Lethal Force in Defense of Life/Rights

[Dale Rabideau]

This question comes out of my reading and discussion of "Atlas Shrugged" - see previous thread in this forum.

Dagny did not use lethal force until Galt was being tortured.

With the demonization of gun owners becoming more main stream; with the increasing restrictions and registration of firearms at all levels of government; when should we use lethal force in defense of our life(style)/Rights from government oppression?

Never?
When they come to take our guns?
When they try to kill us for having guns?
Or do we just leave society for other places (countries) that are more open to our convictions and let this society go its increasingly oppressive way?

 

[TEX]

Dale,

Which other countries would you suggest? The only country that I am pretty sure has fewer and fairer gun laws than the US is Switzerland (maybe?), but I heard that pressure is being put on them via United Nations to make thier laws more restrictive. Please list those counties where gun owners would be better off. I am not trying to be mean, I would really like to know. I heard that the Phillipines (sp?) has almost zero gun laws (full auto & silencers no big deal), but have not run into anyone that can verify this.

Every country we can list that has fewer gun laws and less crime to go along with it, is ammo in our argument bag.



[This message has been edited by TEX (edited June 21, 1999).]

 

[Bruce from West Oz]

Where were you going to go?????

The USA was (is) the last bastion of the type of freedom we all hold so dear.

Switzerland? -- under huge pressure from the "Euro" community.

South Africa? -- on the verge of being "closed down". And in any case, I want a gun because I enjoy it, not because I need it just to survive on a daily basis!!

No, America to many people who feel as we at TFL do was a bit like the light The Lady holds aloft -- a beacon of freedom. Now, it seems, the beacon is flickering.

B

 

[DC]

The fact that the Euros are trying to pressure Switzerland into gun restriction is very telling:

Why? The Swiss have negligable crime and gun related accidents. They are so responsible and well behaved that its almost as if they didn't have guns at all. So, why are the Euros bugging them? It certainly isn't a safety issue.
Think about it

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Well, DC, I'm sure the Euro's (and many other anti's) are embarrassed intellectually by the Swiss. They're setting a 'bad' example. But, you knew that.

And Dale, actually an in depth discussion of your question is exactly what would make our government lurkers nervous. And, with some good reason. We do still have a great country in many ways, and we can discuss almost anything. But, when the conversation turns to violence, it enters a dangerous arena. Personally, I feel we have a long road of civil disobedience ahead of us, not violence.

 

[Dale Rabideau]

Which country has their civilian population armed? Besides the ones mentioned, I have heard Israel has many civilians armed. I am still developing my thinking on this question of being disarmed by the government. Would I and my family move to a more RKBA friendly country even if it were more unstable security wise? I would like to think yes, since rights and freedom are more important than safety in my book.

I am looking at http://www.escapeartist.com / for information on other countries. The constitutions are in the indigenous language which makes it difficult to find out their position on firearms. Probably the quickest way is to email the embassies with specific questions about RKBA.

I realize advocating violence is not PC, even if it is for the constitutionally guarranteed right to firearms for self-defense. My question was concerning defensive action on one's private property, not offensive violent attacks against government people or buildings.

I don't think there are many individuals who are willing to die to defend their RKBA. I would guess that few people will even leave CA in order to own and use and AR when they become illegal in the near future.

 

[Solitar]

belatedly to Dale, et al.

when should we use lethal force in defense of our life(style)/Rights from government oppression?
Never?
When they come to take our guns?
When they try to kill us for having guns?
Or do we just leave society for other places (countries) that are more open to our convictions and let this society go its increasingly oppressive way?

In my experience trying to defend people's rights from my city council chair -- and receiving scant support from less than one in three hundred of local residents -- I predict the American populace will roll over and surrender to increasing socialist oppression. They're being conditioned to that from preschool. They've been conditioned to innumerable infringements on their present rights and way of life --permits to work on your house,to have a lemonade stand, or to carry a pocket knife.

The answer to the above "should" is #3. But realistically it will end up #1 because the trap and target shooters and hunters will just turn their guns in -- just like they voted for Gore. Sure some will bury or hide their guns but the degree of registration soon coming will unearth those guns. They will give themselves away when they buy a box of ammo -- which will again require signing a book and require a permit for a registered gun that uses that ammo. No? Britain does that now. California, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland and other states won't be far behind.

As to Dagny's use of lethal force to rescue someone - many of us here would do the same but we are a fraction of a percent of American gunowners (maybe a hundred thousand out of "eighty million". Witness the number of people who stand around and watch while someone else gets beaten to death -- even when it is a classmate in school or domestic violence involving the death of a relative.