CajunBass
Member
Well, perhaps you've grown bored with the struggle, but not all of us have.
What is MOAON AABE?
- Thread starter Electrified
- Start date
- Status
Well, perhaps you've grown bored with the struggle, but not all of us have.
CNYCacher
Member
Someone who actually can translate it was on the board not too long ago, asking what Molon Labe meant, and offering his best translation. The best he could come up with was "Having come, do take" with a defiant or challenging tone. From that he pretty much determined what it meant to the gun culture, and was just checking if he was right.
I can't find the post or I would link it for you, THR search engine threw out "having", "do" and "take" as "too common".
svtruth
Member
Juist before the Alamo
the Texians had a cannon, and a flag that said "come and get it"
the Texians had a cannon, and a flag that said "come and get it"
Full Clip
Member
I've seen "300," and it is far more "Lord of the Rings" and "Matrix"-like than historical drama, but the core theme of "few standing against many" comes through loud and clear. Excellent battle scenes for those who like that stuff. I do wish the film was more accurate/realistic, but creativity is okay too... Maybe is will be a hit and somebody will do a film entitled "300 Spartans: The True Story." I'm sure The History Channel might do some programming to tie-in with the film's release...
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
.
benEzra
Moderator Emeritus
Пάλιν δ̀ὲ̀ του̑ Ξέρξου γράψαντος 'πέµψον τὰ ὅπλα' ἀντέγραψε 'µολὼν λαβέ'
To Xerxes' demand, "Hand over your arms," [Leonidas] retorted,"come and get them."
(Plutarch, Moralia, III, Apophthegmata Laconica, "Sayings of Spartans")
To Xerxes' demand, "Hand over your arms," [Leonidas] retorted,"come and get them."
(Plutarch, Moralia, III, Apophthegmata Laconica, "Sayings of Spartans")
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
Spoken like a true patriot. Not. (Read below.)
Nothing of the sort. Your logic is flawed. But I'm not going to waste time educating you in syllogistic reasoning.
I'll merely say that the above Greek quote has been used by armchair commandos so much that it is nothing more than a cliche.
Tattoos used to be distinctive. Now even fat, middle aged mothers have them and they've become mundane, at best.
Likewise with the topic under discussion, which, by the way, has nothing to do with our 2nd amendment struggle.
I do not challenge the govt to "try and take my guns." I send money and votes to protect my rights.
But if they outlaw private ownership of guns, make no mistake, you lose. You will, like the rest, turn them over. Reluctantly, but you will surrender.
And if you think that you are going to repel the black mask LEO/military troops, you're delusional.
(Edited to add)
Just so I'm not misunderstood. We cherish our 2A rights. But by the time you come into the situation of having to make good your boast, "come and get them", we've lost. It's over.
That's why the mere phrase is no more than a cliche. It's message is only valid after we've lost the fight.
You really want to protect your 2A rights? Join the NRA. I don't care whether you agree with every point they make, or not. They are still the big dog in the meat house. And they make congress fear. But don't just join. Send $$$ for the legal fights.
Write your elected reps. Do not email. It doesn't carry the same weight. And when you write, try to make it look presentable. A letter that is full of spelling/grammatical/syntax errors won't carry much weight.
And get involved supporting pro 2A candidates.
Merely having some obscure tattoo on your backside doesn't do the cause much good.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Cosmoline
Member
P&R, I've heard the exact same arguments from hundreds of antis over the years. They use these claims to support their theory that in the modern world, small arms are absolutely useless against the power of the state. If you people were correct, how do you explain the many examples in the modern world of armed rebels and insurgents driving out vastly superior forces? Moreover, on what basis do you conclude that we would all surrender? Why do you challenge us to say things on line that must never be spelled out? What is your goal here?
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
To get us involved in a meaningful way. If many of us, if any of us, simply console ourselves re the future of the 2A with cliches like, "I'll give up my guns when they pry them from my cold dead fingers" or "Come and get them", then we're not accomplishing anything.
In fact, the above sounds fanatical and irrational, and does our cause harm. I'd rather such drama queens didn't own firearms in the first place.
I could care less whether you are offended. It matters nothing to me. But if you think a populace armed with conventional firearms can repel modern govt combat troops, you're delusional. You say otherwise? References, please.
The fight is now. But to sit back and spout these platitudes over the net, meanwhile doing nothing else, is useless.
You want the above slogans as tattoos? Fine. You want to sound tough over the net. That's fine, too.
But while you're playing these games, do some serious good by sending a generous contribution to the NRA. They're the only game in town.
Anything else is purely academic.
Cosmoline
Member
I see what you're trying to get at, and I agree the effort should be at changing things here and now rather than day dreaming about some future civil war.
But to challenge people by claiming they are full of hot air and really would comply with some Australian style gun ban is both something you can't really know and extremely dangerous. This is not the time nor place to be spelling out how the black flag would be raised.
Moreover, while the threat of revolt may seem purile and will probably never come to pass, it serves an important purpose. Our enemy must be kept in fear of such a potential. Our fellow shooters in the UK and down under really were a completely harmless minority. They always made a point of stressing how law abiding they were, and never threatened anything like civil unrest. And look what happened to them. The vague threat of horrible things can be a useful political tool, and that's what molon labe is all about. It raises the potential costs of a sweeping federal gun ban, both in dollars and manpower.
Put another way, King needed his Malcom X and Ghandi would never have had his way if millions of his compatriots weren't ready to start lining Brits against the nearest wall. Contrary to the touchy-feely version of civil protest, it's only ever the threat of something far worse that forces the enemy to back down and accept compromise. Lord knows the antis do it to us all the time.
As far as what exactly anyone would do, none of us can answer. Least of all those who would actually pose a serious danger to the state. So it's not too fruitful to go challenging the notion.
But to challenge people by claiming they are full of hot air and really would comply with some Australian style gun ban is both something you can't really know and extremely dangerous. This is not the time nor place to be spelling out how the black flag would be raised.
Moreover, while the threat of revolt may seem purile and will probably never come to pass, it serves an important purpose. Our enemy must be kept in fear of such a potential. Our fellow shooters in the UK and down under really were a completely harmless minority. They always made a point of stressing how law abiding they were, and never threatened anything like civil unrest. And look what happened to them. The vague threat of horrible things can be a useful political tool, and that's what molon labe is all about. It raises the potential costs of a sweeping federal gun ban, both in dollars and manpower.
Put another way, King needed his Malcom X and Ghandi would never have had his way if millions of his compatriots weren't ready to start lining Brits against the nearest wall. Contrary to the touchy-feely version of civil protest, it's only ever the threat of something far worse that forces the enemy to back down and accept compromise. Lord knows the antis do it to us all the time.
As far as what exactly anyone would do, none of us can answer. Least of all those who would actually pose a serious danger to the state. So it's not too fruitful to go challenging the notion.
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
Code:
So it's not too fruitful to go challenging the notion.Even less so to wait until the troops are at the door before we act.
I heard this same rhetoric when I was living in California prior to their own AWB. At the gun stores, the range, the survivalist meetings, et al, they voiced a similarly militant mentality.
They were as meek as lambs when the law passed. Gave up their rights, too. At least one of them gave up his guns trying to fight.
It's human nature. If, when the chips are down, you take up arms to fight, figure on pretty much standing alone. Modern man doesn't have the stomach for a duel.
That's why I say fanaticism before the fact is critical. Money and votes are the only thing we can depend upon.
BTW, I'm still waiting for some references where a modern populace, in a western country, has successfully repelled a well armed govt force.
Re the above, particularly in America. Our military has conquered two countries, destroyed the Taliban and brought down a well fortified dictator. You honestly think you and your friends could withstand such a force?
theres a differance here. The Iraqi's, the Taliban. they are "the others" they are strange, differant, unpredictable and refuse to fall into the classification we give them. we see what they do and use our differances as an excuse to allow conflict ( emotionaly and mentaly) I dont feel many Officers or Soldiers will be as willing to launch operations against thier brothers and sisters. we are now begining to see Officers refuse orders. we are begining to see officers refuse to fight.
we civilians could never defeat the US Military in a traditional conventional war. but so long as we can stand the initial wave. and so long as we stand tall enough that the government will stumble as they try to walk over us, i have a feeling support among both the population and those in the field.
its like i always say. when your right. you dont have to win, you just have to survive
(oh, and im not one of the people who believes there will be a second civil war.)
well thats my one serious contribution to THR this year. im gunna go back to making arguements and pointless questions
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
You're willing to risk the future of the second amendment on "your feelings?"
I'm not.
Get involved now. Don't hope that, if such laws pass, the LEOs/soldiers will simply choose to not enforce said laws.
Again. Send $$$ to the NRA. If you're not a member, join. And contact your political candidates. This is the only strategy that's going to save us.
murphyslaw84
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6
From what I have seen history show so far, confiscation of guns is a major step in absolute ruling of a people. I do vote, write letters, give money to the NRA. But I don't think all of that will matter in the end. The government is not about rule of the people anymore. It has turned into an elitist government where those who have money to throw weight around and launch huge campaigns have the advantage. TV, radio etc. are out of reach for the common man. We are backed into a corner where we would rather not vote for anyone running, but try to pick the lesser of evils.
YOU may hand over your firearms reluctantly, but as far as I am concerned, some things are worth dying for.
Cliched as the phrase may be, it stirs something inside of me when I think of those 300 who, facing certain death, still defiantly stood.
Live free or die.
PinnedAndRecessed
member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2004
- Messages
- 1,541
Well, we'll just pray it never comes to that.
scout26
Member
The Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto started out with just 6 firearms, 4 were pistols, IIRC. When the Poles took on the German Army in '44 they were much better armed. (Plus they were hopeful the Soviets would cross the Vistula and lend them a hand.)
While they didn't win, they initially repel them and hold out for almost a month and give the Germans one helluva fight. They lost only because the Germans systematically burned the ghetto.
While I normally don't care for Wikipedia, this is a pretty good summary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising
The US Holocaust Musuem is another good source:
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/index.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005188
Cosmoline
Member
See Iraq
See Afghanistan
See Lebanon
See West Bank & Gaza Strip
See Chechnya
See Sudan
See Niger Delta
See South Vietnam
See Nicaragua
Etc. etc.
- Status
