The end game of gun control

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by fhl, Jan 31, 2011.

  1. fhl


    1. 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.

    2. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

    3. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

    As the old adage goes: “With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.”*

    *from Doug Giles column at
  2. I like your point, but I doubt that any of those countries were as well armed to begin with then as we are now. "Come and get them!" Lot of old folks here with not long to live and not much to lose would object mightily.
  3. This is the most ridiculous, illogical load of hogwash I have heard.

    I won't speak of the other stuff, but, as to 1, to imagine that the ability to legally bear arms would have helped Russian dissidents to resist Stalin's purges is beyond ludicrous. Moreover, we know for a fact that it didn't help senior Red Army officers, like Marshal Tukhachevsky, who could and did bear arms.

    Whoever suggests such a thing is delusional. I think people like that shouldn't be allowed to own firearms, as they clearly lack a functioning brain.

    P.S.: On a somewhat separate note, if the only thing that qualifies me as a citizen of a country, rather than its subject, is my ability to own a gun, it's not a country I'd want to live in.
  4. You must not be from here. I commend to your attention the story of "The Kingdom of Jones," also known as "The Republic of Jones" or "The Free and Sovereign State of Jones."
  5. AD, I am not expressing an opinion about gun control, its merits and flaws or anything of the sort. What I am saying is that the argument is total bollox.
  6. What part of it is bollocks? The case of the Kurds and Saddam Hussein comes to mind. I am not sure if we are disagreeing about history or simply have different cultural mindsets. Closer to home for you (I'm guessing), is the Republic of Ireland.
  7. The part that the ability of the citizenry to bear arms can help against tyranny somehow. My point is that making arms illegal has never prevented a civil war or a massacre or some sort of conflict. It's always about organization and leadership, rather than the tools, to make it even more specific. Where there is a will to bear arms, there the arms will be found, regardless of whether it's legal to bear them or not.

    As to the Saddam and Kurds, if I am not mistaken, Kurds have always been armed (definitely the Peshmerga), which was one of the reasons for Saddam's use of chemical weapons and other scorched earth tactics.
  8. fhl


    So you think citizens owning firearms wouldn't help keep them from being persecuted and/or killed.

  9. DUH! Shouldn't this be obvious?

    A gun would have been about as much use to a Russian dissident during Stalin's 1937 purges as it would have been to an innocent Kurd in Halabja in 1988.
  10. Ricter


    Couple of problems here. One is confounding gun control with gun elimination. Another is that our stituation is no longer analogous to that of our founders'. The disparity between the weaponry the citizenry have and what the police and military have is huge. If we had to fight them we'd be forced to use the same asymmetric methods our enemies abroad are using.
    #10     Jan 31, 2011