2/07/2009

Those Who Ignore History......


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, 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, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

36 comments:

Yehudi said...

That's a very compelling and sobering argument. Don't turn in your guns, Jason.

friend of the right said...

Oh, right...these groups of people, many of them disenfranchised and oppressed to begin with, were totally going to be able to stand up to the might of a nation's army with a pistol. Yep. Plausible.

The Merry Widow said...

fotr-better to be killed by a single bullit while defending yourself, than tortured and abused and starved for years...and if those 56 million HAD HAD guns, the statistics would be different and the tyrants toppled.
Did you also know that in the year after Australia forced it's law abiding citizens to give up their guns;
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
IN ONE YEAR, you fool.
G*D bless and MARANATHA!

tmw
Bet the statistics are even worse now...

The Hermit said...

friend of the right, how about the philosophy that "it's better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness." If I'm going out, I'd rather go shooting that pistol than crawling on my knees."

Papa Frank said...

FOTR -- now you can see exactly why we defend our rights to ALL guns so fiercely. Any regulation put upon upstanding citizens is unwelcome. And as Hermit has pointed out I would much rather go out defending myself and my family with what means I could than being subject to anyone.

Always On Watch said...

We have unregistered guns.

And we will not be turning them in. Period.

Papa Frank said...

AOW -- Glad to hear. BTW, great show you had on Friday. Colonel Gordon Cucullu was very informing as to what the actual facts are about gitmo and Z is a great guest and such a wonderful lady.

I.H.S. said...

I'm wondering why the Republicans don't put these figures out there to show the American people what can happen when this type of control is implemented?

Blessings.

The Merry Widow said...

I.H.S.-Too many wafflers and men pleasers in the gop...Michael Steele probably did the right thing by cleaning house...and good fortune to him!

tmw
PF-My son and I will draw weapons, my daughter will probably too...we are not victims, but autonomous individuals accountable to LEGITIMATE authority.

Yehudi said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yehudi said...

"Annie git yur gun!!"

Ducky's here said...

Well I.H.S. because it's a little more complicated than is made out.

Russia - Makes it sound like the White Army was unarmed. I'll tell you, a lot more than 20 million died in the civil war.
Then they conveniently frame it from 1929 to 1953, primarily the WW II years. Twenty million dead easy in the war and it wasn't because Russia supposedly had some gun control laws.
You familiar with what Germans did to people who resisted? Read up on Eastern Europe in the 30's and 40's. Absolute hell on earth beyond anything you can understand.

Of course our carpet bombing of Cambodia which caused a wholesale shift of peasant allegiance to the Khmer isn't mentioned as a primary means of Pol Pot's rise. And if there were gun laws why was he so well armed?


Papa Frank may be on to something. The primary weapon of mass destruction in the last 60 years has been the Kalashnikov. And man, everyone's got them and the killing has been intense.

Maybe you can give me an example of an instance where an armed populace actually stopped a civil war? Actually stopped the wholesale slaughter. Vietnam?

Yehudi said...

Fargo, North Dakota.

Papa Frank said...

Ducky -- how would you define "stopped a civil war?" No group of people would ever get such credit in history books. Unless a civil war occurs there is no "stopping" it. Therefore just as you say that an armed people never stopped a civil war I could, with an equal amount of provable truth, say that an armed people stopped 1000 wars. Do you not find it interesting that all these regimes, many of which started as "friends" of the common man, enacted gun control? But I guess you are dull enough to also believe that Hitler was far right instead of far left. Your willing ignorance of the lessons of history is never surprising but is always something that makes me just a little sad for you. When they come for you as well as for me I will do what I can to protect you as my American brother. Will you do the same for me?

Ducky's here said...

Let's state some facts Frank. The incidents you mention are civil wars and there were civilian deaths. Of course it could have been conventional war because ever since the Spanish Civil War it's been routine to kill large numbers of civilians.

I notice you don't mention that the Guatemalan dictator with a hefty 250,000 body count was a far right fascist supported by your hero Ronnie Raygun.

How about the half a million leftists that Chiang Kai-shek when he controlled the government of Taiwan.

Sukarno in Indonesia, what was it, fifty million in the purge. Never heard of that one probably because you only listen to right wing talking points.

Again, give me an indicator of some possible situation where an armed populace prevented a civil war.

My knowledge of history is pretty good. Doesn't much matter whether it's right or left, as the Polish Home Army said just before the Soviets stood by and let the German's slaughter them in Warsaw, "The Nazis will kill you for nothing and so will the Red Army so you might as well die for something." Folks caught in the middle lose.

When they come, you have one f***ing choice, die with honor or collaborate because your freaking pop guns aren't much use against an F-22. My relatives died with honor and one even escaped the Gulag. Don't give me the damn tone about not understanding history.

Ducky's here said...

Frank,

1. You should do some research on the nature of a "white terror".

2. Why did the socialist German government after WW I establish the Freikorps and why did it defeat and kill many of the communist Spartacus League (remember Red Rosa).

3. Why was the Freikorps along with communists, trade unionists and anarchists the first groups exterminated by Hitler, the first to be put in the camps if Hitler was this friend of the left?

Just a suggestion that history is not as straight forward as we were made to believe in high school.

Papa Frank said...

Ducky -- now tell me how any of the things you just mentioned point towards gun control being good. Our forefathers were very wise when they gave us the right to bear arms in order to insure our safety not against foreign oppression but against our own government becoming too powerful and forgetting WHO it is that they are to serve. We are quickly moving in the direction of government completely ignoring the wishes of the people and doing what they want. 80% of people wanted to drill. 70% of people didn't want the bank bailout. Now we're heading towards 60% of the people not wanting the porkulus bill that we are about to be saddled with. The majority of America is against gay marriage and yet the activist judges continue to force it on us against our wishes. The majority of Americans recognize that global warming is a farce and yet they want to spend billions of dollars of our money on it. These are precisely the reasons that we were given the right to bear arms. Our government is becoming increasingly hostile towards the will of the people.

Ducky's here said...

The majority of America is against gay marriage and yet the activist judges continue to force it on us against our wishes.

-------------------

No you are not even WRONG.

In the Massachusetts case the ruling was that there was nothing in the Massachusetts statutes that prevented gay marriage and equal protection made it legal until the legislation voted otherwise.
The Massachusetts legislature did not vote otherwise.

Cut this noise about activist judges. The ruling was reasonable and doesn't effect anyone in Missouri.

So rather than allow two people in Massachusetts to marry according to the statutes of Massachusetts you'd pull out your pop guns.

You're starting to sound like a cartoon, Frank.

What do your pop guns have to do with the debate on global warming? Would you stop debate?

Yeah, the bank bailout. The opposition came from the left but as you saw there was no way to stop it.

Papa Frank said...

The opposition came from the left??? HAHAHAHAHA

Now you ignore history and current reality. Take a look at the vote again, duckling. Global warming, gay marriage, etc. it all has to do with the government taking it on themselves to ignore the people and legislate as elitists. That is not only the democrats but I include the Republicans as well. It was for this reason that we were given the 2nd amendment. Not so we can jump out with our guns when there is any kind of legislation that we don't like. It is for a final endgame scenario when the government begins to abuse the people and ignore their will completely. For when the government sets themselves in an adversarial role to the people and regards them as subjects to be controlled and not as the source of any power that government has. We don't solve arguments with guns, ducky. We protect ourselves, our families, and our collective rights with them.

Chuck said...

PF, good post on gun control, dead on.

Ducky,

Cut this noise about activist judges. The ruling was reasonable and doesn't effect anyone in Missouri.

Stop ignoring the undemocratic, unamerican influence activists judges impose on the country. How is it that you, or a judge for that matter, get to be the sole decider on what is reasonable.

If these issues (abortion, gay marraige, gun control, etc.) are so reasonable and have such widespread public support, why don't we vote on them? The answer: because every time they are placed before the voters, they lose. Instead of actually letting the people decide these issues in our "democracy" liberals run out and shop for a like minded judge to impose their political views on us.

I can say I have no intention what-so-ever of giving up my firearm.

Yehudi said...

This post got me thinking a little...so I invite everyone over to my blog to take part in a little exersize...

Pinky said...

Are we talking about gun control here??

I have a very liberal friend who WAS an Obama supporter...but he also happens to LOVE his guns. He even owned two assault rifles(?). I'm not sure if that's correct..he owned the kind that are illegal. Anyway, he's rethinking his liberal tendencies now. Not so cool when the gov't starts taking away your liberties.

friend of the right said...

It's ironic that you supported a government that was responsible for extending the influence of the Patriot Act, essentially revoking the most sacred of your liberties (that being the right to privacy) and yet you're still preaching on about how Obama somehow opposes your basic "freedoms".

Z said...

Pinky...your friend's a budding genius.

The Merry Widow said...

fotr-Who said I supported ALL the provisions of the PA?
And IN WAR certain liberties CAN be SUSPENDED TEMPORARILY for security purposes.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact...but the basic liberties are to be restored as soon as the crisis is over.
Unfortunately, we have had some presidents lately that are more interested in POWER than AMERICA.
Watch a "crisis" come up, an avoidable one, and wave bye-bye to the Constitution.
And if you check your history, the MAJORITY of wars in this last century started under democratic presidents...Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy...
G*D bless and MARANATHA!

tmw

Pasadena Closet Conservative said...

...from my cold, dead hands.

Ducky's here said...

Stop ignoring the undemocratic, unamerican influence activists judges impose on the country. How is it that you, or a judge for that matter, get to be the sole decider on what is reasonable.

---------------------------

That's the nature of the judicial system, Chuck.

A case comes before a judge and a decision is made.

If the right wing agrees with the ruling everything is fine. If the right wing does not agree with the ruling then we have an "activist judge".

Catch a clue.

Ducky's here said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ducky's here said...

Back to the original post.

One of the most heavily armed countries in the world was (is) Iraq but they weren't able to overthrow Hussein, why?

Chuck said...

A case comes before a judge and a decision is made.

Ducky this is an oversimplification and you know it. A judge does not just get to "make a decision". They are supposed to weigh previous case law and constutionality when they rule on a case.

Activists judges are not judges I disagree with. I have seen judgements go against what I believe but if they have been grounded in sound reasoning I will accept them. Not agree mind you but accept. The problem we have is that judges invent laws from the bench. Can you show me where Roe v Wade or the so-called seperation of church and state are in the constitution? Before you answer, realize that the very same Ruth Bader Ginsburg that is revered by the left has herself said that the Roe v Wade decision was improper.

Reality is that the judicial system is a tool that the left uses to bypass the will of the voters. I notice you did not choose to answer my question as to why the left does not want us to vote on these issues.

cube said...

The idea of banning guns should be banned!

Ducky's here said...

Ducky this is an oversimplification and you know it. A judge does not just get to "make a decision". They are supposed to weigh previous case law and constitutionality when they rule on a case.

----------------------

That is exactly what I have been saying. Ruth Ginsberg has been the justice LEAST likely to overturn precedent while Clarence Thomas has been, by far, the most frequent.

In other words, the "activist" judge is the most conservative on the bench and the least activist is one of the more liberal.


Can you show me where Roe v Wade or the so-called separation of church and state are in the constitution?
-------------------

Are you delirious? The establishment clause has a good deal of case law behind it. I'm sorry that we don't allow the religious right to run rampant and do as they please but that's the nature of separation of church and state.

Roe v. Wade is one of the few that supports your argument (one of VERY few) and it is a legitimate example of activism in my opinion.

Ducky's here said...

Cube, who wants to ban guns. I'm a gun owner.

Now the thing is that the right wing gun loons don't seem to understand that the second amendment is poorly written.

Properly regulated militias can own guns.

Now the right only focuses on the ownership issue and assumes that means they can have anything they want with out exception. They probably extend it to C4 or whatever they may feel the need for.

The left understands the word "regulated" and also know this clause is in there because of Jefferson's irrational fear of standing armies.

Now, my take on control is that point of sales efforts should be made to keep heavy duty weaponry out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, gang bangers etc. I see no conflict with the second amendment.

If you haven't noticed, and being a right winger I'm sure you haven't, the Supreme Court voted down the indiscriminate ban on firearms in D.C. and there was very little protest from the left concerning the vote.

Papa Frank said...

That's because they sent their lawyers and activist juydges out to take back the lost ground. ;0)

Papa Frank said...

Ducky -- there ARE those out there that want to ban guns. Obama has supported every single gun ban that it was his place to support or oppose. He even proclaimed that the DC gun ban was constitutional and good until it was overturned and then he "changed" his mind. Joe Biden is a gun-hater pure and simple. What you have written here:

"Now, my take on control is that point of sales efforts should be made to keep heavy duty weaponry out of the hands of felons, the mentally ill, gang bangers etc. I see no conflict with the second amendment."

is fairly consistent with my own view. I have no problem with them taking information from me at the gun store and calling the FBI (or whomever) to make sure I am an upstanding citizen. However, I do believe that private owners who are selling or trading their own personal collections should be able to do so. This is what has caused the farce known as the "gun show loophole." I have purchased guns at a garage sale. Do you think that should be illegal?

cube said...

Ducky: There are folks out there who want to ban gun ownership by law-abiding folks.

Of course I don't want felons, the mentally ill, gangbangers, or even zombies owning guns, but I'm not happy with the slippery slope of gun regulation.