A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

[Maxximus Redneckus]

A LITTLE GUN 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.

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

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:

List of 7 items: 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!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed

robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12

months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break- ins and assaults of the

ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety

has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in

successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience

and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians

disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,

gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of

this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew

most Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, Please spread this message to all of your friends.

[Catt]

Gun Control: One ability to hit one's target

[jeremyt]

I think that just goes to show, no matter how much "control" you put on firearms, the people who just don't need to have them will find a way.  :'(

[CGH]

Gun Control: One ability to hit one's target

I second that and will never surrender my gun to anyone.  

[Cephkiller]

I remember when my boy was 5 or 6 he asked me what gun control is.  I told him, "That's when the government makes it illegal for people to have guns."  He replied, "But won't the bad guys still have guns because they don't listen to laws anyway?"

Now, my son is very intelligent, but one would think if he can understand this every voting adult should be able to get it.

[roadwarrior]

I remember when my boy was 5 or 6 he asked me what gun control is. I told him, "That's when the government makes it illegal for people to have guns." He replied, "But won't the bad guys still have guns because they don't listen to laws anyway?"

Now, my son is very intelligent, but one would think if he can understand this every voting adult should be able to get it.

Sharp boy, I'd say!

8-)

[SPEEDBEAD.]

I think the quote on GMAN's signature line says it best....

''Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

[Guest avid]

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew  

most Americans were ARMED!  

It is completely true that the founding fathers in their wisdom insisted on the right to bear arms to assure that the people would have the means to resist any tyranny that arose in Washington.  But to make ridiculous claims like the one quoted above makes pro gun folks look like fools.

Please tell me you don't actually believe this nonsense.

Did you ever hear of the battle of Midway?  

In that battle US Navy pilots sacrificed themselves in truly heroic fashion to destroy Four Japanese aircraft carriers and thwart an invasion of this strategically vital island.

there heroic effort halted Japanese expansion and marked the turning point in the war in the pacific.

Any claim that does not recognize their sacrifice is a disservice to their memory.

Propaganda is just as harmful coming from the pro-gun side as it is from the anti.  

[Siebert Outdoors]

I think the quote on GMAN's signature line says it best....

''Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."

Alot of power in such a simple statement.

Check your history books.  Japan invaded AK.  

http://www.nps.gov/archive/aleu/WWII_in_the_Aleutians.htm

Germans were developing this bomber to bomb the US.  Look at the design.  Looks very familiar doesnt it. http://ufologie.net/aircraft/horten.htm

[Maxximus Redneckus]

I agree with this BUt you do have to admit the Japanese did know we had no military bases on a majority of our coast,s .Do you think they didnt no how to go up the chesapake bay, potomac river, or patuxant highly unlikly .Now what i posted was turned into propaganda .Logic tells us all no country will attack a country with armed ppl military or not >What i posted wasnt trying to disrespect our forefathers trust me that wasnt my intentions at all but to think just cause of what happened in pearle harbor was why they didnt invade Mainland AMERICA is ridicilus.Im sure the Japanese didnt attack us just because we had guns there was more to it but it wasnt ALL because of the military either >say what u want but seems to me all over the world countries with ppl as SUBJECTS as opposed to citizens are killed each day wether by there own gov or a invading force .And we all know how our military is NOW when it comes too defending our own mainland a good example is 911 >those Terrorist looked for the weakest link and it was our military They would have not walked up to the twin towers and set bombs .The CITIZENS would have prevented that wether they were armed or not >And too think of what a mere 9 ppl did we can only amagine what a small army could do to us with our weak security on our coasts .trust me who will you call for help when u see 500,000 soldiers just coming up on our land anywhere in the USA .The police will be out numbered and the national guard will be sleeping or workin there reg jobs.... WHO WILL YOU CALL FOR HELP THEN

[PaparockArk]

Back to the subject of the thread gun histories which in American history pretty much boils down eventually to Gun ownership and rights. The subject has been hotly debated over the last generation or so. It seems to me to come down to those that believe that each citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for the common defense against those that do not. I personally hope the issue of the interpretation of the Second Amendment never becomes a national crisis because there are few issues that could separate the nation to the extent possible over this issue. The Second Amendment is one of the issues that holds the possibility of sparking major civil strife of the magnitude we the people do not need to witness again in this nation. I hope the leaders of this nation understand that potential conflagration that could engulf our nation and choose to avoid it. That also goes for the common citizens of our nation. We the people must try to understand that men and women of principle can disagree and at times there must be understandings to disagree less such disagreement rend our union beyond repair. For if one side seeks to enforce their interpretation upon others by force they must expect if by no other means than the laws of nature an equal and opposite reaction of force to our everlasting regret.

[frogtog]

Heck all any country has to do to invade the USA is just come on over. Heck we will even pay for their food, insurance, clothing, send them to school and give them more rights than we have. Then after about three generations they can run

for president, congress or senator and we can't even stop them. ( I go to thinking some times and scare myself )

[Siebert Outdoors]

Very very good Post P rock.

I have a hypothetical question that needs no answer. Just something to ponder on.

If a country split between pro 2nd admendment and anti 2nd admendment. What type of force would the anti's use. Since they are against guns would they use rocks? it would technically be a one sided fight.

I know rationally that antis would use firearm force, probably military/mercenary. But that is quite ironic that someone so strongly against firearms would resort to using what they are fighting against.

[frogtog]

Good point GMAN. Of course if they were to get my guns I could fight them off with a Buzz Bait. ( Ask myfishing partner.)

[KYbass1276]

I have to agree with a couple of the other guys on this one.  I think Japan had it in there plans to invade the mainland but because of the efforts of our armed forces this plan failed.   If they could have gotten the oppurtunity to invade they I think would have.   Regardless if every person in the country was carring a weapon or not.

[Maxximus Redneckus]

There was a reason our forefathers made the Constitution pride/Dignity/selfrespect/faith/hope/compassion...  And if anyone dont belive in the CONSTITUTION they are unworthy to be called a AMERICAN .You either stand for what it ALL means fully or u dont stand for anything .You cant pick stuff out of it randomly and say i like this idea and i hate this idea >

[Maxximus Redneckus]

Ah you need to check yourfacts before you state something.They were not afraid of people with hunting rifles, they did not even consider this,where do you get this stuff,Do you make it up :

We have very protected and very vulnerable parts of our coastline, what are you talking about Do you think a Japenese vessel in time of war could just sail up, the Hudson, the Potomoc or the St Johns River

By the way The attack would have come primaraly from the West Coast because i would put evenmoney on a Fleet of Japenes boats going through the Panama Canal would raise eyebrows

Now for part two of your revised history lesson.The Twin Towers attacvk was by design an attack against the civilian population, to cause fear. They had limited resources and got the maximum effect; one the the main goals of El Quida.the attacks targets where the buildings themselves and THE MAIN TARGET WAS THE AMERICAN ECONOMY!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thtas why there were all those Public Announcements to keep thigs on par after the attacks.

A strike agianst civilians OR military still means war .Timithy mcveigh did a lot of damage also who do we blame then .Its not just about what material thing gets blown up its about humans

[PaparockArk]

Muddy, you are not wasting your time. You have a point of view and it is a valid one. Others do not have to agree with you for it to be valid. I am often the only one holding a particular viewpoint. Muddy even if everyone else is against your viewpoint, if you believe in your view then its valid to you. It is differences in views that make life interesting, otherwise life would be very boring. While, I may disagree with a view you may state does not mean I do not respect your right to have it and state it. We need to respect each others' views even in disagreement. Please remember you are never wasting your time as far as I am concerned for while we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum two reasonable men can always agree to simply disagree while respecting each other's right to hold their opinions. Without heat one cannot appreciate cold and without cold one cannot moderate heat. In all things, moderation is often the best thing as often too much of one or the other is imbalance.

[Guest avid]

Logic tells us all no country will attack a country with armed ppl military or not

Logic may tell you that.

But history tells me something entirely different.

[Maxximus Redneckus]

Logic tells us all no country will attack a country with armed ppl military or not

Logic may tell you that.

But history tells me something entirely different.

True if depending on your weapons also ...50,000 men armed with ar-15,s m-60s and plenty of stock in ammo can take out a country only comprised of 100,000 men with spears If those table are turned its highly unlikly it would be the same

[Guest avid]

I have learned that changing someone's opinion is usually impossible,

I just think it is laughable that the Japanese Empire would attack the British Navy, The Australian armed forces, The Chinese army, The French Foreign Legion, and the US Navy and Marines with impudence, but be afraid of a bunch of "citizens"

Sorry dude, but this is just too ridiculous.

Bye now  

[Guest avid]

For if one side seeks to enforce their interpretation upon others by force they must expect if by no other means than the laws of nature an equal and opposite reaction of force to our everlasting regret.

I think your missing the point Papa.

The constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, as well as all the other rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights,  specifically to prevent the government from abusing it's power.  

An armed citizenry can resist oppressive force with force.

Force or armed conflict is exactly what the amendment intends.

Should government stop being "of" the people, the people not only have the right to resist, but thanks to our forefathers they have the means to resist.

The right to bear arms clause of the constitution was, and remains the most empowering documented right any country has ever granted it's citizens.

[Maxximus Redneckus]

Ya it is i wonder myself why they didnt do this it woulda been a whole lot easier to attack us then our military Im still wonderin now Makes u wonder why England didnt overwhelm us also during the revolutionary war also .i think it has a lot to do with being on your own turf : wonder : just like Hezbollah in Iran givin one of the best militarys in the world a run for its money and hezbollah aint even a country

[PaparockArk]

For if one side seeks to enforce their interpretation upon others by force they must expect if by no other means than the laws of nature an equal and opposite reaction of force to our everlasting regret.

I think your missing the point Papa.

The constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms, as well as all the other rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights, specifically to prevent the government from abusing it's power.

An armed citizenry can resist oppressive force with force.

Force or armed conflict is exactly what the amendment intends.

Should government stop being "of" the people, the people not only have the right to resist, but thanks to our forefathers they have the means to resist.

The right to bear arms clause of the constitution was, and remains the most empowering documented right any country has ever granted it's citizens.

No, I understand the point all too well Avid. That is why I said "I hope the interpretation of the Second Amendment never becomes a national crisis" because it will cause another civil war where neighbor will be fighting neighbor, brother fighting brother and so forth. A simple ruling by the Supreme Court will not settle the matter due to the depth of feeling over the issue. Remember, the US Supreme Court once ruled slavery legal in the United States and later reversed its decision. The Second Amendment is an issue that could split the nation against itself. We have enough enemies from outside our nation today that want to destroy our way of life that we the people do not need to divide ourselves over this issue that we have lived with in unison since the founding of our nation. What I was saying is if there are those that wish to make the issue of a national crisis nature I say this is not a good time. However, if it becomes such, so be it. I view the current argument (why Japan did not invade the US mainland) similar in benefit to those who argued about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. It will not change history but it will make enemies when feelings get bruised. As to the Second Amendment, that is a different story because that argument I fear could lead to men spilling each others' blood so it must be taken in all seriousness. Since, there are those in our nation (including elected officials) that do seek to disarm all citizens, I do hope they do not seek to enforce their will upon the people by force for that force will be met by force. I remember the words a house divided cannot stand but then I am only one voice.

[Fish Man]

i tend to watch alot of the dicovery and history channel an i consider myself to be at the leaast a little bit of a WW11 buff.i dont really agree with eaither side but their are instances were a military has avoided going into a hostile country due to loyal, armed citizens.i cant remember when i saw this or what show it was on but it said that the militarys use of an atom bomb on japan was that they were afraid to engage loyal japanese citizens and their remaining military an possibly lose thousands more of our soldiers, an other is a modenr day ezample with iran.a show i saw recently pointed out that not only would our military have to engage thier military in thier country but also loyal citizens thata t the very least cound creat problems or conflicts with our soldies should we have to invade, and anybody ever wonder why the nazi's attacked britain thorugh the air rather than send troops accros the channel