New Libyan Govt. to People: Turn in your Firearms

[BigDaddyAl]

I heard this story on NPR this morning (yeah, I know, NPR = liberal bias, blah, blah, blah). They have the audio transcript online, but not the text yet, so here's my attempt at creating a partial transcript based on the audio (I'm sure I got the spelling of the names wrong).

<snip>

Before the uprising began last February, few Libyans were allowed to carry a weapon; even those in the military had restricted access. Now officials say almost every Libyan has a gun, and that reality could threaten Libya's stability.

<snip>

Ibrahim Najam . . . says he's had this gun since joining the fight in February. Like many of the weapons here, he got it from Gaddafi's troops when he and others drove them out earlier this year. His Kalashnikov never leaves his side, but Najam says he'll have no problem giving it up if asked. He explains that guns are for military men and not for civilians like him.

Fellow fighter Abel Affifi agrees . . . The 35-year-old says stability in the new Libya will depend on people giving up their arms. He says he's prepared to hand over his heavy weapon as soon as Gaddafi is caught. That attitude is what rebel leaders are hoping for as they figure out how best to reclaim the guns and heavy weapons now on Libya's streets.

[The head of the rebel transitional council] made this appeal at a recent news conference. "The heroic youth fought epic battles," he said, "and those youth must assure the world that they will lay down their arms as soon as the conflict ends."

Shamsadeen Ben-Ali is the council's chief spokesman. "What would a person want to do with an automatic weapon such as a Kalashnikov other than have possible other intentions, so most people will be advised to turn it in."

<snip>

But Ben-Ali predics that there will likely be some troublemakers who will hang on to the guns they have. "They will have a grace period to turn their weapons in. After that anybody found with a heavy weapon will face the full force of the law."


The Rebel Military spokesman Col. Achmed Banni is more optimistic. He believes that tribal elders will bring pressure on their clan members to cooperate.

<snip>

Banni adds even he has never carried a weapon during his 30 year military career. He says Gaddafi wouldn't allow it. "Before it was forbidden to have a gun. Forbidden why? Not because Muammar Gaddafi he likes the people to be unsafe. No, no. Because he doesn't want anybody to have the gun because he is afraid of that gun. Maybe they will shoot him or something like that." He adds that in the future the new government might allow Libyan's to own handguns if they register them. But other than that, weapons will only be given to policemen and soldiers answering to the new Libyan government, Banni says.

<snip>

Achmed Abdul Wahab works at a cafe in downtown Benghazi. He says a lot of his friends have guns and that money might induce some to return them to the new government. But he adds that others want to keep their guns as a memento or just to fire them into the air at parties.

Link to the full story

Although there is certainly bias in this article, I think it is important to reinforce several larger points. First, government is government is government. Many (most?) dictators, rebels, and duly elected officials will do whatever they can to stay in power. This new government is doing the same thing that Gaddafi did by taking away the guns so that the citizen's can't overthrow them.

Second, if Libyan's couldn't trust Gaddafi, why should they trust this new government. It was sad and scary to hear the Colonel recognize that Gaddafi took away guns because he was afraid of the people, but at the same time have no problem with telling the people to turn them in. I am hopeful that there are many Libyan's that don't just want to keep their guns to shoot in the air at parties.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

 

[MichaelJR]

Good let them go full retard. Proves our point right when they are under authoritarian control again in 5 years. Apparently it's not just liberals that drink the dummy juice.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

I don't care about any of that. I just want to know how much of our tax dollars Ubama will give to the next dictator over there. Jack.

 

[cekim]

I've always wondered/shook my head at this "turn in your arms" thing...

Good luck with that...

I hope people are paying attention to what's going on there, but I know they aren't. [sad2]

"...doomed to repeat it..."

 

[Dench]

Eh, no ones going to turn the guns in. Nothing like a bribe to pay the police off when you get caught with one either.

That place is a mess, from start to finish. It made a fool out of NATO. It took down the stable force that kept that dump together. It put potentially 20,000 surface to air rocket launchers into the public's hands, some of who are the same insurgents America fought in Iraq.

Libya does not yearn for Democracy. It may say that, but in reality its a clan society where there is no such thing as patriotism for ones country.

 

[cekim]

That place is a mess, from start to finish. It made a fool out of NATO. It took down the stable force that kept that dump together. It put potentially 20,000 surface to air rocket launchers into the public's hands, some of who are the same insurgents America fought in Iraq.

I think NATO should have stayed out of it, but as for "stability," I don't see anything lost there...

In the long run, we are better off not propping up these strong men and letting them squabble over sand amongst themselves...

I don't believe in "peace at any cost." It is too expensive...

 

[Dench]

I think NATO should have stayed out of it, but as for "stability," I don't see anything lost there...

In the long run, we are better off not propping up these strong men and letting them squabble over sand amongst themselves...

I don't believe in "peace at any cost." It is too expensive...

Its real hypocritical for NATO to take shots at Libya and not Syria. The same shits going on over there and you dont see anyone interested in that place. Maybe oil is the key word. What a joke.

 

[cekim]

Its real hypocritical for NATO to take shots at Libya and not Syria. The same shits going on over there and you dont see anyone interested in that place. Maybe oil is the key word. What a joke.

agreed x1000

If we are bombing Libya, we should be bombing Syria.

Frankly, we should have been doing that anyway.

Not to achieve anything in particular, just 'cause.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

They are turning them in, bullets first.

 

[Madball13]

Its real hypocritical for NATO to take shots at Libya and not Syria. The same shits going on over there and you dont see anyone interested in that place. Maybe oil is the key word. What a joke.

Exactly and even better look who spearheaded the effort in Libya, now cross reference the list of importers of Libyan oil.

 

[calsdad]

I heard this story on NPR this morning (yeah, I know, NPR = liberal bias, blah, blah, blah). They have the audio transcript online, but not the text yet, so here's my attempt at creating a partial transcript based on the audio (I'm sure I got the spelling of the names wrong).



Link to the full story

Although there is certainly bias in this article, I think it is important to reinforce several larger points. First, government is government is government. Many (most?) dictators, rebels, and duly elected officials will do whatever they can to stay in power. This new government is doing the same thing that Gaddafi did by taking away the guns so that the citizen's can't overthrow them.

Second, if Libyan's couldn't trust Gaddafi, why should they trust this new government. It was sad and scary to hear the Colonel recognize that Gaddafi took away guns because he was afraid of the people, but at the same time have no problem with telling the people to turn them in. I am hopeful that there are many Libyan's that don't just want to keep their guns to shoot in the air at parties.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

There's a decent amount of stories out there about how extensive the involvement of Western countries (Europe and the US) - has been in the Libyan uprising. There's also people claiming that Western countries got involved - because they want access to Libyan oil and so forth. The fact that the "rebels" established a central bank - and corporations are already signing contracts for access to Libyan oil might lead some people to believe all of that is true.

When the Libyans have their " meet the new boss - same as the old boss " moment, do you really think the new boss is going to want all of them to have guns?

It's funny how everybody talks about how bad Saddam Hussein was - yet my understanding was that an awful lot of Iraqis had weapons in their home. I remember reading stories about how American troops had a policy of allowing 1 weapon in a home - but they would confiscate anything over that.

 

[Jose]

Eh, no ones going to turn the guns in. Nothing like a bribe to pay the police off when you get caught with one either.

That place is a mess, from start to finish. It made a fool out of NATO. It took down the stable force that kept that dump together. It put potentially 20,000 surface to air rocket launchers into the public's hands, some of who are the same insurgents America fought in Iraq.

Libya does not yearn for Democracy. It may say that, but in reality its a clan society where there is no such thing as patriotism for ones country.

This

F, it's like that virtually everywhere in the middle east with the possible exception of Turkey.

 

[calsdad]

I work with a bunch of smelly surrender monkey Eastern Eurofags who've been trashing everything about America since we invaded Iraq, - while simultaneously profiting from their business enterprises here that would have been taxed out of existence in their native shitholes.

"What right does American have to kill Iraqis for something as trivial as oil?!? No blood for oil!" and all that kind of jingoistic crap.

Well they did a complete 180 on Libya and insisted that America should get more involved because Europe depends on Lybia's oil.

I'm like: " America? Seriously, dudes? If you guys depend on it, why don't you go fight for it. Oh yeah... you only have one freaking Mig 17 and it's been broken since the Soviets left. And you're idea of an operation is getting hopped up on slivovitz and sneaking out of Budapest to hump a bunch of goats before Victor and Vladd chase you off with hayforks."

Their comments are especially retarded because I bet Iraq exports more oil to the EU than they do to the US. I think Europe depends heavily on Russian oil exports. Apparently these guys have no problems sending money back to a country that until recently completely dominated their country and was sending it's soldiers out to hump their goats.

 

[ARV]

Its real hypocritical for NATO to take shots at Libya and not Syria. The same shits going on over there and you dont see anyone interested in that place. Maybe oil is the key word. What a joke.

I think it has something to do with Qaddafi's shirts. That was a war crime all on its own.

 

[xtry51]

SSDD, you can't give freedom to those who don't want it.

The old you can lead a horse to water.... People in that region don't want freedom or anything resembling it. They just want their guy in power. That's the way it's always been and will always be.

 

[el duderino]

Let them turn their guns in, theyll regret it in 3 years when theyre ready to revolt again.

 

[Dench]

Let them turn their guns in, theyll regret it in 3 years when theyre ready to revolt again.

I'll be very surprised if the new .gov isnt as bad or worse than the old one was. The only way to keep that type of population under control is the constant threat of extreme violence. The culture is violent by default, and a gentle loving democracy isnt exactly what those people are used to.

It took years for the former Yugoslavia to figure out what the hell to do with it self when that country fell, and those people arent 1/10th as clanish or separated as the people in Africa or the Middle East /Afghanistan are.

People, western europe and Amerians especially, need to realise that not everyone is the same, and that some people are so backwards from what we consider normal that we shouldnt even try to relate to them, never mind force our type of government on them.

 

[cekim]

People, western europe and Amerians especially, need to realise that not everyone is the same, and that some people are so backwards from what we consider normal that we shouldnt even try to relate to them, never mind force our type of government on them.

We are rediscovering that reality even in the US... It's a painful lesson quickly forgotten in the face of a common enemy.

The people with delusional visions of utopian central governments also throw tempertantrums when reminded of this reality... They get their way for a long while in the face of an "external" or "common" threat and then once that threat is overcome, people once again start to think about the specifics of what government is doing to them and they get pissed.

There is one and only one answer whether here or there and it is limited, decentralized government. All politicians hate this. Liberals hate it. Economists hate it. Tyrants hate it too...

 

[beaker]

Yes, thank you brave freedom fighters for taking up arms and bleeding and dieing for our freedom. The evil dictator is defeated. Now that we are in power turn in your guns and go home or we will prosecute you to the full extent of the laws we will put in place to assure our power. Trust us. What happened in Iran would NEVER happen here!

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

 

[Jose]

There is one and only once answer whether here or there and it is limited, decentralized government. All politicians hate this. Liberals hate it. Economists hate it. Tyrants hate it too...

There's one economist that doesn't.....

 

[Jason]

I listen to the same radio story. The thing that is pissing me off about this even more is that the organization Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org) is pushing for the round up of guns. Human Rights Watch should be encouraging the rebels to keep individual possession of these firearms, not turn them over to the state. They appear to have done good work in the past but they don't seem to understand the basic concept of natural rights.

 

[Boston_Shooter]

Translation: "Hey guys, good job overthrowing the tyrannical government that was is place....now....ummm...could you give us the guns you used? We wouldn't want you guys getting ideas with us running the show!"

 

[cekim]

There's one economist that doesn't.....

Yeah, but no one listens to him...

 

[Dench]

the term "Bosnian mindf*ck" comes to mind. Serbians are animals.

they definitely have issues relating to the rest of europe, thats for sure.

 

[je25ff]

Turn in your arms = tyranny. Of course that requires a good, common sensical, educated populace to resist.

 

[Boris]

I listen to the same radio story. The thing that is pissing me off about this even more is that the organization Human Rights Watch (http://www.hrw.org) is pushing for the round up of guns. Human Rights Watch should be encouraging the rebels to keep individual possession of these firearms, not turn them over to the state. They appear to have done good work in the past but they don't seem to understand the basic concept of natural rights.

a lot of those type of orgs are run by predominantly libtards who are convinced that guns are bad, so their logic in regard to human rights only goes so far. Also, a lot of their funding relies on libtard grants or support so they won't speak of any crimes by BO or another libtard president.

 

[Lunokhod]

Its real hypocritical for NATO to take shots at Libya and not Syria. The same shits going on over there and you dont see anyone interested in that place. Maybe oil is the key word. What a joke.

its because libya is to close to france and they bitched and moaned and did exactly what they bitched at the US for a couple of years ago

 

[speedy]

lets watch and see what happens. We'll be in there withing 5 yrs if that really happens.

 

[economist]

There is one and only one answer whether here or there and it is limited, decentralized government. All politicians hate this. Liberals hate it. Economists hate it. Tyrants hate it too...

There's one economist that doesn't.....

Yeah, but no one listens to him...

Well, there you have it...