The Genocide And Gun Control Myth

There are many arguments that can be used against gun control and while I disagree with them all, some are plausible. However, there is one that is so completely absurd that it hardly deserves the dignity of a rebuttal. This is the notion that genocides were preceded by gun control and that taking away people’s guns is the first step towards taking away their freedom and finally their lives. This argument is filled with so much paranoia and historical inaccuracies that it is a wonder that anyone takes it seriously. Yet American politics is so extreme that a fanatical argument like this can find widespread support among conservatives.

An example of the paranoia

An example of the paranoia

For example here are a few sites that claim gun control leads to genocide. What should become clear is how quickly it becomes repetitive, as though they are all drawing on the one source. It should also be obvious that none of them provide any evidence to support their claims (nor did I pick the worst examples, I found all of these by googling “guns genocide”). There are no references or citations or anything to prove the authors aren’t just making things up. Also note how vague the language is. In 1929 there was supposedly gun control, but it is never said what form it took or how prevalent it was or how many people lost their guns. Finally most of the quotes are either fake or taken out of context.

An example of the bogus notion that gun control leads to genocide

An example of the bogus notion that gun control leads to genocide

Let’s start with the first claimed example, that of the Soviet Union. Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book. First of all, the only reason the Bolsheviks were able to come to power in the first place was that they had access to guns. Armed civilians wouldn’t have solved the problem; they were the cause of it. Stalin, Lenin and the Bolsheviks had a minority of votes and were only able to seize power in a military coup. Second of all, armed citizens did try to stop them; it was called the Russian Civil War and lasted between 1917 and 1922. So to claim that armed civilians could have stopped the Bolsheviks is to be ignorant of the fact that they tried and failed to do so.

Next there is everyone’s favourite internet debate tool, Hitler and the Nazis. An examination of the historical record shows that most of the gun control in Germany came not from the Nazis but from the Versailles Treaty. The Nazis actively campaigned against gun control legislation and supported the 1928 law which weakened gun control. In fact, there is a pattern from 1919 onwards of weakening gun control not strengthening. The best gun control opponents can do is use a quote allegedly from Hitler in 1935 (which is almost certainly fake) or mention the 1938 law. However, the 1938 law actually weakened gun control and made it easier for everyone except the Jews to own guns. So while the Jews were excluded from gun ownership, by 1938 the Nazis were deeply entrenched in power and it was far too late for the Jews to try to overthrow them.

It is also hard to take seriously the notion that the Jews, who comprised 1% of the German population, could militarily defeat the other 99%. How could a handful of Jews armed with a few pistols defeat the Wehrmacht which conquered Europe? Not even France, which had tanks, could do that. Any armed uprising by the Jews would have played right into the Nazis hands and only hastened their destruction. It should be noted that Jews in the rest of Europe were not disarmed but that did little to save them. Opponents of gun control fail to realise that making guns easily available to Jews would also make them easily available to Nazis and in all likelihood lead to a pogrom. Seeing as the Jews were so outnumbered by their enemies, a guns-for-everyone policy would not have worked in their favour. Remember that the largest armed insurrection in Germany at the time came not from Jews but in the form of Hitler’s 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.

Communist China is also cited as an example of the dangers of gun control, despite the fact that it was the wide availability of guns that allowed the Communists to launch a rebellion in the first place. Nor would have armed resistance have prevented it. How do I know this? Because that’s exactly what happened and it failed to stop them. Between 1927 and 1949 the Chinese Civil War was fought with between 1.8 and 3.5 million casualties. If armies with experienced troops, tanks, planes etc could not stop Mao, what chance would some untrained and unorganised civilians have? Gun control becomes irrelevant when the main opposition to the government has been crushed in war.

You are probably noticing a common theme here. Pol Pot is the next figure cited, not because he introduced gun control but because he committed genocide. After much research I haven’t been able to find any evidence that the Khmer Rouge introduced any form of gun control or that it aided their rise to power. All I have come across is a host of sites mentioning 1956 without any evidence or citations. Seeing as the Khmer Rouge seized power in 1976, the relation with twenty year old legislation (if it even exists) is tenuous. Also the Khmer Rouge were resisted by not just civilians but also by the army of Cambodia which was far better armed than any civilian ever could be. After decades of constant warfare, it can hardly be claimed that the main problem in Indochina at the time was a lack of guns.

So neither Stalin, Hitler, Mao nor Pol Pot prove the dangers of gun control. Their mass murders would not have been prevented by armed civilians seeing as most of them were resisted by actual armies. To the contrary, the availability of guns made their seizure of power easier. It is nothing short of delusion to think that a small group of untrained civilians could have defeated some of the most powerful armies in the world. How could hunting rifles possibly overpower tanks, planes, artillery and millions of soldiers? History shows that civilians are powerless to militarily resist an oppressive dictator. The only way to prevent genocide is not by stockpiling guns, but strengthening democracy, supporting a free press and non government organisations. To think that gun control in America will lead to genocide is to abandon reality and live in a fantasy world.


Filed under Politics

112 responses to “The Genocide And Gun Control Myth

    • Ron

      So, millions of armed citizens allowed themselves to be murdered by tyrannical governments rather than fight back?

      • vince

        Who wrote this article?

        • an idiot lol .. the bolshevics were assassinated not cuz austrias people had guns .. its albert pikes 3 world wars plan.. no 2 19 times in the 20th century gun confiscation leaded to immediate genocide .. and hundreds of millions of people murdered .. look up the stats by yr and country its sick. no 2 for instance if everyone in a city has an open carry or concealed license crimes robbery murder etc all dramatically drop.. if u wanted to rob a bank and 10 people had guns besides security etc the person would not take that risk.. but a gun free zone and a non licensed criminal drug addict w ever its open season. no 3 when citizens fear their government thers tyranny when their government fears the citizens theres liberty .. quote by ben franklin . if america loses their guns which draconian measures are rapidly growing state to state with ridiculous rules like CALI if someone calls and says a gun owner is disturbed trhey lose their guns for 90 days based on a randon phone call . 30 grand in laywer fees to get back guns followed by 90 days of gestapo reeducation tactics .. jade helm 15 and UWEX 16 shows theres an agenda preparing for war on US SOIL followed by so many other things like military vehicle buildup by the thousands being seen . concentration camps known as fema camps popping up and fully staffed as of 2014 and the army is hiring specifically for internment/resettlement since 09 is scary enough . the saying is when something seems wrong and looks wrong . but this guy bullcraps worse than snopes .. god bless ..

    • Mark

      All this article does is use examples of failed attempts in which citizens tried and failed to stop tyranny to claim that it can’t be done therefore citizens should simply roll over. Ever heard of Afghanistan? Athens, TN? Probably not since those who want to disarm people who do not agree with them simply ignore the facts they don’t want to acknowledge. The fact is that an unarmed populace is easier to control and control is what progressives are all about.

      • Take away their gun and put them into intern camps then genocide them, sounds about right Solzhenitsyn wrote 60 million Christians murdered by Ashkenazi false Jews

  1. Realize that these people are making this stuff up and then passing it around in their echo chambers. It doesn’t matter whether it is real or not, they do not care. Debunking their idiotic claims doen’t help because they do not pay attention. The purpose of the memes being spread is to create a sense of being a beleaguered minority and thus to build a sense of commonality. Then they get their “peer group” voting along with them so that they can call upon them when it is politically expedient.

    The classic case is here in the U.S. when the NRA had a campaign to convince their “peer group” that Obama was “gonna take your guns,” and gun and ammunition sales skyrocketed. This continued for several years even though Obama made not one move to do anything about the proliferation of guns. When this point was brought up during the 2012 election campaign the response was that the fact Obama had done nothing … yet, was evidence that he was going to and gun sales took off again.

    The overt case they make as to why they need so many of such powerful guns is to oppose government tyranny, as if they would stand a chance against the National Guard, let alone regular Army troops were they to offer armed revolt. All of this nonsese has only one purpose and that is to sustain and increase gun manufacturers sales and profits. It has no other purpose, just the side effect of tearing our scoiety apart.

    • Stephen, I’m afraid you are quite right. I grew up on a ranch, with firearms and a lot of use of them. After moving to suburbs and no longer hunting, many years ago, I got rid of them all, and determined NOT to re-arm for self protection. Too much complication and down-side risk. When I was a kid/youth, (50s, 60s), the NRA was not at all what it later became… somehow an arm of the gun manufacturers, as you allude.

      Having grown up very rural and become a counselor/therapist for some number of years, I think I understand a lot of the gun-rights extremists’ thinking. You’re right: there would be no contest re. overall control IF the gov’t wanted to set up martial law and/or try to confiscate guns. The gov’t could gain probably 99% control, and fairly easily. The other 1%, mostly way back in rural areas, they would probably (wisely) just leave alone… let them have their “independence” rather than risk lives and waste resources going after them.

      Fortunately, although I have good reasons not to trust gov’t on many levels, under either party, I don’t expect this kind of thing in the foreseeable future. We have to do our best working WITH the gov’t that WE have set up/allowed. It CAN be improved still also, if only slowly, amid setbacks.

    • In 2014, Obama said “Congress’s failure to pass legislation mandating new background checks ahead of gun purchases was his “most disappointing” moment with lawmakers”. When your biggest disappointment as president, in 6 years, is gun control (although background checks seem reasonable, I haven’t bothered to research why the Brady Bill hasn’t been adequate), that says a lot about priorities.
      (I’m thankful to Obama for delivering this country and the world from near total economic collapse!)
      The argument “armed citizens with pea shooters can’t hold back tanks” is ridiculous coming from ANY American citizen that knows their country’s history. This country, in the 1770s, with an underfunded, starving, ill supplied force, never totaling more than 17,000 men fought and defeated the most powerful country in the world. At that time 25% of the world had been conquered by England, and yet we won our independence after 5 years.
      The United States has had the most powerful military (not necessarily the largest) since WWII, yet we have lost Korea, Vietnam, and been held back by non-military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan (which also defeated the Soviet Union). Time and time again more powerful forces have lost to inferior opponents,
      What is a fact is that no unarmed force has ever held back invasion, and by calling the facts stated by those fighting to defend our freedom against all enemies, foreign AND DOMESTIC, made up is no different than a Nazi saying “the Holocaust never happened”. Only with the type of blindness that brainwashed cult members incur, can you spout such obvious falsehoods and not realize just how ridiculous you sound to everyone who isn’t a member of your anti-gun cult.

      • Michael Gidell

        brilliant. thanks for saying what i was thinking.

      • tobielangel

        I must admit citing a 1770 conflict to explain how guns are effective against tanks really convinced me. I myself heard long bows were great against drones. Long bows notably helped defeat the French at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.😀

      • Chuholme

        Sorry. Poor analogy. The army took over Iraq in a cakewalk. The failure wasn’t a failure of military force, it was a failure of planning, policing and education. To ‘win’ in Iraq would have required maybe 25 years of occupation, total control of the media and the education system, and support and repair of the economy so that basically the entire populous understood democracy down to their bones and remembered Hussein as the “bad old days.” Instead you walked in, destroyed infrastructure, set up a new government and walked out.

        In Vietnam you weren’t fighting an armed population, you were fighting a civil war backed by China on one side and the US on the other. China’s supply line was a lot shorter, and weren’t afraid to use terror tactics, didn’t have the uphill battle of a population pissed off at ‘whites’ after centuries of French rule.

        Similar situation in 1770s. Britain had a huge long supply line vs a pissed off population. At that time were the military really that much better armed than the guys who were shooting rabbits and deer daily to feed their families? It’s not like they had tanks and aircraft. Yes, the biggest single force mustered was 17000 on the American side. How many ships would it take in those days to move that many English soldiers and their supplies across an ocean? What really won the war on the American side was diplomacy. Convincing the French and Spanish and Dutch to support the American cause by causing trouble / declaring war on England. Now England is fighting battles on US soil, in India, in the West Indies, and in Europe. Even for the world’s largest fighting force that is stretched pretty thin, and they were now facing off against what we’re probably the second and third largest forces. Amazing how peace talks were suddenly a good idea.

      • paranova9

        what do ashkenazi’s have to do with the armenian genocide?

      • Mark Betancourt

        Excellent rebuttal.

      • M. Tuffli

        Rich, had the French army not engaged the British on multiple fronts, the Colonists would’ve been swiftly defeated. Swiftly and decisively.

    • Frankie

      You said he was doing nothing? Well that has changed. He wants to take all AR rounds off the shelves. Is genocide super likely? no. But it’s all about the deturant just like nukes. Gun control is strict enough. The problem isn’t the laws it’s that they’re not being enforced. So instead of enforcing laws he wants to create more stringent laws. Everybody’s entitled to their opinion that guns are safe or unsafe but it’s about having the freedom to own if you want to. I’m sure you’ve heard this before but those who give up essential liberties for a little temporary security…

    • Mat C.

      I’m in the Army National Guard and from the various schools I’ve been to and other Army soldiers I’ve met none of us would follow such an ordr as to attack our own country except for a fringe minority.

  2. Recently, I commented on a post whose author is an advocate for gun control. Some guy told me I was projecting my insecurity by suggesting fewer guns means a safer society

  3. Excellent post. However, too many opponents of gun control conflates gun control with total prohibition of guns. Though total prohibition of guns is an extreme case of gun control, many proponents of gun control do not want to go so far. Rather most GC-proponents wants to have strict rules on who can own what and how many guns.

    It strikes me that many pro-gun people, at least those in the US, also tend to oppose drugs, using arguments therefor which are in fact comparable to those made by gun control proponents.

    • How on earth do you draw such a conclusion? The people who are pro gun are certainly those who own them but not exclusively. So your comparison would mean that drug users would be in support of drug laws. I’m not so sure what percentage of crack users or meth users for that matter are actually in support of drug laws.
      In truth a large percentage of the nation at this point seems to have come to the conclusion that the war on drugs is a calamitous failure. So I’m not so sure how supportive they would be of stricter tougher drug laws at this point.

  4. The British Philosopher, Locke, had some input with the creation of the American Constitution, I estimate guns in America, would exceed 320 million guns held in private hands, if American society collapses through energy deprivation or the 16 trillion dollar debt was called in or some other collapse, such as loss of moral integrity, even if military and police join to fight a uprising of the general public, would be a formidable enemy of the State, which is why guns were all part of the constitution, a government that is found to be acting in a corrupt way in particular, against the public’s interest, many would say this is the case at present, although not yet ripe for this type of action, on mass.

    • If you want to advocate a position or make a point effectively, it will help your cause a lot if you learn better writing style, starting with using periods and complete sentences…. Honest suggestion, not meant as sarcasm.

      • Thanks Howard for your instructive commentary, the intelligent will get the gist of what I mean.
        The problem with academia, is they are one of the chief obstacles to democracy, by the time training for many years, to obtain the certificates, and validation by the professors, many do not have the realization of having been indoctrinated to a technological exercise of correct performance.
        Mao Zedong, had the same idea, I am not suggesting you return to the fields, to be reeducated, I think Mao, felt intimidated by the educated, the difference with me is I am not intimidated by any that have gone through the formal educational system, the educated seem to have problems keeping up with fluid ideas, if I can help you through, or do anything for you, let me know?

        • Thanks for the offer. I’m not needing that kind of help. I have a foot in both the “academic” world and the “rest of the world”… more in the latter for a long time, though I do blog regularly (linked to my name). I think I get your point about the “indoctrination” of academia. There can be a kind of elitism and “groupthink”, especially in some disciplines, for sure. However, I don’t find that much, if any, among friends and former teachers, etc., in theology, psychology and “biblical studies”, which are my areas of education and practice, mainly. And if anything, I find they/we keep up with “fluid ideas” much more than lesser educated (formally) people or perhaps than some other academic disciplines. Generally, formal education, for all its flaws and limitations, I see as contributing to a person updating and refining their thinking for the better…. Of course, it’s not the only way… but a lot of reading (and/or listening) IS required, one way or another.

          • I am fortified you keep good company Howard, having a reasonable all round completion to your being, I suggest a refrain from to much biblical studies, as this book has given us a good dose of our spiritual reference to our psyche, of recent I had gone to a AA meeting to assist with AA casualties as a mentor to assist those who are still involved with drugs, myself I have given up alcohol and tobacco and the stuff that went with this, several years ago, what the AA could not understand is I was their as a mentor and not requiring help, and thought I was in denial of drug taking, furthermore they had given me the twelve steps, which I believe is intrinsically based on the bible, I am not directed by any exterior creed, my direction is within, which is sometimes known as intuition, I often get the technology wrong as to how I am unable to get over what it is about, I am attempting to get at, all to often, I apologize to those who do not think I am, other than, I am, that I know.

        • Barry Gordon

          Clearly Howard makes a valid point without being condescending. Dr. Wayne W. Dyer discussed how powerful it is to handle criticism with grace and acceptance and thereby turn opposition into alliance. The writings of Sun Tzu support maximizing integration and assimilation by minimizing the appearance of conflict / attack. Good composition would be defined as thoughtful – FULL OF THOUGHT. Some people go looking for an opportunity to be offended (also by Dr. Wayne W. Dyer) which in essence is seeking conflict. Kudos to Howard Pepper.

  5. ronanwills

    “Anyone who claims that an armed group of civilians could have stopped Stalin clearly has never opened a history book”

    This is the most absurd part of the modern “we need guns to keep the government in check!” claim- the idea that if the US Government goes Full Totalitarian a disorganized, mostly untrained mob of handgun wielding citizens who have no way of communicating or coordinating will actually pose a threat to the US military.

    In fact I’d argue it’s the first amendment that’s actually important to keep government abuses in check- dictatorships have historically kept power by stifling freedom of speech, the free press and freedom of assembly more than taking away people’s guns.

    The other, related, delusion that gun advocates like to trot out is the notion that society is on the brink of collapse and when the post-apocalypse comes you’ll need your guns to protect your family from the marauding hordes of bandits…. who also have guns.

    • Exactly. I don’t understand how anyone could possibly think that untrained civilians could possibly defeat armies with tanks and planes. The only revolutions that succeed are peaceful ones where the military refuses to fight. That’s how you overthrow governments, not through tin pot uprisings.

      • Its not so straight forward as to dismiss uprisings of tin pot, if the number of people are marginalized with little to live for they become increasingly dangerous, as on can see with the Woolwich, killing, a small incident can become big, in terms of fear that the community feels, the blog saying, no uprisings that are violent do not succeed, one that did would be the French revolution that became violent and was successful, depending how you interpret revolution, such as Vietnam, and many other incidents as such, you would recall the Spanish conquerors operating in South America, a handful of Spanish militants destroyed a civilization of some millions, the force of military can hardly be disputed, the problem with police and army, is they are made up in the main of regular people from regular homes, as the authorities kill more members of the society, they may have second thoughts as who the enemy is, as they will be killing their own, in America as one writer states how can you fight a war with hand guns? in America thei are many guns that are automatic, and a vast arsenal of sniper guns, at least many hunting guns that have telescopic sights, fighting a civil war in America, is similar to Syrian war, or even more difficult or easy depending which way you look at it, owing to the buildings being high rise, and sniper fire would be a problem.

      • mikelets456

        Then why do they want to disarm these people so “badly”? Why was Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Progressives, etc so consumed with removing two items from their societies…God and firearms? Look at history and it’s very clear to see why. BTW, when this administration stops with their blatant corruption, attacks on honest hardworking citizens, stops protecting criminals and terrorists, etc then maybe I’ll listen. But when you have Bill Ayers ( a good friend and mentor to Obama) on record saying he would have to kill 25 million Americans to create a Marxist utopia, there’s NO way I’m giving up my firearms. Also, homicides are at the lowest since 1964, yet gun sales are up…and they continue to push gun control, why? Once again I ask, if governments are not threatened by innocent citizens having guns, then why confiscate them? Also, why are millions upon millions of innocent people killed when guns are banned or confiscated? The reason there has not been mass genocide in the SUPER POWER of the world since created, is because God fearing, moralistic citizens are armed!!!

        • What are you ranting about? Who said Hitler, Stalin and Progressives were obsessed with gun control? Why are you even lumping them together? Do you have evidence or are just regurgitating what you heard elsewhere?

          Bill Ayers is not connected to Obama at all, he does not have any plan to exterminate millions of Americans to create a Marxist utopia. You are just making lies up and making yourself look crazy.

          Do you genuinely believe the only thing that has prevented genocide in America is armed civilians?

          • mikelets456

            Bill Ayers not connected to Obama? Really? Yeah, and he loves freedom.
            I love your Saul Alinsky tactics….slander, lie, slander, lie.
            So you’re naive enough to believe that Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Lenin, etc were rounding up firearms for the safety of their people that they were going to kill? Really? If 99.9997% of honest gun owners do not commit a crime with their guns, why are you calling us “nut cases”? I don’t believe we are the tin foil hat wearers, as you say. Since gun sales are up and homicides are at their lowest since 1964, then why the push on GUN CONTROL? I’ve already proven you a liar about Obama and Bill Ayers, so why are you defending the likes of Hitler, Mao,Stalin etc that have killed close to 200 MILLION people? Why are you defending Hitler for disarming the Jews saying they did not have a chance? Then why did they have to disarm them if they did not have a chance? Why are you afraid to answer my questions?

            • Wow a dubious website, I’ll definitely believe everything it says!

              Did you read any of my comment you are you just arguing with the wind? Do you have any evidence that Stalin, Hitler etc were rounding up firearms? Where are your sources that 99% of gun owners do not commit crimes? Also it is those who think their guns will stop a genocide that I call crazy. What is your source for your claim that homicides are at their lowest since 1964? Do you have any evidence for your claims or are just throwing out insults, wild claims and Hitler comparisons like they’re confetti?

              • mikelets456

                I love how I post links, you don’t answer the questions, call my links “crazy” then ask me to post more links. I’ve dealt with plenty of progressives like yourself to know, YOU PROVE ME WRONG!! Post facts with real links instead of simply slandering…answer my questions before we go further. I won’t be waiting because I know you won’t respond with REAL facts.

                • What do you mean post links? You have posted a grand total of one link. It takes more than using capital letters and wild allegations to win a debate.

                  • mikelets456

                    Thanks for making my predictions stay at an unprecedented 100%…you progressives are way too easy to figure out. Thanks for not answering any questions and slandering. I will be on my way now unless you can prove me wrong, state facts, then I’m willing to debate. In the famous words of Willy Wonka… “good day sir”.

                    • Wow. Only on the internet could someone ignore everything I said in a post, ignore my questions for them, make a series of wild allegations, refuse to provide and evidence for them, yet still walk away smugly thinking that they had won. Wow, your level of self-delusion is simply breath taking.

            • Chuholme

              Did you even read the article? Mao led the people, armed with their own weapons against the military of the day. How were 1% of the German population, the Jews, going to do anything against the 99% plus the army? And that 1% was the only disarmed group. If Hitler hadn’t won the minds of a significant minority and stifled the thinking of the rest maybe the friends and neighbours of those Jews could have stopped the holocaust before it began. Hitler won by propaganda, not gun control.

              No one except the pro-gun group is talking about confiscating weapons. In my opinion it is the people who scream the loudest about confiscation that I trust the least, and would be most likely to confiscate from. I mean that really does sound paranoid, and I don’t trust paranoid people.

      • THusar

        I’m sorry to inform you but you’ve made several incorrect assumptions here and throughout your postings.

        1. There are many, many, many combat vets who received their small unit tactics and insurgency degrees free of charge from the War On Terror School of Hard Knocks. I would not classify them as untrained civilians. I’d say they were far more acquainted with assymetrical warfare than you or the average SWAT team member. I’d also say that you are very naieve about the consequences of that which you are promoting.

        2. Do you really think that the bulk of the US military are going to turn their sights onto the populace in direct violation of their oaths? I think your elitism has you a bit misguided into their psyche. The men you expect to do this sort of thing believe in such a thing as honor and respect. The vast majority of them would not execute such an order.

        3. Mike Vanderboegh is far more eloquent than I on 4th generation warfare, but the gist is this: It isn’t just military and their enablers who would be considered a target. How long do you think the Gov’t functionaries and media types will be roaring in support for confiscation once one or two of them end up cashing in on their life insurance prematurely? This leads me to point:

        4. Deer hunting (and hunting in general) requires a fair amount of marksmanship. The folks referenced in points #1 and #2 are already aware that they would be unable to compete with the weapon systems you’ve referenced. It would seem to me that they would prefer to operate a bit differently by not trying to fight a conventional war. Don’t think that’s the case? Then please do some independant research on the amount of sniper attacks during the Detroit riots. Once you are complete ask yourself this: Do you believe there is more or less trust in the intentions of the gov’t? Due to current and recent events, do you believe that serious men are taking speech such as yours more or less seriously?

        Then again, I’m just an untrained civilian knuckle dragger with a paltry 5 combat tours and a long list of fellows I know who believe as I do. We don’t know anything at all about insurgencies or the tactics that will be used to fight them. We have no idea about the capabilities and weaknesses of the assets that would potentially be used against us. As a matter of fact, we have full faith and confidence that the proper authorities will always be there precisely when we need them to defend our individual and collective rights and liberties. I have no doubt that we’ll gladly comply and go a much different route than the folks in CT who are currently giving the middle finger to their law requiring registration and/or disassociation from their personal property. (In this case, weaponry.) Speaking of CT, I’m willing to bet that they’ll roll over and give them up anyway, once the heavy hand of the government starts kicking in their doors implementing force upon them, their family, and their property.

        I mean, it isn’t like a certain police department there is afraid for its members and their lives, due to some ill-advised communication by one of its members concerning his desires and wishes. It’s not like said officer wasn’t given 24 hour guard or anything. Oh that’s right, they are and he was. It’s a numbers game and both sides are starting to wake up to that realization.

        Look, I’ve read some (and candidly didn’t have the stomach to continue) of what’s been written here. There are some intelligent (albeit) misguided folks that have posted who are screwing around with things that shouldn’t be messed with. You are entering a world that you know nothing about and quite obviously are too naieve to comprehend.

        The people you are wanting the gov’t to criminalize or disarm think quite differently than you and the rest of your elitist colleagues. They look upon your writings as a threat and as propaganda for the collectivists. They have ample reason to believe this is the case as they have been given no evidence to the contrary.

        Look, you are well within your rights to dismiss my scribblings here as those of an overinflated ego, or a rube with an axe to grind. I frankly don’t care, as long as you leave me and mine alone. I pray (yes, I’m so backwards that I still pray) that this all goes away and that not a violent act takes place. World Peace, if you will.

        Just remember this, however; a law is only worthwhile if the People allow it to be enforced and there are others willing and able to enforce it. It doesn’t look good for the first part of that statement and once it is tried a few times, I don’t have high hopes for the second.

        • “There are many, many, many combat vets who received their small unit tactics and insurgency degrees free of charge from the War On Terror School of Hard Knocks.”

          Who are vastly outnumbered, unorganised and under-equipped in comparison to regular forces.

          “Do you really think that the bulk of the US military are going to turn their sights onto the populace in direct violation of their oaths?”

          Do you really think they will stand down and let a group of fanatics who believe Obama is a Communist overthrow democracy? You seem to believe that the government will play the role of oppressive tyranny while the NRA will only act in self-defence. It is far more likely that gun militias attack first and revolt. Don’t forget that will be huge numbers willing to volunteer to fight against these militas.

          “How long do you think the Gov’t functionaries and media types will be roaring in support for confiscation once one or two of them end up cashing in on their life insurance prematurely?”

          Ah yes, suppress free speech by murdering all who disagree with you. I suppose you have to destroy freedom to save it, right?

          Sure guerilla war is more likely, but for that you need popular support. Do you think Tea Party fanatics have enough support for armed rebellion? Perhaps in some parts of the country they do, but in most of it they wouldn’t. Between a flawed but democratic government and right wing fanatics, most civilians will side with the government.

          • THusar

            “Who are vastly outnumbered, unorganised and under-equipped in comparison to regular forces.”

            How’d Afghanistan and Iraq work out for us? Let alone Viet Nam. You do realize that all of the gov’t toys need to be supported somehow, right? How well would it go if martial law is declared and tanks roll through a town. That’d be a good image for the rest of the country.

            “Do you really think they will….against these militas.”

            I would say that the gov’t is already engaged in oppression and denial of individual rights and liberties. This is, in fact, what you are promoting as well. So what are people expected to do when they are made into felons and criminals overnight? What are they expected to do when the sancitity of their house and their property is disrupted at gunpoint? I don’t think there are huge numbers of people that could be easily motivated to do anything. This apathy and ignorance is why we find ourselves in the place we do. As an aside, to what organization(s) are they going to volunteer?

            “How long do you think the Gov’t functionaries and media types will be roaring in support for confiscation once one or two of them end up cashing in on their life insurance prematurely?”

            As I said, I can only reference (and poorly) the precepts of 4th generation warfare. I will say that it has nothing to do with free speech. I am all for free speech, most especially when a person has an opinion that I disagree with. The references I previously made were of the shills and the propagandizers who do everything within their power to stifle and eliminate free speech. Do they have the intestinal fortitude or believe so strongly in what they are doing that they would have the moral conviction to continue? I suspect they would cry mercy and go to ground quickly. On the other hand, do you think that we truly have freedom of speech right now or perhaps much of the current media (for both sides) are following almost strictly idealogical lines rather than reporting fact?

            “Sure guerilla war is more likely, but for that you need popular support. Do you think Tea Party fanatics have enough support for armed rebellion?”

            What makes them fanatics? Why call them such? Because they believe differently than you so you must therefore dehumanize or degrade them? (Of note, I do not belong to any Tea Party or other Political organization and I am far from a fanatic about anything…other than protecting my life, my family, or my property)

            To answer your question, however, 3% is the answer. There is significance in that number. I would daresay and especially considering my CT example or the recent numbers in CA that we are looking at substantially more than 3% who are not really all that interested in complying with a decree that directly violates their God (or whatever they believe) given rights.

            “Perhaps in some parts of the country they do, but in most of it they wouldn’t.”

            I’m not so sure of this. CT is quite obviously a deeply “blue,” state and it doesn’t seem as if the folks there have much incentive or desire to follow the “law,” that was passed. It seems to me that there is a great number of locations that are already taking steps to pre-empt any further intrusion by the fed. I wonder why that is?

            “Between a flawed but democratic government and right wing fanatics, most civilians will side with the government.”

            Ahhh, the dependancy created by the nanny state. It is very sad that many would give up everything to become the subjects of gov’t. However, there are a great many who choose to go a different route. These are the people you wish to harm. These folks are who you are encouraging the gov’t to illegally, unConstitutionally, and immorally inflict damage upon. With the spate of recent laws being passed, tell me again how the gov’t isn’t already oppressive?

            Here’s the problem Robert (can I call you Rob?), and I said it before during my previous post: you just don’t have the perspective to speak accurately about what will or won’t happen if these types of edicts continue to be given. You know nothing about the rank and file of Americana because you consider yourself above them. You assume (wrongly) that people are incapable of independant thought and reason. Sure, there are great many that cannot do so, but they aren’t the folks that are at issue here.

            Since you brought it up here and elsewhere within this post, who do you think is going to execute the search warrants or the imposition of martial law? The type of men you need are men of action. The problem for you is that these are the type to take their oaths seriously. They are the kind who will not likely follow illegal and unlawful orders, consequences be damned. So, who is going to round those fellows up?

            For the ones who do become the enforcers of the State, how many do you think there are? How long would they last? The numbers just aren’t on their side. Especially once 4gw starts to kick in, a significant amount of those available are going to be detailed for personal protection.

            The answer to this question and to much of what we are talking here is already given to us. The members of the Brandford PD are worried for their lives and have placed one of their own under 24 hour guard. Methinks the folks around those parts have already put their line in the sand and the gov’t is backing down. They’ve figured out that it’s too much to chew already. Of course, they have some incentive to be smart about this because it’s their hindquarters that are on the line here.

            As I said previously, if the unfortunate and at this point hypothetical does come to pass, why would you think this “fight” would be fought with “tanks and Apache’s?” As you’re starting to realize (I hope), this wouldn’t end up being anything resembling a conventional war. You need to check your premise as it’s greatly flawed. As I said before, and with no intent to insult, I think you are greatly naieve about this topic.

            One last thing…, in your initial post for your blog, you didn’t carry your thoughts out to the next logical level. Sure, the initial revolution was carried out by people with guns (for what its worth, our Constitution very clearly spells out that they intended to keep that option on the table for us as well) but what happened AFTER the Totalitarianists and collectivists won? They took away the firearms and means with which the people could defend themselves and then commenced with eliminating them.

            Think it can’t happen here? Are you willing to bet your life or that of your progeny upon it? Are you willing to place your life in someone elses hands indefinately? I mean, it’s not as if the gov’t hasn’t already started going down the road of illegality, right?

          • Do you really think the Tea Party fanatics are the only people who are concerned about Big government?

      • Laura

        Except for that revolution that founded our country. That one appeared to have succeeded.

        • In the American Constitution the possession of guns were all part to over throw corrupt governments, unfortunately the average American wants to keep the gun, now seen as a necessity because it has become a violent society, in part because of guns, when America fought Britain they could fight with guns, now this is no longer possible because of the heavy artillery of this country of establishment, it is not as if America has been anything other than corrupt from the time of its inception of the creation of America, this is not because Americans are inherently corrupt, as they are similar to most parts of the so called civilized world, its just that they have resources at present to creating militaristic power.

  6. I read through the ‘Gun Facts’ brochure last year and was shocked by how misleading their ‘facts’ are. Scotland is named and shamed as the most violent country in the developed world – the suggestion is clearly that if we can more access to guns our society will be less violent. Drunken fights with guns to hand is just what we need!

  7. The number of guns in South Africa ( in the hands of the general public at least) is slowly being reduced and guess what…so are fatal shootings. Amazing hey?

    • mikelets456

      Yup, and gun sales are up 4 years straight in the USA and yet the homicide rate is the lowest since 1964. Wow, that’s weird..huh?Amazing hey? America has the most firearms out of all countries in the world, yet ranked all the way down to 29th in homicides…amazing hey?

  8. Let’s try a thought experiment.

    A. A country where citizens privately own many guns, including guns that could be used effectively to resist tyranny.

    Question: Do those privately owned firearms pose a substantial threat to government establishing tyranny (a prerequisite usually to mass murder)?

    B. A country where citizens are banned from owning firearms and only government agents may possess firearms.

    Question: Is the possibility of government establishing tyranny increased substantially?

    The obvious answers are:

    A: Yes

    B: Yes

    What else is there left to discuss?

    You can argue as long as you want that some people may have misrepresented some facts, but it is incontrovertible fact that the Founders considered armed citizens as necessary to prevent tyranny. They were absolutely right.

    Does that mean that armed citizens today could resist a government with Apache helicopters and many other advanced weapons? I have no idea, but they certainly could make it a lot more dangerous to work for the government.

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, a survivor of the Russian gulags wrote:

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”


    • “Do those privately owned firearms pose a substantial threat to government establishing tyranny (a prerequisite usually to mass murder)?”

      Do a few shotguns and pistols pose a substantial threat to trained soldiers with powerful machine guns, tanks, jet planes, heavy artillery etc? The answer is of course not. No tyrannical government would have any reason to fear them. In fact they would be able to use the violence of these militas as an excuse to crush opposition. There is also the small point that armed fanatics are far more likely to set up a dictatorship than overthrow one.

      Dictatorships are not dependent on the number of guns in the country but on whether people are willing to stand by democracy and protect their freedoms peacefully. Dictatorships are formed when freedom of speech and association are removed and your local hunting club is not going to be much use in defending them.

      “Does that mean that armed citizens today could resist a government with Apache helicopters and many other advanced weapons? I have no idea,”

      I’ll make it easy for you, the answer is no, they could not.

      Finally, I see that you completely ignored the point that I made that most tyrannical governments are formed through war so a lack of weapons cannot be blamed.

      • Might want to read about the history of the city of Hue during the Tet Offensive. A lot government workers and sympathizers had to be dug up and identified afterwards – thousands.

        • Are you using North Vietnam as an example to help your case? Do you really think Communist revolutionaries are the best role models?

          • You probably didn’t understand the point I was making. Has nothing to do with Communists. It has everything to do with the fact that it is hard to rule when government agents are considered legitimate targets.

            The Viet Cong murdered thousands of government agents in Hue and anyone they thought remotely sympathized with them and buried them. Famous picture from the war shows a woman who just dug up her father after the Marines recaptured Hue.

      • SolLeks

        Hello sir.

        “Do a few shotguns and pistols”

        FYI, people would not be fighting with shotguns and pistols.

        We would be fighting with rifles, hunting and sport. Both of these often fire cartridges that are of the .308 caliber which it would take 2 to defete the best body armor available, and would cut right through a standard police officers vest as if it where not even on. Many more common sport rifles take the .223 or 5.56×45 cartridges, which is the exact same thing that the military uses.

        You should learn a little bit about firearms before making baseless assumptions like you did above, but then you would have less to belittle people like myself about.

        Yes the civilians would be out gunned as we don’t generally have automatic weapons or heavy weapons, but things like mortars and rocket launchers are not hard to make. they are also not hard to take from military armories with a decent sized group of pissed off Americans with rifles.

        Granted I hope this never happens, and I don’t think it will unless our government goes down the rabbit hole (in which I believe many soldiers and police would defect to help protect the civilians)

        Also, don’t assume that just because people are civilians, that they don’t have any training in tactics. There are plenty of vets that if such a time arises, they would be happy to help train people to fight along side of them to get rid of a corrupt government…

        Now, I personally own enough firearms to arm a squad of people with rifles and pistols, and I have the know how to use them and train people on them, but that is because I am a military collector (most of my stuff is WW2 or older, but is all in great working order). I do not pose a threat to anyone unless they try to break into my house. I don’t want to ever point a loaded weapon at someone, but I am the person people like you try to disarm, not the criminals due to the simple fact that no matter what laws you pass, only people like me would follow them while the criminals laugh and continue to not follow them as criminals do. If you could say 100% that no criminal would ever have a firearm and that our government would never go rogue (which in all honesty, I don’t think will happen, but you never know), then I would be more than happy to turn in / disable my firearms. but until you can make that claim, I will be keeping a loaded 9mm pistol on my desk as a ‘just in case’ measure.

        • A reason to overthrow the government would be the 1% as a constant funneling of money in to their coffers, the hunger and destruction of the lower income groups as a constant and ever expanding group, having little or no possibility of changing their fate will drive this fractured society to civil war.
          As SolLeks, in his well informed commentary stated of the dangers within this society as a potential possibility, this situation would not be a slow development of strife but would be a sudden transition.
          The elite must know this is a possibility, but having had its own way for so long, will possible think they are invulnerable and this cannot happen to them, as one know’s often what is the outside possibility can become.

      • You are the pot calling the kettle black.

    • mikelets456

      These people don’t get it and are here to disarm honest citizens. Clearly if you look at history it’s ALWAYS, ALWAYS big corrupt government killing people by the masses!!! Millions, upon million killed by corrupt governments. Yet, these people want to demonize honest citizens that own guns, which by the way is a CIVIL LIBERTY and guaranteed (real/written) Right! It’s clear that citizens with firearms are not the threat, BIG, corrupt governments are especially those that obviously against freedom of citizens.
      BTW, why is the focus on guns when murder is already illegal and law? Murder is illegal no matter which way you do it…gun, fist, hammer, knife, etc. So why aren’t these items clearly regulated? It’s obvious, because governments fear an ARMED citizenry. I still can’t believe the author of this “article” believes that Hitler, Mao, Stalin, etc had no fear of citizens with guns, but these BIG governments banned/confiscated them. Why? That would be like me cutting off the hands of my ex-wife’s husband because I don’t fear him….

  9. jamesbradfordpate

    Reblogged this on James’ Ramblings.

  10. Pingback: A smattering of links | Fraser Sherman's Blog

  11. Reblogged this on Girl, Uninterrupted and commented:
    A well-written opinion post about gun control.

  12. Citizen Nielsen:

    Your argument, like many superficially compelling arguments, does contain elements of truth, but its teaspoonful of truth is overwhelmed by an ocean’s worth of the very same shallow historical analysis you decry in your “pro-gun” opponents.

    The right to bear arms is one of the most radical and non-negotiable victories gained by the working class through the agency of the revolutionary bourgeois revolution in the United States. Though it is true that mere ragtag bands of armed citizens would not prevail (initially) against organized military forces, they would indeed provide the critically important nucleus of militant leaders of a revolutionary working class guerrilla army. The fact is that there are enough civilians in the United States with both extensive military training in their backgrounds as well as the easy availability of near-military-grade weaponry to pose a very serious threat to the continued dominance of the numerically tiny US capitalist class and its wholly-owned United States Government. Within months, with the proper military leadership of US military veterans, a formidable guerrilla army could indeed be deployed across the United States thanks in great part to the fact that we still have the right to bear arms. We must never surrender this most valuable of our rights! The rest of the Bill of Rights isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on if we are unable to defend those rights ARMS IN HAND! Anyone who pretends not to see this nakedly obvious fact is either dumb as a box of rocks or working for the ruling class.

    The idea that the Bolsheviks seized power “in a coup” because they “didn’t have enough votes” to win an election is hilariously inaccurate. At the time of the Revolution, the working class of key cities in Tsarist Russia had been won to the Bolshevik program, and large sections of the Tsarist military joined the Bolsheviks on the eve of the Revolution; this last was the key to the victory. In a revolution, only those who fetishize the status quo make fools of themselves by pointing to the results of the last election as evidence of the true correlation of political forces that must be slavishly obeyed until the next (rigged) election. No revolution worthy of the name ever paused to genuflect at the empty ritual of rigged bourgeois democratic elections – made infinitely more valueless by the rapid rearrangement of political forces that inevitably takes place on the eve of a revolution. Even during the American Revolution, the insurrectionary leaders ignored the protocols of monarchist political practice and forged ahead with the struggle to overthrow the British monarchy – without getting permission from the entire 99% first. And in the American Revolution (which you strangely omit from your historical analysis) it was precisely a ragtag band of citizens that made up the American military that ultimately (with an enormous assist from the French) drove the British out of the 13 colonies. The US military under Washington was never the equal of the British Army in terms of their training or their armament; yet it was the Americans who won the war. Why do you suppose that the “right to bear arms” was considered by the Founding Fathers to be such an important right that it needed to be incorporated so prominently in the new Bill of Rights?

    Your entire article reeks of defense of the status quo and is overflowing with contempt for the idea of a workers revolution ever occurring in the United States. Your blatantly defeatist attitude is either redolent of extreme cowardice or of blind obedience to your social betters (equals?) in the US capitalist class. “Surrender your weapons now!” you cry to your fellow US citizens “or you will be mowed down by the armed forces of the ‘legitimate’ rulers of our ‘free’ society!”

    It is strange to hear people calling for the surrender of our “right to bear arms” in the midst of an historical period in which the United States Government has committed the following world-historic crimes: launched wars against sovereign states on false pretences; re-legalized torture; has been caught spying on every single citizen of the US and the rest of the world; and has declared to the world, openly, that the President of the United States has the “right” to order the assassination of any US citizen whose writings or personal associates the President does not like. What a time to be calling for the US citizens to lay down their arms! The working class of the United States would have to be completely out of our minds to abandon this invaluable right to bear arms in self-defense at a time in our nation’s history when the national government has openly declared war on the citizenry and has shredded our Bill of Rights! We say: “TO ARMS! TO ARMS! THE US CAPITALIST CLASS AND THEIR POLICE STATE IS COMING! “ The US working class desperately needs to prepare to overthrow this despotic US capitalist class and their imperialist nation-state before the US capitalist class plunges the entire world into WWIII!

    In your eyes, Citizen Nielsen, the mere fact of workers daring to possess weapons capable of defending them from the completely out-of-control US police state is tantamount to a declaration of war by the working class against the capitalist class and its “special bodies of armed men” – a war which, in your eyes, the working class can not possibly win. You are wrong. The weakest part of the United States Government’s – and any capitalist government’s – means of repression is to be found precisely in the social composition of their armed forces – made up almost completely by the sons and daughters of the working class. The “thin blue line” of the police forces is just that: a very thin blue line. We have just seen how insurrectionary citizens in the Ukraine with no guns at all to speak of were able to completely neutralize the police forces of the Ukraine almost without bloodshed. We have seen very similar events take place around the world in the “Arab Spring” uprisings. Your argument, made in the face of these world-shaking developments in the Ukraine which took place just days ago is proof that it is not the pro-gun lobby but the ANTI-GUN lobby that has become hysterical in the face of naked US police state repression at home and all over the world! It is easy to see which side of the class line you are on, Citizen Nielsen! It is becoming harder and harder to argue that the workers should give up their right to bear arms while the US Government is giving them proof after daily proof that doing so would be an act of political suicide – isn’t it, Citizen Nielsen?

    The insurrectionary working class of the United States, in rebellion, arms in hand, will exert a powerful moral force upon the US military rank and file to turn their guns the other way. If the United States Government – or any government – believes that it can be as despotic as it wants to be and that no matter what it does to the citizens, it can always rely on the loyalty of the rank and file of the military, it is doomed to suffer a rude awakening. The US capitalist class, which represents a tiny minority of the US population, yet runs the country and its armed forces in its own interests – is in an incredibly weak – not an incredibly strong – position. They are sitting on a powder keg which they themselves have lit a long fuse – and they know it! That is why they and their apologists – like yourself, Citizen Nielsen – are becoming so frantic when it comes to forcing the workers to voluntarily surrender their right to bear arms! They don’t have the guts to just impose their will by sending police and military detachments to go door-to-door in a massive national sweep to confiscate our guns – yet!

    The Bolsheviks won their revolutionary struggle not because “they” possessed guns (they didn’t have any to speak of) but because they were able to win the Tsar’s army – composed entirely of brutally exploited peasants and proletarians – over to their side. Once that happened they had plenty of guns, tanks and all the armaments of war necessary to overthrow the Tsarist government and its bourgeois-democratic shadow. This is what happens in every successful revolution; and it is precisely what did not happen in every unsuccessul one, like the Spartacist uprising in Germany in 1919 and the subsequent failures of later revolutionary opportunities in Germany – the failures of which led to the rise of fascism. Your analysis of this decade-and-a-half long struggle between the Social-Democrats, Communists and the fascists in Germany is just as shallow as the one promulgated by the pro-gun lobby.

    The US working class of 2014 – like our ancestors in the British North American colonies in 1775 – will NEVER surrender the right to bear arms nor will we surrender our guns, ammo and powder. That right was won through the bloody struggle of our ancestors and it will only be through bloody struggle that it will be taken away. The revolutionary bourgeois Constitution and Bill of Rights which enshrined in law for the first time in world history the right for every citizen to bear arms without having to be a member of any organized army was one of the greatest victories gained by the workers in their long, global struggle for their emancipation from exploitation by the wealthy. Any worker who repudiates the right to bear arms is carrying out the program of the enemy class – the capitalist class. Any non-worker who repudiates it is taking the side of the tiny minority of wealthy capitalists who actually run this country today against the vast majority – the working class – who will rightfully run this country and the whole world in the future. To oppose the “right to bear arms” is to hide behind that thin blue line of police and that army composed of the sons and daughters of the working class and trust that the first line of defense will not shatter like it has done in the Ukraine, in Egypt and all over the world in the past half-decade, and to pray to god that the soldiers continue to blindly obey their officers and ignore the entreaties of their mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. “A laurel, and hearty handshake” to you, Citizen Nielsen, and all who take up their positions on the capitalists’ side of this argument!

    Workers of the World, Unite!

    Independent Workers Party of Chicago

    • The most intelligent and comprehensive insight on this issue, so much for the writer who said how ludicrous the vagabond unorganized rag tag mob, have no chance, of overthrow, what this so called writer who possible is part of the 1%, or in the slip stream of doing alright, did not get that a so called mob, do not work within the frame work of a organized group, the frame work is not a centralized organization, these are cells are made up of one or two people that are disconnected from any central headquarters, that in the event of torture cannot reveal information on their colleagues, they work on the idea or concept what has to be done, of over throw, as far as cowboys lining up as thin red line in a field facing a government of tanks, jets and all the modern equipment is not only a comment that only a simple mind could devise, and boy wouldn’t you like to have him as a general, for the government forces, furthermore, when Obama announced his call to return automatic and semi automatic guns all to be recalled and handed back to be destroyed, the gun holders became alerted to this possibility of gun recall, what do you think happened? the sales of semi and automatic weapons rocketed, and as iwpchi, wrote, the vast amount of military and police are made up from working class families, the 1%, know they are having a problem, which the graduates from the 1% are busy attempting to work out how their greed in squeezing more money out of the 99%, may blind them to more pressing problems, the collectors of the money for the 1%, would have little mercy shown to them in the event of this possibility, ironically this elite are driving the quest towards the overthrow of this marginal corrupt group that having no conscience towards the preservation of the planet and people, the devastation of many cultures within the past century, many sense something evil is going on, the overthrow of the 1% is a start to rectify what is long now overdue, we do not need these parasites, it is a constructive start of our repairing our planet.

  13. Frank McGhee

    Lets look at the history of Nazi Gun and focus on just one victim, a renowned German athlete. Alfred Flatow won first place in gymnastics at the 1896 Olympics. In 1932, he dutifully registered three handguns, as required by a decree of the liberal Weimar Republic. The decree also provided that in times of unrest, the guns could be confiscated. The government gullibly neglected to consider that only law-abiding citizens would register, while political extremists and criminals would not. However, it did warn that the gun-registration records must be carefully stored so they would not fall into the hands of extremists.

    The ultimate extremist group, led by Adolf Hitler, seized power just a year later, in 1933. The Nazis immediately used the firearms-registration records to identify, disarm and attack “enemies of the state,” a euphemism for Social Democrats and other political opponents of all types. Police conducted search-and-seizure operations for guns and “subversive” literature in Jewish communities and working-class neighborhoods.

    Jews were increasingly deprived of more and more rights of citizenship in the coming years. The Gestapo cautioned the police that it would endanger public safety to issue gun permits to Jews. Hitler faked a show of tolerance for the 1936 Olympics in Berlin, but Flatow refused to attend the reunion there of former champions. He was Jewish and would not endorse the farce.

    By fall of 1938, the Nazis were ratcheting up measures to expropriate the assets of Jews. To ensure that they had no means of resistance, the Jews were ordered to surrender their firearms.

    Flatow walked into a Berlin police station to comply with the command and was arrested on the spot, as were other Jews standing in line. The arrest report confirmed that his pistols were duly registered, which was obviously how the police knew he had them. While no law prohibited a Jew from owning guns, the report recited the Nazi mantra: “Jews in possession of weapons are a danger to the German people.” Despite his compliance, Flatow was turned over to the Gestapo.

    This scenario took place all over Germany — firearms were confiscated from all Jews registered as gun owners. As this was occurring, a wholly irrelevant event provided just the excuse needed to launch a violent attack on the Jewish community: A Polish teenager who was Jewish shot a German diplomat in Paris. The stage was set to instigate Kristallnacht, a carefully orchestrated Nazi onslaught against the entire Jewish community in Germany that horrified the world and even the German public.

    Under the pretense of searching for weapons, Jewish homes were vandalized, businesses ransacked and synagogues burned. Jews were terrorized, beaten and killed. Orders were sent to shoot anyone who resisted.

    SS head Heinrich Himmler decreed that possession of a gun by a Jew was punishable by 20 years in a concentration camp. An estimated 20,000 Jewish men were thrown into such camps for this reason or just for being Jewish. The Jewish community was then held at ransom to pay for the damage done by the Nazis.

    These horrific events were widely reported in the American media, such as The New York Times. After Hitler launched World War II, the United States made preparations in case it was dragged into the conflict. Just before the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress passed a law noting the Gestapo methods and declaring that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed by such measures as registration of firearms.

    Kristallnacht has been called “the day the Holocaust began.” Flatow’s footsteps can be followed to see why. He would be required to wear the Star of David. In 1942, he was deported to the Theresienstadt concentration camp, where he starved to death.

    One wonders what thoughts may have occurred to Flatow in his last days. Perhaps memories of the Olympics and of a better Germany flashed before his eyes. Did he have second thoughts about whether he should have registered his guns in 1932? Or whether he should have obediently surrendered his firearms at a Berlin police station in 1938 as ordered by Nazi decree, only to be taken into Gestapo custody? Did he fantasize about shooting Nazis? We will never know, but it is difficult to imagine that he had no regrets over his act of compliance.

    Today, gun control, registration and prohibition are depicted as benign and progressive. Government should register gun owners and ban any guns it wishes, Americans are told, because government is inherently good and trustworthy. The experiences of Hitler’s Germany and, for that matter, Stalin’s Russia and Pol Pot’s Cambodia, are beneath the realm of possibility in exceptional America. Let’s hope so.

  14. Frank McGhee

    Yes, it’s called history.

  15. I would like to see a remake of the classic movie, “Red Dawn,” but instead this time it is not Communists but the Federal government trying to set up tyranny. That could be a good movie. Maybe they could rename it “Blue Dawn”?


  16. Frank McGhee

    Thought this short video was very appropriate to this discussion:

  17. GSP

    So basically the author is saying only celebs, politicians, and bankers have the right to self-defense.

  18. Josh

    Untrained civilians cant resist a government. Tell that to the Colonists that founded America, or the Vietcong, or the French Resistance (had they been better armed), or the Mujahedeen in Afghanistan in Afghanistan who took on the Soviets with 50-100 year old weapons. Jews may have been the minority, so what. At least they could have put up a fight, instead of being led to the railcars. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed. Since many of our own soldiers are pro 2ND Amendment, it’s not that far to think they wont take orders and equally rebel. Gun Control is no myth……it’s historic.

    • The countries mentioned without the public owning guns, the CIA, or MI6, or some other subversive organization who create puppet governments could be the behind the killings, places like Australia, or Britain do not have liberal gun laws yet they do not have massacres, this is the difference the old colonial countries are able to infiltrate weaker governments, the two governments mentioned and their are others that are similar, are under heavy police surveillance the general public largely unaware of this and thanks to Snowden, the few have got it.

  19. Rob

    “It is nothing short of delusion to think that a small group of untrained civilians could have defeated some of the most powerful armies in the world.”

    The mujahideen in Afghanistan are obviously deluded, and unfamiliar with your theory. Not only did they whomp the Soviet army, they’ve pulled the US to a draw.

    That’s all nice theory, but both the argument and the rebuttals are irrelevant. “Shall not be infringed.” Regardless of purported reasoning (usually wrong), the government shall not infringe, wholly prohibited, under ANY set of circumstances.

  20. Nevada

    Gun bans only empower criminals because they disarm the law abiding citizens but not the criminals. Criminals steal weapons or attain them from the black market, so gun control doesn’t affect them. The only way a ban would work is if all of the world’s weapons could be found and taken and everyone played by the rules and turned in their guns, but trying to accomplish the first would be impossible, and the latter would prove difficult since criminals aren’t known for following laws (shocker, I know).

    If you don’t realize this, you are delusional. And even if, in theory, you could confiscate all guns produced in the world so they wouldn’t end up in criminals’ hands, violence would continue because that’s humanity. Utopia is nothing but an idea.

    • You can repeat propaganda all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that gun control exists and works in most European countries. Guess what, they have far lower murder rates than in America. Gun control works.

      • Eric

        Gun control does not work. History and current events are proving this. It leaves civilians vulnerable when their governments become inevitably corrupt. And if gun control affected rates of mortality the way you claim it does, then why does Switzerland (a country where guns are legal) have a lower homicide rate than a country like the U.K. (a country with gun control)? The only one spouting propaganda is you. Why do you want to depower civilians so badly? Are you part of the problem?

        • If governments inevitably become corrupt and need to be overthrown, why is Western Europe a source of strong democracies who have not had a revolution in generations?

          It’s funny you mention the UK and it’s gun control, because it has a far lower homicide rate than the USA? Why is that? Why does every European country have more gun control and lower gun deaths than the USA?

        • Gun ownership Switzerland 25 guns per 100 citizens in America nearly 90% citizens own guns?

  21. Richard

    R u thick? The Jews weren’t allowed to own weapons but everyone else was and the majority of ppl murdered were Jewish, your logic is really fantastical or fantasy like

  22. Eric

    Dude your historical knowledge is terrible. Nazi’s only consisted of about 10% of the german population. If the civilians had guns, then the other 90% could have overthrown them. It wouldn’t be just the 1% of Jews who would have been against Nazi-ism.

  23. Pingback: Do we need the second amendment? | Hipster Politics

  24. Kevin Litz

    I notice that you also do not use much notations and citations. One law review paper from Fordham isn’t even reliable
    This article smacks of lazy journalism accomplished by a cursory Google search with minimal research (please tell me you didn’t use Wikipedia)

  25. tHom. (Yes, it's spelled right)

    There are way too many proof less facts. And I don’t care enough to list them. Just 2 comments. Look up the nazi fighter pilots process. That throws all other, “so called” facts out the window. They were masters of distraction. They showed compliance, for years, then merged it all together to form a devastating war machine. Despite always looking meek and under the worlds thumb.

    Second, they all lied. All of them. All the time. Many many examples of tyrants saying one thing, doing another. Anything written down or recorded is suspect. Their actions alone give truth.

  26. tHom. (Yes, it's spelled right)

    Oh, right. For Americans, our founding fathers / citizens, had access and equal footing to military grade weapons. We no longer hold equal footing. Citizens now, unlike then, have any chance of winning a rebellion.

  27. You infer that Conservatives are extreme and fanatical, so what have they done that would classify them as such?

  28. Pingback: The Genocide And Gun Control Myth | IowaDawg Blogging Stuff

  29. I’m half Armenian.

    The Turks forced my ancestors to register their weapons with the new Turkish government and not much later, they came and confiscated those firearms.

    The Armenians were left defenseless and were unable to put up any sort of mass or even concentrated resistance against the Turks.

    How do you account for this? Gun Control assured the genocide of my ancestors.

    If you can explain it away, I’m all ears.

    • You can never trust a enemy to reciprocate to give up arms? Jesus just was naive to suggest this flawed ideology, it is better to face death and kill some of the enemy than to acquiesce, once I saw a bee caught and struggling in a spiders web and the spider made strides to eat the prey and the bee stung the spider and both died same as my Father I never killed him?

  30. Pingback: Possible Pictures to Use | Jason Dolen

  31. What a dumb article; your conclusions are biased and agenda driven and no facts. Gun registration and confiscation has always been a precursor to tyranny.

  32. The guy who wrote this article is way off base– Armed citizens pose a militia threat to all military personnel as well as to government officials Snipes cause major paranoia amongst military personnel/police once they leave their domains. They are identified and singled out by militias and the rest is histroy.

  33. The American Revolution started because of gun control. That was the cause of the first battle. We wouldn’t be independent if we would have just surrendered our guns.

  34. The writer is an ignorant tool!

  35. Christ Follower

    To the Zionist (Gay Satanists) New world order fake Jew who wrote this article we have more armed people in the United States and we out number the government and military thats the threat we oppose to Obama and your Gay pushing agenda New Satanic world order Aleister Crowley Rothschild Government. You want us disarmed to pass bullshit laws andmartial law to control us like sheeple. Jesus Christ is the true Lord and Savior not your Gay ass Masonic Fallen Angel Dooficer/Lucifer Who was Created by our Father in Heaven! God bless the United States!

    • paranova9

      satan: the great deceiver. doctor: to falsify.
      “Snatched on their way to school then castrated or decapitated: Horrifying rise in child human sacrifice in Uganda at the hands of witch *doctors*”. [let he who is without sin cast the first stone] “When the ‘gentle child’ was asked about what should happen to his attacker, he replied: ‘He should be killed’.” [Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Exo. 22.18 ]
      satanic ritual child abuse:
      “Baby fights for his life during an abortion process – y0utube”. “14 Week Fetus Still Alive Outside the Uterus – y0utube”. “Babies remember music they heard in the womb up to four months after they are born”. “Horrifying: Teen Intern at #Gosnell Murder Factory Recalls Hearing Aborted Fetus ‘Screeching’ (as he cuts their spinal cord)”. “planned parenthood busted for selling body parts of aborted babies – y0utube”.
      “The reality of pain memory (and birth memory) is confirmed by a mother whose premature baby was shunted for hydrocephalus without painkillers and while paralyzed with curare. Large incisions were cut in his scalp, neck, and abdomen and a hole drilled in his skull. She writes that ten years after the operation her son will still not allow anyone to touch his head, neck, and abdomen in the areas touched during surgery. The mere sight of the hospital provokes in this child violent trembling, profuse sweating, screaming, struggling, and vomiting.”
      “It was the most horrific sight I have ever seen and it still haunts me to this day. I can tell you that circumci$ion was EXTREMELY painful for my newborn baby boy. He had the painkiller and the nerve block but still he cried so hard that he turned purple in the face.” – R.J. Bly [Watch out for those dogs, those people who do evil, those mutilators who say you must be circumci$ed to be saved. Philippians 3.2]
      snake: a treacherous person; an insidious enemy. snake entwined caduceus. snake entwined rod of asclepius. snake oil. $.
      caduceus: staff of hermes/mercurius: god of trickery, thieves, financial gain.

  36. paranova9

    “””President Zuma was caught on tape January 2012 singing, “We are going to shoot them with the machine gun, they are going to run/You are a Boer, we are going to hit them, and you are going to run/shoot the Boer…””
    The overall murder rate in the nation is 31.9 per 100,000 people, 30 times that of Great Britain. For police it’s 51 out of 100,000. For farmers, who are overwhelmingly white, the rate soars to 99 out 100,000…
    In 2010, the ANC-led regime changed the Firearms Registration Act, demanding that all legal guns be re-registered by July 31, 2011. In the process of re-registration, more than half the applicants were turned down, and 90 percent were turned down again on appeal. Thus, white farm families were forced to relinquish their last line of defense against the tens of thousands of criminal gangs roaming the countryside–armed with AK47s.. and as Genocide Watch noted on its website last July one more step was taken as well. “The government has disbanded the commando units of white farmers that once protected their farms, and has passed laws to confiscate the farmers’ weapons,” it reported. “Disarmament of a targeted group is one of the surest early warning signs of future genocidal killings.”””

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s