Next time someone says they are for gun controll...

ask them who they want to persecute.


Something to think about...

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.
From 1939 to 1945, 13 million people 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 Century because of gun control: 56 million.

The next time someone talks in favor of gun
control, ask them Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?

With guns, we are citizens with God-given rights, including the right to own a gun. Without them, we are subjects who live at the whim of government. Who would you rather be?

Hiya 2ndAmend! Remember me? The razor blade in your caramel apple. Here's something to think about from hoaxinfo (for you weenies out there, the canard that 2ndA posted commits the "post hoc ergo propter hoc"--"after that therefore because of that"--logic fallacy):
========================
There were numerous cases in the Soviet Union where dissents were armed and just shot to death by a well armed and more
organized governmental force. Just owning a gun does nothing to protect individual citizens against a government that thinks
them a threat. Citizens would have to become extremely organized and establish an outstanding intelligence network to even
begin to combat a government that has declared war on a part of its citizenry.

In England, there has been strict gun control for years and there have been no massive exterminations of its citizens. This is
also true with the some of the Scandinavian countries. Having gun control or not having it is not a major factor in
government oppression. Banning weapons from private control (not the same as just registering guns) may be symptomatic
of an oppressive government, but ownership of guns would never prevent, by itself, the persecution of a segment of the
citizenry. The growth of an oppressive government is a more complicated process than the writer suggests.

Clearly, our founding fathers didn't trust government and so they gave us the tools to help stem the growth of governmental
power. We, the people are guaranteed power by participation in the political process. That power is far greater than the one
you may be granted by just waving a gun. If we are diligent we can head off governmental oppression before it becomes a
crisis. None of those other countries mentioned, guaranteed that power to its citizens, which goes much farther in
explaining what happened in the countries mentioned by the author than merely counting firearms and dead bodies.

Many people like to take historical events out of context to further their own ends. Trust me if the U.S. government decided
to crackdown on its citizens, assault rifles would be completely inadequate against laser guided bombs, stealth fighters, and
cruise missiles. Only if the citizens rise up in an organized fashion can an oppressive government be overthrown. This can
be accomplished with or without large personal arsenals. For instance, the best armed military force in the Middle East, with
the exception of Israel, was Iran in the early 1970s, but with very little in the way of sophisticated weaponry the Iranian
citizens brought that government to its knees. They did it because the will of the government was completely out of touch
with the will of the people. They rose up by the millions and the government fell!

Various types of pro-gun/anti-gun rhetoric have been circulated on the Internet for years. Watch for propaganda like the
above chain letter, which revises history to scare you into taking their position on this topic. Anti-gun groups have been
guilty of similar tactics to sway people to their side. Just remember to read critically whenever you get something like this,
and don't just buy all their facts or explanations without checking it out for yourself.
========================
Now take a deep breath, count to ten, and see if you can get through the next ten messages without threatening me bodily harm.

Forget about the Gov't for a minute

Clifford Johnson, inmate at Florida State Prison:
"If guns are banned, then I as a criminal feel a lot safer. When a thief breaks into someone's house or property, the first thing to worry about is getting shot by the owner. But now, it seems we won't have to worry about that anymore.

"Most convicts in [my] prison hope the gun control law [is adopted here in Florida] for the reason stated above. It is fantasy that just because guns are outlawed, we, the crooks, can't get guns. The only people who can't are the ones we victimize...drugs are against the law. Does that stop us? It's also against the law to rob and steal. But does a law stop us?

"One more thing: I thank you, the public, for giving me this fine opportunity to further my criminal career." Letter to the Editor, Florida-Times Union, February 4, 1982, in response to the Morton Grove, Illinois handgun ban.

Shoot! no pun intended Sharon beat me to it. I understand 2A's reasoning but it's far more likely that you'll need to fend off a criminal than the federal government. And all banning guns does is disarm law-abiding citizens - the bad guys will still have theirs.

Doc

Yes, England, Wales, and Australia all implemented strict gun control. If you had bothered to check, they now rank one, two, and three for violent crime, with and without firearms used by criminals, in the world's industrialized nations.

Since I don't associate with cowards, this is the last time I will ever respond to you.

Please go away and stay off the threads I start. I and most I have talked with are not interested in anything you have to say.

Re: Doc

Originally posted by 2ndAmendment
Please go away and stay off the threads I start. I and most I have talked with are not interested in anything you have to say.

Click to expand...

OK, folks, I don't want to hang around where I'm not wanted. So I ask the rest of you: Shall I go away and darken 2ndA's threads no more? Are you happier when everyone agrees with each other, or do you want to hear the voice of dissent now and then?

Note that I have no wish to see guns completely banned. They <i>are</i> an appropriate means of self-protection. And don't forget hunting. Despite what some of the tree-hugger types would have you think, hunting serves a vital purpose. What I don't have a problem with is some restrictions placed on ownership, and my point here is to counter information that is mistaken, incorrect, wrong, misleading, etc.

My vote goes to hearing the voice of dissent. Besides, I don't really see you and 2A as so far apart in your beliefs - you just seem to use different language in expressing it.

People are constantly being invited to "get out of here" - doesn't mean you have to do it.

As I stated in another thread, the whole argument about owning guns to ward off evil government empires really is a waste of time in this day and age. When this notion came out years ago, all you REALLY had to worry about were people themselves.. What good do you think your 9mm is going to be against a B2 flying over your home and dropping bombs.. The Iraqi soldiers have guns, but it won't exactly help them if we decide to move in..

So please, stick to the argument of defending yourself against criminals.. Everytime you mention gun ownership as a way to defend againt a mad tyrant, you make yourself look very foolish.. I can just picture you guys out there with a little hand gun or assult rifle has armored tanks come pounding through your door.

"Hey bubba, shoot the tires! Shoot the tires!"

Do I hope for a despotic government? Of course not. Do I want to go running around killing people? NO! But if such a thing were to come to pass, who would defend you?

The Afghans did a real good job against Soviet armor and air power. The Vietnamese did a real good job on the United States and the French before the U.S. Did they have weapons other than handguns and rifles? Sure. Could the populace of the United States get weapons other than handguns and rifles. You bet. Or, ingenious people that we are, we could even make them.

Please don't get me wrong. I am NOT against our current government. I love our country. But I am also aware that our current government has, in violation of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, already usurped many rights and powers that are really reserved to the states or to the people.

This thread reminds me of a story. I 'll try to make this long story short but here it goes..

My great-grandparents, born and raised in the mountain ( the period of time before "The Waltons"-like). When it's time to bring the "goods" such as "corn, beans, jams, brown eggs, honey and so many more" to the trading post/ general store far away. It will take them a whole day and a night to travel one way. They had their buckboard full of goods and they had to armed themselves to defend their goods against robbers lurking in the woods between the mountains and the valley down below. My great-grandmother Edie told me that the "goods" were like a property to sell or like a life to depend on. If the robber gets their goods, they will not survive the winter at all. So their life depends on it. My great-grandmother would drive (two healthy horses are a must!) while my great grandfather hold double-barrel shotgun loaded with buckshots. They had to go really fast or else the robber will shoot them dead. They don't come down that path very often like once or twice a month unless they need to go to town to get what they need.

Back in their days, there was no sherrif nor 911 nor state trooper nor anything like that. Some town that might have a sherrif or a justice of peace officer. Many sickness like smallpox, TB, polio, pneumonia and the like were common causes of death during 1880-1930s. Death was pretty acceptable thing as part of life back then. There was no such thing as a morque or autospy in the appalachian mountains when my great granny grew up. She said that her family has to buried their own folks.

Anyway, my great grandmother said that one of those times that the robber would jump out of the woods armed with a cheap pistol, my great grandfather didn't hestitate for one bit and blew him away. They didn't bother to stop and see if the robber died or not. I had to ask some stupid questions. She said, "Those robbers were lazy-no-good-bums! and back in those days, if you appeared to be lazy or not working hard then you don't fear God enough like we do. If you work hard, you will live. If you wanna live, you have to work hard. That's the only way to live"

My father has to explained to me that back in those old days. People pray alot for everything - food, better health, long good life etc.
My Dad said that for her life about every five years growing up, half of her relatives/school friends will be gone because of the sickness or disease or whatever. Can you imagine how happy my great-grandmother get to feel when she see so many of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren being so healthy for long time.

May she rest in peace. 1881-1984

The point here is that my folks in the old days had the right to bear arms to defend their property and their family. Yes, they do hunt and trap for food. That was the way of life.

About 2 million people in vietnam died during the war
with the US. Don't think their guns helped them that much. Hiding helped..

Plus, aiming at military targets is quite a bit different than civilian targets where you don't care about collateral damage. I don't think the people in and around Hiroshima and Nagasaki were saying "Look at that thing in the sky.. Shoot it!!"

Good story SeaRide. Today criminals are let off to easy. The cops just ask if you have insurance to cover your loss. Too bad if ya don't. When you work hard (your time) and save (money) to get something and someone comes along and takes it from you, they are stealing more than mere possessions.

Thanks. Can you see the picture where we have trap(s) set up in our home to catch criminals? ..sigh.. I don't think so.

SmallTown, you are right, many people lost their lives on both sides. I lost friends in 'nam. But, in the end, it was us that left and the Vietnamese that held the ground.

It's ok. You go on the way you are. I will go on mine, knowing that no government, not even ours, can be trusted totally.

It is not worth the typing. I won't convince you. You won't change me.

Not trying to change anyones mind. I am against gun control, so I'm (I think) on your side. I just get really bored with the old argument about a government going wild. The gun haters have this vision of those of who like guns as being a bunch of uneducated gun toting hicks. Lets not add fuel to that illogical fire. I'm only trying to make the pro-gun argument more relative to todays times so the struggle (and success) of gun ownership can continue.. Citing sportmanship and personal self defense is, to me, a much more logical approach to this argument.

Originally posted by SmallTown
Citing sportmanship and personal self defense is, to me, a much more logical approach to this argument.

Click to expand...

Yea! ...ceasefire?

Originally posted by Sharon
Yea! ...ceasefire?

Click to expand...

Yeah! .. ceasewhine? .. ceaseargue?
bad joke .. I know!!

2nd Amendment:

No one seems to have weighed in--apart from you--that they want me to disappear from these forums. So I'll continue posting in your threads, particularly if you post what I believe to be false or misleading information. (Thus, there's a better way to get me to curtail my posting: Check your facts before you post.) You're free to ignore me and not respond; I won't be offended. I figured out quite a while ago that you're not too likely to be swayed from your opinions. That's your right. Just as it's mine to respond to what you say in a public forum, unless I missed the Terms of Service clause in somd.com that states, "All shall bow down and worship the superior intellect of 2ndAmendment who is never wrong."

SmallTown makes an excellent point that the pro-gun cause is only hurt by advancing bad arguments against gun control. I agree that defense against crime, hunting, and target practice are probably the topics you want to focus on when discussing gun ownership.

I have to break from the dogma of my party on this one. Gun control hurts the innocent much more than the guilty. Marijuana is illegal but one can still get it in so many ways. I disagree with the assertion that we need guns to respond to a despotic government but it is a cherished individual right for Americans to own a gun.
Gun control I favor: assault rife ban, high-ammo ban, and background checks.
Other measures seem to go too far. Just persecute based on today's laws.

See, Dems - we CAN agree on something! The only thing I might not agree with is the assault rifle ban and the high ammo ban - don't see the point in it. The bad guys are gonna get them anyway. I think people aren't really familiar with exactly HOW criminals get illegal weapons, which is why they think banning them will make an impact.

But I'm right there with you on background checks. Even that might not be very effective BUT I think it's common sense to do it. I'm also okay with reasonable waiting periods, a couple of days or so.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see (and I think this would really make a difference) - MANDATORY penalties for committing a crime with a gun. They can't be plea-bargained, they can't be thrown out. If you commit a crime with a gun, you're going to do some time.