Gun Control and Government Genocide/Mass Murder

[John Kilduff]

It is often easier to see the trees than the forest.

The immediacy of a senseless killer brandishing a weapon and mowing down tens of defenseless individuals is shocking and sickening.

What doesn't strike our awareness so immediately, are the far greater mass murders perpetrated by governments upon their own disarmed, defenseless citizens.

People always think, "It couldn't happen here".

Let's take a look at a list of examples, excerpted from the following linked article. I have excerpted only the list of examples, because the article goes on various tangents which are not central to what I wish to discuss.

"The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths. "

Lindsey

Isn't all that a lot more horrifying than what happened at Virginia Tech? It is to me.

Are you absolutely 100% convinced it "couldn't happen here"?

Should we suppose the citizens of those other countries had reasonable faith in their governments when they allowed gun control to remove their ability to deter or resist governmental aggression?

I find it slightly strange that many of the same people who bemoan the power grabbing of the Bush administration, who worry about encroaching fascist tendencies and weakening of civil rights, are still pro-gun-control. If one is worried about government fascism, why would one wish for only the government to have guns?

I'm not an AC-ist, but I am convinced that government is potentially a far greater danger to everyone than any street criminals or any rare random dangerous lunatics with a gun.

Let's take a lesson - or fifty - from history: government is the most dangerous force on Earth. Government must be restrained and the power must reside first with the People and second with the Authorities: NOT vice versa. The degree to which this becomes topsy-turvy is the degree to which everyone slides closer to the greatest earthly horror of all: that of government brutality, oppression, even genocide.

Most of us were fortunate to grow up with a relatively benign government, and in times of relative peace. THAT IS NOT THE NATURE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION ON AVERAGE. WE GOT LUCKY.

We have been soothed by our relatively safe and easy circumstances to not contemplate that government is potentially the most destructive and dangerous force on Earth. A few random madmen mean very little compared to an oppressive or genocidal government.

The average New Yorker, or Midwestern farmer, or Kentucky redneck, is not as dangerous as the average politician, or the government. The average citizen is MORE to be trusted with the power of guns than are the politicians, or often even (in my opinion) the police.

Why? Because POWER CORRUPTS. There will be bad apples in any group, but power corrupts and so there will probably be more bad use of power, by those who are powerful, than by others. By the way, if the police didn't wield such a disparate amount of lethal-force-power over the average citizen, there would probably be a lot less police brutality. I don't want to turn this into a police vis-a-vis citizens discussion, so I'm just using that to illustrate the point that power corrupts. One might even say that the tremendous physical power advantage which police hold is one of the primary reasons for police brutality. Anyway, this thread is more about guns, gun control and government, than about police; so please allow me to return to the central theme.

The best antidote against accumulation of power and its attendant corruption, is to keep power spread out and well-distributed.

Since political power at root depends upon force to ensure and enact its will, it is important to be ware of that fact and to not allow all of the force to be concentrated in the hands of government.

Government should serve the people, not rule them. The greater the forcible advantage which a government has over the people, the more that government will rule instead of serve.

[clowntable]

Who are you kidding? The time to use those guns has come and gone in the US and noone did it. I wonder what the founding father would have done if someone had read the Patriot Act to them.
Anyone claiming that guns are needed for the people to defend themselves against the government is not being realistic.
Conformance is the new disobedience.

[plzleenowhammy]

Good post.
Do you think we should all be allowed every type of weapon or just handguns and rifles? If PA wanted to buy a nuclear weapon should he be allowed to do so? If yes, then what would stop him from setting it off after getting run down in a donkament?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Who are you kidding? The time to use those guns has come and gone in the US and noone did it. I wonder what the founding father would have done if someone had read the Patriot Act to them.
Anyone claiming that guns are needed for the people to defend themselves against the government is not being realistic.
Conformance is the new disobedience.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not suggesting the taking up of arms against the government; rather, that the citizenry should be armed just in case it ever becomes necessary to defend against the government; that the citizenry should not be disarmed.

I'm afraid I don't have a clue as to what you mean by "conformance is the new disobedience".

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post.
Do you think we should all be allowed every type of weapon or just handguns and rifles? If PA wanted to buy a nuclear weapon should he be allowed to do so? If yes, then what would stop him from setting it off after getting run down in a donkament?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say guns and maybe a little more, but certainly not nuclear weapons. The "right to bear" probably doesn't apply to a tank, for instance, because you can't bear a tank.

[clowntable]

So were do you draw the line of "just in case"?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we should all be allowed every type of weapon or just handguns and rifles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who has the right to do the allowing?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
So were do you draw the line of "just in case"?

[/ QUOTE ]

(shrugs)

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think we should all be allowed every type of weapon or just handguns and rifles?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who has the right to do the allowing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Noone, I suppose has a right to it. But what if you did?

[plzleenowhammy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Good post.
Do you think we should all be allowed every type of weapon or just handguns and rifles? If PA wanted to buy a nuclear weapon should he be allowed to do so? If yes, then what would stop him from setting it off after getting run down in a donkament?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say guns and maybe a little more, but certainly not nuclear weapons. The "right to bear" probably doesn't apply to a tank, for instance, because you can't bear a tank.

[/ QUOTE ]

Should we take up arms against those with all the tanks and nukes? What should we do?