History Lesson, yay..

[RoadmasteR]

Most of you probably know this but with the election coming up here it is:

As we look at Presidential candidates.....
A Little Gun History Lesson to keep in mind.

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:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 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!

It will never happen here? I bet the Aussies said that too!

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.

Take note guys, this is worth talking to these candidates about.

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 W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they
knew most Americans were ARMED!

Note: Admiral Yamamoto who crafted the attack on Peal Harbor had
attended Harvard from 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28.

Most of our Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & our Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country.

It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.

If you value your freedom, at least speak about this with friends and family and try to bring this up with local campaign managers.



Your rights: Ignore them and they'll just go away.



The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

-Plato

[Misfit]

ok so besides your small random facts....whats the point of all this?

[JerkyPuck]

I'm all for gun ownership.....but I'm also for stricter gun control. When any Joe Schmo can go to Wal Mart and get a gun, that's dangerous.

[dead breed]

How about I not read that :D

[Grendel]

A lovely list that's been cut and pasted (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 1953%2C&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a) to blog after blog after blog...

The only problem is, "gun control" as it's known and advocated here, bears no resemblance to a practice of confiscating weapons from private citizens leaving them "unable to defend themselves."

Is there a single, mainstream "gun control" spokesperson or group that advocates anything remotely like measures eliminating private ownership that would give rise to the scare-tactic scenarios you present here?

[RoadmasteR]

Well you always have folks like the Brady Campaign using tragedies like Vtech to severely limit the amount of people owning firearms.

[Grendel]

Well you always have folks like the Brady Campaign using tragedies like Vtech to severely limit the amount of people owning firearms."Severely limit?"
RICHMOND, Va. — A state Senate committee killed legislation backed by families of the Virginia Tech shooting victims to close a loophole that allows criminals and the mentally ill to buy firearms at gun shows without a background check.

The Courts of Justice Committee voted 9-6 Wednesday to reject the bill before sending it to the Virginia State Crime Commission for study. A House of Delegates committee last week rejected similar legislation, so the issue appears to be dead for this General Assembly session.

The bill would have required private sellers to run criminal background checks on buyers at gun shows. Federally licensed dealers already are required to conduct such checks.Applying the same background checks to gun shows that are already mandatory for licensed dealers is a "severe limitation" on people owning guns? And that loophole *still exists*.

EDIT:

Here's the only thing that happened, and look who was one of the supporters:


Before President Bush left Washington for the Mideast, he signed into law the first major federal gun control measure (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in more than 13 years.

If the new law had been in effect last April, it might have prevented the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, from buying a weapon at a gun store.

"The Virginia Tech killer should have been stopped at the gun store," Paul Helmke of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence said. "He was a prohibited purchaser. He had been found a danger to himself and others because of mental illness. Virginia did not send that information in."

Even before the Virginia Tech tragedy, in which Cho killed 32 people before shooting himself, federal law required states to put the names of people declared mentally ill by a court into an FBI database. The trouble was too many states simply did not do it. Some claimed they did not have the money and resources.

The new law authorizes up to $1.3 billion in federal grants so states can improve their tracking of people who shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun. But it took years for support to build, even though the measure had the backing of the National Rifle Association.

"We've tried to get this done in federal legislation since the mid-90s. But it was opposed by the mental health lobbies. They felt it was unfair to stigmatize that person and put him into the federal system," NRA spokesman Wayne Lapierre told ABC News.

[Grendel]

Thread locked itself for a couple minutes, by mistake.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Tragicallyhip]

It's a lovely little series of impressive-sounding soundbites, but like most propoganda it's far more concerned with sensationalism and scaremongering rather than historical accuracy.

At the core of it is some flawed logic, based around a series of equally flawed premises. The example all follow the same pattern:

A. Group had guns.
B. Government took away guns.
C. Government was able to kill Group because they had no guns.

Since the examples do not provide any details as to how many of the 'Group' had guns in the first place, I'm guessing you have no idea whether all those Chinese or Russians had a one gun per man, or just a single antique rifle/musket to go around hundreds of them. That undermines your argument- you've just copy-and-pasted the piece and given it your support without examining the matter for yourself. No matter what side of the political fence you sit upon, blindly recycling someone else's material is not wise.

The suggestion that the victims were unable to defend themselves because they had no guns is equally suspects. For a start it expects us to believe that (for example) hundreds of thousands of Chinese rebels, having lost a bloody civil war with the government, just handed over their weapons when told to by the enemy they'd been fighting for twenty years? Sounds a little far-fetched, don't you think?

Of course, the main weak point to your statements comes down to the fact that you haven't checked into your history at all. You claim that Jews were killed during the Holocaust because they had no guns. If that's true, then I'm not sure how to account for the armed civilian resistance against the German army that took place in Germany, France, Poland and a whole host of other Eastern European countries. I guess it's just a mistake. Maybe when writers talk about armed resistance they mean armed with grapefruit spoons. Forgive my constant emphasis of the word armed there, it seems relevant. I have a book on my shelf in front of me about the Warsaw ghetto, where tens of thousands of Jews were imprisoned ready for the camps. The author talks extensively about the units of civilian Jewish resistance fighters who opposed the attempts to invade the ghetto and round up the inhabitants, fighting off the German army with guns and grenades (and probably grapefruit spoons too). I guess he's just wrong though, much like the similar examples from China, Russia, Cambodia, etc etc.

If you're going to blame most of the 20th century's genocidal slaughter on anti-gun laws you shoudl really do a little reading around the subject first.

[MrNobody]

ok so besides your small random facts....whats the point of all this?

The point is this : YOU ARE A DUMB ASS!!!!!!
We have the right to bear arms.
They take away our guns, they take away one of our rights.....
And of course, the only ones to turn in their guns would be the decent, good citizens, not the "bad guys". Pointless and stupid.
Freedom slow dwindling away.

[Grendel]

The point is this : YOU ARE A DUMB ASS!!!!!!
We have the right to bear arms.
They take away our guns, they take away one of our rights.....
And of course, the only ones to turn in their guns would be the decent, good citizens, not the "bad guys". Pointless and stupid.
Freedom slow dwindling away.If you want to participate in a discussion, do it without insults.

If you want to name-call, find another forum.

[MrNobody]

If you want to participate in a discussion, do it without insults.

If you want to name-call, find another forum.

How 'bout sticking to the topic at hand.
Start a new thread about "name calling" if it's something you would like to discuss.
Asshole....

[Grendel]

How 'bout sticking to the topic at hand.
Start a new thread about "name calling" if it's something you would like to discuss.
Asshole....This is your second--and final--warning.

Any further posts such as these will be deleted and referred to FrighT to determine your future participation on this site.

[skybrick]

I say kick him out yourself

[skybrick]

:bye:

[3/6]

dudes a tool

EDIT
WAS a tool

[Misfit]

The point is this : YOU ARE A DUMB ASS!!!!!!
We have the right to bear arms.
They take away our guns, they take away one of our rights.....
And of course, the only ones to turn in their guns would be the decent, good citizens, not the "bad guys". Pointless and stupid.
Freedom slow dwindling away.

freedom of speach is also one of the rights

[Luris Blear]

The Freedom of speech is being exercised here as written. Not very well, mind you, but it is.

Freedom of Speech can pretty much be summed up as "Congress can not pass laws to restrict free speech. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)"

Oh. Shit. Sorry. :D

[Misfit]

:haht:

[dead breed]

Got nothing better to do with yourself. Gonna report you to Knight. Oh boy, what will I ever do with myself. All you people are way too sensitive. Go ahead fag boy, report me. Thank me later for making your day. Call all your fag friends and tell them what a man you are for banning someone for call some dumb-ass Canadian a DUMBASS!!!!!!!!!
Oh yeah "skybrick" go fuck yourself too.
Until next time..........
And there WILL be a next time
See ya!!!!!!!!!

See you! I'm sure we will all miss you MrNobody....it's going to be hard...but I think we'll manage.

[MrNobody]

freedom of speach is also one of the rights

Exactly. So I speak my mind. You don't like it. Ban him. Hmmm
2nd/ Your from Canada. You got nothing to say.

[Misfit]

in canada we have the freedom of banning people........

[Luris Blear]

Banning, yes. Ousting them is another issue. :eyebrow2:

[dead breed]

Exactly. So I speak my mind. You don't like it. Ban him. Hmmm
2nd/ Your from Canada. You got nothing to say.

Your just another closed minded typical air head that hates other countries/people for no real reason. What did Canada ever do to you? What did people of other races do to you? I remember you saying some pretty stupid shit in the thread that asks "things you wish were removed from existence."

"Your from Canada. You got nothing to say" What do you exactly mean? He lives on another piece of the earth, so his opinion doesn't matter? Thats fucking stupid and silly imo People like you make me sick.

[dead breed]

Here's what you wanted removed from existence ( I copied and pasted it)

Taxes
Stupid Superbowl Half Time Shows
Homos
People who feal the need to trash me for my last comment.
Trailer park white trash
People who need to stick up for every "minority" group, just to be involed.
The word minority
Jews. Not all of them, just those filty money hungry, always complaining black clothes curly hair, fuck your wife through a hole in a sheet, then go to some foreign land to have sex with minors muther fuckers!!! #1 priority.
White people who say they hate a certian race, but they're not sure why (must be cool or something). Don't want them living in their neighborhood and then sell their homes and business to them. I guess that falls into the next line:
Hypocrites.
People who come to this country, can't speak English, don't care to learn the language and want every thing handed to them.
The government who hands out moneys,health care and homes to the people I just mentioned in the last line.
Chineese who follow you around the store.
Blacks that always mention they're from the hood... and think it's cool.
White people that act like black people who think it's cool to be from the hood.
Wanna be gangsters / thugs.
Italians who act like they're for the mob.
People who don't SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
God damn this list is getting long.
There is way too much to mention.
-----------------------------------

:bored:

In the words of a dear friend of mine; Mr. Archie Bunker ... " You good sir...are a meat head!" :D

[Grendel]

:bored:

In the words of a dear friend of mine; Mr. Archie Bunker ... " You good sir...are a meat head!" :DLet's not egg anyone on, so stifle.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[toxicangel19]

It's a lovely little series of impressive-sounding soundbites, but like most propoganda it's far more concerned with sensationalism and scaremongering rather than historical accuracy.

At the core of it is some flawed logic, based around a series of equally flawed premises. The example all follow the same pattern:

A. Group had guns.
B. Government took away guns.
C. Government was able to kill Group because they had no guns.

Since the examples do not provide any details as to how many of the 'Group' had guns in the first place, I'm guessing you have no idea whether all those Chinese or Russians had a one gun per man, or just a single antique rifle/musket to go around hundreds of them. That undermines your argument- you've just copy-and-pasted the piece and given it your support without examining the matter for yourself. No matter what side of the political fence you sit upon, blindly recycling someone else's material is not wise.

The suggestion that the victims were unable to defend themselves because they had no guns is equally suspects. For a start it expects us to believe that (for example) hundreds of thousands of Chinese rebels, having lost a bloody civil war with the government, just handed over their weapons when told to by the enemy they'd been fighting for twenty years? Sounds a little far-fetched, don't you think?

Of course, the main weak point to your statements comes down to the fact that you haven't checked into your history at all. You claim that Jews were killed during the Holocaust because they had no guns. If that's true, then I'm not sure how to account for the armed civilian resistance against the German army that took place in Germany, France, Poland and a whole host of other Eastern European countries. I guess it's just a mistake. Maybe when writers talk about armed resistance they mean armed with grapefruit spoons. Forgive my constant emphasis of the word armed there, it seems relevant. I have a book on my shelf in front of me about the Warsaw ghetto, where tens of thousands of Jews were imprisoned ready for the camps. The author talks extensively about the units of civilian Jewish resistance fighters who opposed the attempts to invade the ghetto and round up the inhabitants, fighting off the German army with guns and grenades (and probably grapefruit spoons too). I guess he's just wrong though, much like the similar examples from China, Russia, Cambodia, etc etc.

If you're going to blame most of the 20th century's genocidal slaughter on anti-gun laws you shoudl really do a little reading around the subject first.



trag!!!! where ya been!!!!!!???? nice to see your familiar posting around here....


anyways, i think we should have a right to bear arms i agree with states keeping track of the mental illness i think that will definately save some lives on that side if it is affective...

[dead breed]

Let's not egg anyone on, so stifle.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

:lol:

It's nice to see MrNobody answered my questions....