want to make the case that Bundy was racially prejudiced against his own race).

Are we to conclude that these white women had it coming for not being racially oppressed minorities--that they deserved to be overpowered, restrained, raped, and murdered?!! Are their lives and physical integrity of less value because they are middle or upper class members of the dominant society on earth? Are they exceptions to the equality of humanity?

It this what progressive or liberal thinking has become? Do liberals now believe that all people appropriately oppressed minorities are created equal?! Really?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[gejohnston]

32. and you are not Noam Chomsky nt

[TPaine7]

36. Aaaaargh!

I missed Name Removed's comment. Name Removed has such interesting things to say. I wonder what Name Removed's point was here?

Maybe Name Removed (or someone else) can give me the gist of it.

[oneshooter]

37. Name removed does a lot of posting here. n/t