The true history of gun control - Timeline

Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Messages
12,824
Reaction score
7,901
Golden Thread
0
Location
New Hampshire
Detector(s) used
Garret Master hunter Cx Plus
Primary Interest:
Other
The true history of gun control - Timeline

Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by: J. D. Heyes

(NaturalNews) Throughout the history of the world there have been despots, tyrants, dictators and kings who have imposed their will over those they conquered. After defeating rival armies in battle, many of these rulers went on to lead cruel, ruthless and abusive regimes largely by keeping the subjugated powerless to resist.

Men like Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia; Genghis Khan, who founded and ruled the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his demise; the Caesars of the Roman empire; and the pharaohs of the Egyptian empire all conquered, then kept power, by ruling with iron fists over people who were powerless to resist because they did not have the means to do so. In feudal England, British subjects in Scotland, Ireland and elsewhere were forbidden to bear arms, and as such were forced to remain loyal to the crown (until they won their independence by force of arms).

In more recent times the invention and mass production of the firearm made conquering - and then controlling - entire populations much more difficult, which is why the most heinous despots in the last 150 years have moved to limit or ban access to guns. In our own country, prior to the Revolutionary War, some colonists did own firearms but in the months before, and directly after, the war began King George's generals implemented gun confiscation policies - a primary driver behind the adoption of the Second Amendment by our founding fathers.

As gun control once more becomes an issue, and as some lawmakers, academics, pundits and ordinary Americans call for outright gun bans and confiscation in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in mid-December, it is vital and appropriate to examine the history of gun control around the world, and the carnage visited upon the innocent by gun-grabbing tyrants.

Soviet Union - 1929 -- Soviet Russia was established following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when ruling Czar Nicholas II tossed 11 million Russian peasants into World War I. Frustrated and angered by the loss of life, scores of armed Russians - many current or former Russian soldiers who were led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin - rebelled against a ruling regime that was already teetering on the edge of collapse.

Firearms were allowed to remain in the hands of Soviet citizens until 1929, when private gun ownership was abolished - a time which saw the rise of one of the world's most repressive regimes, that was led by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin (he ruled from 1941-1953 but was entrenched in the country's leadership by 1928).

From 1929 to the year Stalin died, tens of millions of Soviet dissidents or anyone the country's leadership believed were a threat, were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camp/prisons and forced to work, sometimes to their deaths. Early in Stalin's political career, he launched two national collectivization campaigns in order to transform the country into an industrial power. Both campaigns, however, were rife with murder on a massive scale.

"In 1932-33, Stalin engineered a famine (by massively raising the grain quota that the peasantry had to turn over to the state); this killed between six and seven million people and broke the back of Ukrainian resistance," says a history of his political career at Gendercide.org. "The Five-Year Plans for industry, too, were implemented in an extraordinarily brutal fashion, leading to the deaths of millions of convict laborers, overwhelmingly men.

His "callous disregard for life" was matched only by his paranoia; later, he purged the Communist Party itself of anyone and everyone he believed was a threat - all under the auspices of a total gun ban.

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves," he once said.

The Ottoman Empire - 1911 -- The Ottoman Empire, the origins of which were in Turkey, implemented full gun control in 1911. A few years later, beginning in 1915 and lasting until 1917, some 1.5 million Armenians (out of a total of 2.5 million) living within the empire were rounded up and murdered by the "Young Turks" of the ruling class. In what has since been called the Armenian Holocaust, "Armenians all over the world commemorate this great tragedy on April 24, because it was on that day in 1915 when 300 Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were rounded up, deported and killed," says a short history of the slaughter by the University of Michigan. "Also on that day in Constantinople, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were butchered in the streets and in their homes."

The Ottoman government established "butcher battalions" which consisted primarily of violent criminals who had been released from prison just to kill ethnic Armenians. Those who were members of the army (which was currently fighting the Allies in World War I) "were disarmed, placed into labor battalions, and then killed," said the university history.

Germany - 1938 -- Adolph Hitler's Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938, just prior to the implementation of his horrendous, murderous campaign to exterminate the Jews. In the end, 13 million Jews and other perceived lesser races were killed by Hitler and his Nazi Party.

In 1942, at the height of the Second World War and German advances, Hitler said:

The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.

China - 1935 -- The Nationalist Chinese government established gun control in 1935, just two years before Japan invaded in 1937. In the period from 1935 to 1952, some 20 million citizens and political dissidents were murdered. The Chinese Cultural Revolution, which was launched by the country's supreme ruler, Mao Zedong, took place from 1966-1976, and "claimed the lives of several million people and inflicted cruel and inhuman treatments on hundreds of million people," says MassViolence.org. "However, 40 years after it ended, the total number of victims of the Cultural Revolution and especially the death toll of mass killings still remain a mystery both in China and overseas." The actual figures remain a highly-classified state secret.

Regarding gun control, Mao once said: "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."

Cambodia - 1956 -- The year this Asian nation issued its total gun control edict was in 1956, but the real carnage did not begin until several years later, during the regime of the demonic Pol Pot. Between 1975 and 1977, his regime murdered as many as 1 million "educated" people whom he believed represented a threat to his power in "killing fields" that were later depicted in a movie by the same name.

In all, more than 56 million people around the world have been murdered as a result of gun control laws imposed by rulers and despots who knew that the only way they could continue to brutalize their own people and stay in power was by disarming them.

And now left-wing pols, politicians, academics and pundits want our leaders to have the same ability to rule unopposed and unafraid of reprisal.

"Our forefathers did not arm the American people for the purpose of hunting, but rather to protect themselves from those who were doing the hunting, namely the tyrant King George," writes Bradlee Dean for WorldNetDaily.

Anyone truly interested in preventing mass murder should not be a supporter of gun control.

Sources:

Bolshevik Revolution: 1917

Gendercide Watch: Stalin's Purges

FACT SHEET: ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Gun control, dictator-style

Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence
 

Ya just can't believe things written by an American that starts - "The true history of....anything!" lol.

You know the only way you'll ever know if you're right or you've been wasting your life away is by giving up your guns. C'mon, let's see what'll happen! ;)

(And btw...Hitler used Ukranian police as guards for the camps and murder squads. Kind of poo poo's the "So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, " don't it?)
 

These are not pro / anti gun or pro / anti Obama comments, but simply comments on the logical construction and historical accuracy of the article itself.

One of my degrees is in history and I have a special interest in political military history. This article is an example of when an author starts with a conclusion - gun control leads to despots/genocide - and then tries to work backwards to prove the point. As we all know this is not how a logical argument is crafted. Its funny how in each example almost the entire paragraph goes into the human rights violations being committed with little to no factual detail on the details of the gun control/ban/confiscations that occurred - sometimes merely a single weak quote. In reality for all of these historical instances guns in the hands of private citizens of those nations was an extremely rare occurance. Cambodia is the best example where the population before the revolution could barely feed itself never mind owning stockpiles of weapons. I wrote my thesis on the period of Nazi Germany and know its history in detail and i can state beyond a doubt that gun control had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of the naxis and the crimes that followed. Again just look at the article and you can see that absolutely no real factual information is provided. I am more than happy to go through each example above to show that gun confiscation had little to nothing to do with the crimes that followed.

I know it's the thing to do to say that Obama is hitler etc etc but articles such as this are poorly written, poorly researched propaganda. They are done for shock value only and intelligent readers regardless of their position on firearms should see right through something like this.

Just my 2 cents.
 

These are not pro / anti gun or pro / anti Obama comments, but simply comments on the logical construction and historical accuracy of the article itself.

One of my degrees is in history and I have a special interest in political military history. This article is an example of when an author starts with a conclusion - gun control leads to despots/genocide - and then tries to work backwards to prove the point. As we all know this is not how a logical argument is crafted. Its funny how in each example almost the entire paragraph goes into the human rights violations being committed with little to no factual detail on the details of the gun control/ban/confiscations that occurred - sometimes merely a single weak quote. In reality for all of these historical instances guns in the hands of private citizens of those nations was an extremely rare occurance. Cambodia is the best example where the population before the revolution could barely feed itself never mind owning stockpiles of weapons. I wrote my thesis on the period of Nazi Germany and know its history in detail and i can state beyond a doubt that gun control had absolutely nothing to do with the rise of the naxis and the crimes that followed. Again just look at the article and you can see that absolutely no real factual information is provided. I am more than happy to go through each example above to show that gun confiscation had little to nothing to do with the crimes that followed.

I know it's the thing to do to say that Obama is hitler etc etc but articles such as this are poorly written, poorly researched propaganda. They are done for shock value only and intelligent readers regardless of their position on firearms should see right through something like this.

Just my 2 cents.

Respectfully Stock,
You just said that this is what happens when one has an opinion and works backwards. That sounds very nice, and it could even be reasonable, except you gave not one shred of historical evidence to back up your very own opinion, despite the heavy historical background you possess. Are you saying that weapons seizures never preceded the annihilation of millions in any of these countries?
Maybe you are saying it was a coincidence, Or you were saying that taking away guns lead to some NAXI thing?

Thanks for your time
Dave
 

Red I guess all of that didn't happen, it was history made up by the NRA to sell guns......ROFLMBO
 

Dave44 said:
Respectfully Stock,
You just said that this is what happens when one has an opinion and works backwards. That sounds very nice, and it could even be reasonable, except you gave not one shred of historical evidence to back up your very own opinion, despite the heavy historical background you possess. Are you saying that weapons seizures never preceded the annihilation of millions in any of these countries?
Maybe you are saying it was a coincidence, Or you were saying that taking away guns lead to some NAXI thing?

Thanks for your time
Dave

Yes, that is what I am saying is that gun seizures/controls had little to nothing to do with these events. Show me the factual evidence provided by the author proving that it did.
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Red I guess all of that didn't happen, it was history made up by the NRA to sell guns......ROFLMBO

Again, TH you are falling into the exact logical trap that the article sets up. Using a historical event yet incorrect causality? You don't see that?
 

Yes, that is what I am saying is that gun seizures/controls had little to nothing to do with these events. Show me the factual evidence provided by the author proving that it did.
:tongue3: :BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead::BangHead:
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
Red I guess all of that didn't happen, it was history made up by the NRA to sell guns......ROFLMBO

I'm not trying to come across as some sort of intellectual - which I'm definitely not. But this stuff is very commonplace and some of the first things you learn about in any logic / critical thinking class.

Again this isn't anti gun or pro Obama. It's just about logical and historical accuracy. Best.
 

So you dont think taking all the arms away from them contributed to their deaths since they had nothing but rocks to defend theirselves with, killing millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of innocent people was just a fluke, they could have stopped it at anytime with no arms to resist..................So historical none of that happen or historically they could have stopped it with out any arms to resist? :BangHead:

I am not falling into any logical trap nor am I buyin any of it your selling...........
 

Yes sir Mr Picker,
I am trying to foolow your logic, Please expound?
Guns were never confiscated prior to people being killed. No psychopath dictator ever killed anyone anyway? Do you REALLY know the numbers of the victims in these countries? Please show us your records!

Respectfully, but not understanding,
Dave
 

Treasure_Hunter said:
So you dont think taking all the arms away from them contributed to their deaths since they had nothing but rocks to defend theirselves with, killing millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of innocent people was just a fluke, they could have stopped it at anytime with no arms to resist..................So historical none of that happen or historically they could have stopped it with out any arms to resist? :BangHead:

I am not falling into any logical trap nor am I buyin any of it your selling...........

What guns are you talking about? How many guns did the civilian population of Cambodia have?
 

The "article" has set up the false premise that there was an armed civilian population that had its guns confiscated which lead to genocidal acts. And that the genocide would have been prevented if those supposed guns had not been confiscated from these people. No offense but don't you see this?
 

No offense taken,

So, No offense, but are you saying no one possessed guns in these countries and then had them taken away prior to mass killings? So no guns were taken? Noone even hunted? I am still in the fog I guess.
 

Dave44 said:
No offense taken,

So, No offense, but are you saying no one possessed guns in these countries and then had them taken away prior to mass killings? So no guns were taken? Noone even hunted? I am still in the fog I guess.

Now you are dealing in absolutes. Of course you can not make a statement using the word "none" or "all" that is the first red flag of a bad argument and certainly a statement that I did not make. But yes my statement was that in these societies there was a amount of gun ownership in private hands that would have had no impact in the outcome if the tragic events.

These are all little tricks that folks who have have been involved with debate, logic critical thinking are taught. I realize that for some it gets glossed right over but if you study this sort of stuff it's like reading an article that says 1 + 1 is 3. In not defending Obama or saying that gun control is good - I am merely pointing out this is an extremely poorly written argument and why. I believe better understanding critical thinking creates a citizenry that is better able to navigate the hugely biased world we live in and is much less likely to be manipulated by either the right or the left.
 

Think of it kind of like the people who throw out Thomas Jefferson quotes all the time....but if you dig a little you'll find out not even Monticello.org can find ANY record of these quotes written or spoken anywhere!
Same here - "gun confiscation...millions slaughtered!"...while in reality 99% of those millions never had any guns to confiscate. Many of them probably didn't even know what one was and would have tried to eat it had you givenm them one!
Dig a little....that's where the truth lies.
 

Seem to recall Hitler murdered 6 million jews and 7 million other people after lining them up and basically disarming them.
 

Stocky and Dave44: It is interesting to read the back and forth between the two of you. Let me see if I can take a whack at summing things up. If either of you disagree please cite the point and why.
1. Stocky thinks this is a poorly written article.
2. It is a poorly written article because it relies on the fallacy of correlation = causality.
3. We all agree this is how the article is written.
4. Dave44 responds by pointing out that Stocky provided no facts to the contrary.
5. Stocky responded by saying he was not trying to prove anything but simply disprove the original article.
6. Repeat points 4 and 5 a few times.
7. Dano tries to make sense of things but everybody ignores him because he is British.
8. Enter Crispin. ;)

How did I do?
 

I think Stocky's and Dano's point is that the Jews were never armed to begin with. Let me go stepwise again.
1. Jews were never armed.
2. Article is based on correlation and not causality.
3. Had the Jews been armed they would have fought back.
4. Prove TH's points on why every citizen should be armed.
5. Prove Stocky and Dano's point that this is a crappy article and argument.
6. Everybody gets riled up because somebody makes a comparison to Hitler.
7. I point out that is unfair to compare our president to Hitler.
8. All chaos ensues.

Again, if you disagree with a point please cite the point and the reason.
 

So you dont think taking all the arms away from them contributed to their deaths since they had nothing but rocks to defend theirselves with, killing millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of innocent people was just a fluke, they could have stopped it at anytime with no arms to resist..................So historical none of that happen or historically they could have stopped it with out any arms to resist? :BangHead:

I am not falling into any logical trap nor am I buyin any of it your selling...........

Fact: The main purpose of guns is to protect and kill.
Fact: We live in a society where we have the power to kill each other at will.
Fact: Neither being armed or not armed guarantees survival.
Fact: Being armed increases chances of survival in a gun fight.
Fact: Bullets piercing flesh, fired by humans, kills people.
Fact: Not everybody agrees on what are appropriate regulations for guns.
Fact: We all live together in society.

Opinion: We need to compromise on gun control.
Opinion: We can have no compromise on gun control.
Opinion: We are heading towards a civil war with massive bloodshed.
Opinion: We are not worried about a government takeover.

Fact: If we don't work together we work against each other.
Fact: If we work against each other we are less likely to find a peaceful solution.
Fact: If we do not find a peaceful solution people die.
Fact: Guns will be involved in these deaths.

Best regards,
Crispin

Ps. KarenD, is this another one of my childish schoolyard replies? I made it serious for ya...just to let ya know that I can roll!
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom