Guns

[snowman]

ubject: GUNS



Gun History
Whether you agree or not, it's an interesting lesson in history.
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 and from 1939 to 1945,
a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves
were rounded up and exterminated.

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

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one
million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
exterminated.

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

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were
forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed
by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than
$500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent

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

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up
300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the
criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease
in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the
past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults
of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public
safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended
in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian
experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our
president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes,
gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them,
we are 'subjects'.

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control
message to all of your friends.

[pwd72s]

Yep! We're screwed...once Hillary! is in the White House, even God won't be able to save the 2nd amendment...hopefully the Supreme Court will.

[Steve PH]

Bringing in snap law changes can have interesting and unforseen results. Most European countries with tight gun regs haven't brought those rules in overnight.

Having said that, gun related crime in the UK is on the rise and as a private citizen I'm not allowed a handgun to defend my self, although if I could prove I was a farmer I might be able to get a shotgun licence, now there's an idea?

Mind you what is far worse is that the Northen Terrortories in Oz have been lumbered with an 80mph speed limit, now that is depressing! Ok that still leaves the certain stretches of German Autobhan and the mountain roads of the Isle of Man and a couple of other places were you can drive properly but its a pretty sad state of affairs.

[stomachmonkey]

First let me say that I am NOT in favor of gun control and support the 2nd amendment.

That said with the exception of the Australia statistic I don't think the rest are really relavent.

It's kind of tough to equate a private citizens right to posses a hunting rifle/shotgun or hand gun to an ability to defend oneself from a government determined on systematic anihilation of a given segment of the population.

Most governments have things like tanks, rocket launchers, more troops and the law on thier side.

To defend oneself you would really need a structured, organizational body to coordinate a strategically tactical defense from genocide.

Think Warlord at minimum.

Scott

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Steve PH
Bringing in snap law changes can have interesting and unforseen results. Most European countries with tight gun regs haven't brought those rules in overnight.

Having said that, gun related crime in the UK is on the rise and as a private citizen I'm not allowed a handgun to defend my self, although if I could prove I was a farmer I might be able to get a shotgun licence, now there's an idea?

Mind you what is far worse is that the Northen Terrortories in Oz have been lumbered with an 80mph speed limit, now that is depressing! Ok that still leaves the certain stretches of German Autobhan and the mountain roads of the Isle of Man and a couple of other places were you can drive properly but its a pretty sad state of affairs.

Britain had an extraordinarily low gun crime rate before the first gun control laws were enacted in the early 20th century. Gun laws there weren't based on utility of any kind, it was more likely based on government fears of the citizenry.

[on-ramp]

"The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them,
we are 'subjects'. "

That's a load of crock. what are you going to do with your gun, walk into city hall and get them to lower your RE taxes?

I don't think so.

even with guns, we're still "subjects".

guns are used more commonly by criminals to kill our police officers, innocent people, and bring carnage to our society.

we need tougher gun laws, why should the avg. joe be allowed to buy a semi-automatice? for what purpose?

[fastpat]

Originally posted by stomachmonkey
First let me say that I am NOT in favor of gun control and support the 2nd amendment.

That said with the exception of the Australia statistic I don't think the rest are really relavent.

It's kind of tough to equate a private citizens right to posses a hunting rifle/shotgun or hand gun to an ability to defend oneself from a government determined on systematic anihilation of a given segment of the population.

Most governments have things like tanks, rocket launchers, more troops and the law on thier side.

To defend oneself you would really need a structured, organizational body to coordinate a strategically tactical defense from genocide.

Think Warlord at minimum.

Scott

The Second Amendment is supposed to defend the right of Americans to own and use any weapon, particularly those you've mentioned.

While most heavy weapons are too expensive for private purchase, I can certainly afford an $18.00 RPG round.

[craigster59]

Originally posted by on-ramp
"The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind
them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them,
we are 'subjects'. "

That's a load of crock. what are you going to do with your gun, walk into city hall and get them to lower your RE taxes?

I don't think so.

even with guns, we're still "subjects".

guns are used more commonly by criminals to kill our police officers, innocent people, and bring carnage to our society.

we need tougher gun laws, why should the avg. joe be allowed to buy a semi-automatice? for what purpose?

You're absolutely right. And while they're at it, quit building cars that go faster than 70mph, I mean we do have a nationwide speed limit...

[scottmandue]

Guns don't kill people...


Bullets do.

[craigster59]

And spoons make Rosie O'Donnel fat..

[skipdup]

Originally posted by on-ramp
...
why should the avg. joe be allowed to buy a semi-automatice? for what purpose?

Bird hunting?

[scottmandue]

Originally posted by craigster59
You're absolutely right. And while they're at it, quit building cars that go faster than 70mph, I mean we do have a nationwide speed limit...

Yeah!

and lets do away with all locks... if your not doing anything wrong there is no need to lock your doors.

[coloradoporsche]

The second amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is there to give free people a way to protect themselves from whatever may endanger them, including thier own government.

Yes, a superior military will always win in the long run..but an armed populace makes rounding people up and killing them much more difficult.

edit: spelling.

[Jeff Higgins]

Those of you that don't think an armed citenzenry has a prayer against organized, well equiped government troops should take a look at Iraq.

When the Russians rolled into post-WWII Hungary, they used Hungarian gun registration lists to round up the citizen's guns before they could pose that threat.

The Warsaw Jews of WWII mounted one hell of a resistance to the invading Nazis. They were armed, willing, and arguably quite successful.

originally posted by onramp
guns are used more commonly by criminals to kill our police officers, innocent people, and bring carnage to our society.

we need tougher gun laws, why should the avg. joe be allowed to buy a semi-automatice? for what purpose?

You simply could not be more wrong. Private citizens use guns to defend themselves at a far higher rate than guns are used to "bring carnage to our society". Reference Professor John Lott's research, and his many published works, on the defensive use of firearms by U.S. citizens. It is very enlightening stuff.

As far as why I should be "allowed" to own anything at all, I'm sorry; we allow our government powers and priveledges, not the other way around. The government legally has no say in what I own in this respect until I abuse it and demonstrate I cannot own it responsibly. Until then, it is none of their (or your) goddam business what I own.

[on-ramp]

the problem is that high schoolers have access to semi-automatic weapons. do we really want that?

do you want to see more Columbines in the future? we are one of the most violent nations on the planet. and a good portion is highly attributed to accessibility of firearms.

i'm all for guns to protect you and your family... but we need stricter rules.

[scottmandue]

In California you have to keep your guns unloaded and locked up by law . IIRC your ammo has to be locked up separately also.

What laws would you add to that to make it safer?

[RFR]

Anti gun people are Kooks, brainwashed by the vested interests dedicated to GRADUALLY removing from our society all personal freedom, power of choice and right to fight back.

Removing the power to fight back creates a slave, even if the power to fight back was only an idea or concept.
opression, and suppression can only really happen when ones ability to fight back is gone.

Before gun control, we had a nation of free people.

A handgun, while by itself, may be no match for the weaponry possessed by a government or police force, goes very far in creating the belief, that one CAN do something if needed, and that one is Not helpless.



my .02

[Jeff Higgins]

The problem with "rules", on-ramp, is that guys like us follow them. Not criminals. All more "rules" accomplish is to place a greater and greater burden on those who follow them. The criminals don't take notice. They will get their guns, come hell or high water.

Something to ponder - what if just a few law-abiding teachers, staff, or even students had been armed at Columbine?

Elmer Keith (Idaho cowboy and father of the .44 mag) wrote of a visit to Washington, D.C. back in the '50's. While he was there, some deranged gunman started shooting people on a street corner. He killed quite a few before the police arrived and stopped him. No one was armed. Elmer's astute observation? "He would have done well to have gotten the second one in my hometown."

[red-beard]

Originally posted by on-ramp
the problem is that high schoolers have access to semi-automatic weapons. do we really want that?

do you want to see more Columbines in the future? we are one of the most violent nations on the planet. and a good portion is highly attributed to accessibility of firearms.

i'm all for guns to protect you and your family... but we need stricter rules.

The number of school related killings, including being at the bus stop, etc, was 26 in 2005. While each one of these is tragic, the "Problem" is almost non-existent.

The 2nd amendment is not about guns, but ARMS. Read the discussions/debate in the 1st congressional record, where the bill of rights was enacted. You will understand it covers ANYTHING and EVRYTHING.

The bill of rights is not about things for the citizens. It is a list of Prohibitions that the elected government is never allowed to do. The rights are not granted by the Constition, They are our own. THe Bill of rights PROTECTS these rights.

Read it. read the words. Think about what and why it was put into effect. THese men had just fought a protracted war against a strong government. Many feared a strong central governement.

[pwd72s]

Originally posted by on-ramp
the problem is that high schoolers have access to semi-automatic weapons. do we really want that?

do you want to see more Columbines in the future? we are one of the most violent nations on the planet. and a good portion is highly attributed to accessibility of firearms.

i'm all for guns to protect you and your family... but we need stricter rules.

Well, let's see. Not too many years ago, here in peaceful small town Oregon, a drug deal went bad in Sweet Home, Oregon...one meth dealer shooting & killing a customer. He then stole a car, headed down here to Lebanon. Somehow, the stolen car ended up in a ditch...the guy took off running down the road. Tried to shoot out the lock on one home, unsuccessfully, running his 9mm to empty...when the housewife inside put a round through the door, he decided to try another home. Unsuccessful there, he finally smashed his way into Chuck Nugent's house. Chuck and his wife were gone, only the 2 boys at home. Ages 14 and 8. Hearing the commotion, the 14 year old grabbed his 10-22 ruger, a semi automatic weapon . He popped the intruder/ now convicted killer in the shoulder. The intruder decided to smash his way out of Chuck's house. He was later captured by the authorities.

So, on ramp...is this a high school kid you don't want having semi automatic weapons? This high school kid is now an adult...I'd go hunting with he & his dad anytime.

(edit) The mainstream press publishes stories like these only in the area where it happened. The Colombine shooting, crazies like Kip Kinkle of Springfield Oregon, get weeks of national coverage.

Gee, I wonder why?