Are more laws on gun control really the answer? * Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. * Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 1 million "educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed. If you were adding them up, that amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments - governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms. Freedom-loving people are at far more risk from their own government than from all the Ted Bundys and Al Capones of the world combined! A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be gangster or criminal. On the other hand, an unarmed man has no chance at all against an oppressive, tyrannical government. Remember this the next time you hear the New World Order Gang touting the virtues of more gun control. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me know what you find at snopes.com!
Since we are all just Plain Americans, you should have no fear that any segment of the Plain American population will be rounded up, persecuted, or exterminated.
I think your cause and effect relationship is highly questionable to say the least. How many people have been slaughtered by governments in countries where gun control didn't exist? How many people have been slaughtered by the governments of Canada, the UK, Scandinavian countries, and others that have strict gun controls? That list is a pretty lame attempt at twisting the truth. Freedom-loving people are at far more risk from their own government than from all the Ted Bundys and Al Capones of the world combined! But they're even more at risk from each other, if they live in a country without strong gun controls. You're more likely to get shot by your child, or your neighbour, or in a drive by, or by some petty criminal who only has a gun because there are so many of them around. Look at firearm related crime statistics in first world countries and there is no comparison. The US is the least safe place for freedom loving, law abiding citizens. A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be gangster or criminal. A free man with a firearm is statistically more of a threat to himself and his neighbours than the would-be gangster or criminal. And those would-be gangsters and criminals are armed and enabled by a culture that tolerates and worships guns. The statistics are very clear. Do some research and don't be fooled. Snake-oil salesmen still exist. …On the other hand, an unarmed man has no chance at all against an oppressive, tyrannical government. Remember this the next time you hear the New World Order Gang touting the virtues of more gun control Hmmm… are you saying that the US government is oppressive and tyrannical? If so, I would suggest that the problem is not the presence or absence of guns. It is more likely the troubled state of a democracy where half the electorate is so disaffected they don't even vote. Electoral reform is the solution, not arming the nation. (btw, nice troll giddy )
Thank goodness I have my gun, otherwise the King of England could come in my home and start pushing me around!
The Queen is still on the thrown, of course. I think your safe with her, but I hear Charles is a real bad ass. You better have your piece and ammo at the ready when he takes over. And with all us United Empire Loyalists up here, well, you can just never be too safe. Better buy some guns for your kids too.
The USSR is my area of expertise, so I won't bother with the others. I'm not sure what gun control they're referring to here. I'm just not familiar with the gun policy and I can't say whether it was a gun ban or some kind of regulation. The most heavily affected group that were rounded up and exterminated by the Stalinists were middle and upper tier military commanders. Thousands upon thousands of armed, battle-hardened and militarily trained men with loyal soldiers at their command were nevertheless arrested and killed. If gun ownership didn't do much for these folks, I don't see what it could have done for anyone else. Millions of people, most notably in the Ukraine, died of starvation because food was denied to the area to soften resistance to Collectivization. (To be fair, there is some debate as to whether it was intentional or merely the result of a chaotic economic situation, or perhaps both.) How does having a gun save you in a situation like that? I suppose you could shoot and eat your neighbors. In short, when a government is serious about persecuting you, there isn't always much you can do to defend yourself. The truth in the Soviet Union is that it was a government that many, many people fought for and it held a great deal of legitimacy. Even if you armed the masses, there wouldn't be much chance the dissidents would be able to defend themselves. The same likely applies to China and Germany (especially). I can't say I'm very familiar with the others.
Odd how every government mentioned there was a totalitarian regime. Any reason no democracies were mentioned? Oh yeah, their governments don't go slaughtering their citizens.
But could you imagine all those Democrats ready to slaughter you and your family in our "democracy" if we did have tighter gun control?
Grizz -- I know the Queen is still there (a golden jubilee no less!) I was just paraphrasing a Homer Simpson quote. I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a Simpsons quote for every occasion! Speaking of the British monarchy, is Chuck still next in line or did he blow it all with the whole Camilla business? I thought there was talk they may skip that whole mess and hand the crown straight to his royal hotness young Prince William. As far as guns for my children, I have no little ones to arm. But if it's possible to teach a cat to shoot, then I'll have the biggest militia in town!
But could you imagine all those Democrats ready to slaughter you and your family in our "democracy" if we did have tighter gun control? Damn those Democrats!!! Seriously, though, it seems that if your main reason for being anti-gun-control is a fear of the government, that seems like a huge lack of faith in the men and women of our armed forces. It seems to me that the people would not follow any orders designed to kill innocent citizens. And if they did go on this rampage, I don't think I would be any match for them, gun or no gun, given that they would be armed with rifles, tanks, airplanes, helicopters, grenades, missiles, and nuclear weapons.
So is tight gun control a symptom of Totalitarianism or a cause? How would it be different today compared to yesteryear? It is my understanding that many plain-Turks, plain-Chinese, plain-Germans et al were also slaughtered. It is my impression that most gun-accidents in the home occur in homes where gun-ownership is casual. If you have kids in the home and are going to own guns, you can't be casual about it. I don't own any guns myself, but if I did, I would be bad-ass with my kids about understanding the danger and, on the flip side, making sure they know how to handle the deadly things. Then it's hands-off! Hey, guys... I said not one word about Democrats????? Nor did the article.
So is tight gun control a symptom of Totalitarianism or a cause? How would it be different today compared to yesteryear? I'm under the impression that those governments were already totalitarian *before* they instituted any type of gun control. I don't own any guns myself, but if I did, I would be bad-ass with my kids about understanding the danger and, on the flip side, making sure they know how to handle the deadly things. Then it's hands-off! Absolutely! The problem is that not all parents are like that. And *other* people are the ones that get killed by those parents'/kids' mistakes. That's why whether my neighbor's family has a gun affects me and my own safety.
I would be curious to know how gun control would somehow help this given that the vast majority of gun violence is caused by guns that are illegally obtained (cross that, by people who obtain guns illegally).
You got me there. I love the Simpsons, but I don't get a chance to see many of them. Chuck and Camilla aren't married, so I think he's still eligible. Given that the Queen seems to be still going strong, and that her mum lived to be over 100, maybe Charles will pass on the whole King thing and marry Camilla. I'm not really a royalist, so I'm not up on the latest news, but what you suggest about William sounds familiar. Incidentally, I did meet Chuck's father, Phillip once on one of his trips through the Commonwealth. He seemed like a very nice guy actually. Given that that "being a nice guy" is pretty much his job, I guess that's not too surprising. I knew I was going to meet him but he just kind of showed up near my father and me while waiting to go to another function, and I didn't recognise him. We started chatting before I figured out who he was, so I totally screwed up the whole "your highness" protocol, but he didn't even flinch. Seemed very humble. ... Reminds me of that Garrison Keillor (sp?) song, Cows with Guns. It's pretty funny. http://play.mp3.com/cgi-bin/play/pl...iwPH6T3.egUjIBbLkRNV6pIgo-/Cows_With_Guns.m3u (I guess it wasn't written by Keillor)
The more guns there are around, and the looser the laws are around the ownership of guns, the more it is that guns find there way into the hands of criminals … or are used in anger in domestic disputes, or accidentally. Here's a comparison between gun related crimes in the US and Canada, for example. http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm
<b>RM95</b>: I just copied and pasted; I don't know any more. <b>Major</b>: Does your neighbor have a car, too? Confiscation can be a first or last step to Totalitarian control, I suppose.
Confiscation can be a first or last step to Totalitarian control, I suppose. Perhaps we should allow invidivuals to own machine guns, grenades, missiles, and nuclear weapons as well? After all, confiscating these things may be a step towards totalitarianism.
giddy: Since you like quoting stats on countries and everything, can you find a stat that shows how many "innocent citizens" have been slaughtered in the last 50 years or so in: the US Great Britain Australia Japan France Canada? If you can I would appreciate it...thanks
In Ghana, after Rawlings (still the president today) overthrew the government, he set up a program to teach common citizens how to use guns (and also supply them, I think), because there had been so many African countries in which a coup eventually led to the Military taking control. In this country, however, I don't think it's a concern. It would be nice if nobody had guns, but I imagine criminals are gonna get guns regardless of restrictions, so I think its effectiveness is limited. I just wish rednecks would stop killing deer.
