• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Gun Control History

Pray To Jesus

Pray To Jesus

Diamond Member
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.
------------------------------

On the battlefield they don't stand a chance.

Guerilla tactics, quick strikes then going back to being ordinary civilians again, that's where the power lies. Never defend, just evade. Attack when and where it suits you, let the strong side worry about defending everything. You might be weaker if you sum everything up, but you can always be stronger at selected weak points. Tanks and aircraft are not worth anything as long as you aren't prepared to level towns just to get a few guerillas. Also, if the guerillas are part of the ordinary population, tank crews and pilots can be sniped off duty, and without them, the machines are just expensive junk.

I'm not saying they will win, but it will be very hard for the dictator to win without going down a route that might bring the international community down on him.

This is classic assymetrical warfare, and it has been proven time and time again.
 
I despise civilian disarmament and the buffoons who support it, but most of these "facts" are compete nonsense.
 
Gun Control makes good sense to me.... BUT.... I can't agree that there exists a restriction in our Constitution regarding that topic. I don't like finding some arcane trail that might Constitutionally support even a minor restriction.

As I said, gun control is reasonable but not legal as I see it... Scalia says there exist implied restrictions.... Like some sort of 'head axe'... and if he says that about guns then there exist implied, semi implied and even imaginary rights that must also exist.

Amend the Constitution.... if you can... but don't infer from nothing something explicitly stated otherwise.
 
Who is even discussing gun control?

Liberals will wait to try to exploit the next tragedy, and be shut down.
 
Related:

"The Secret History of Guns"

The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight.
Click to expand...

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/
 
wwjcc?
jesusgun.jpg
 
i hope that mcawful doesnt grab guns en masse in virginia but he could very well do so considering how Clintonian he is.

and god knows there will be a false flag, ill get shot, and then theyll use me and the others who get shot as an excuse for more centralization of arms.
 
Anarchist420 said:
i hope that mcawful doesnt grab guns en masse in virginia but he could very well do so considering how Clintonian he is.

and god knows there will be a false flag, ill get shot, and then theyll use me and the others who get shot as an excuse for more centralization of arms.
Click to expand...

The last false flag OPORD I saw revolved heavily around you, so keep an eye out. :biggrin:
 
PingviN said:
Australia did it.
Click to expand...

Londo_Jowo said:
Australia didn't have a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to own and bear firearms.
Click to expand...

nor do they have nearly the number of firearms and crime issues as the US.

the irony is that most violent crime is committed in big cities with illegally acquired pistols, not out in the boonies with an AR, yet everyone wants to ban scary black rifles. you want to tackle gun crime? tackle drug and gang crime. that's by far the largest source of gun violence in the US, but no politician will admit that because it's not a popular talking point. it makes too much sense.
 
ralfy said:
Feel free to explain.
Click to expand...

"The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it."

The only time anyone was "required" to obtain a gun was under the Militia Acts of 1792. They were never enforced and not one single person ever was punished under law for not obtaining a gun. The militias were also volunteers.

The rest of your post is such utter nonsense it boggles the mind.
 
Last edited:
Matt1970 said:
"The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it."

The only time anyone was "required" to obtain a gun was under the Militia Acts of 1792. They were never enforced and not one single person ever was punished under law for not obtaining a gun. The militias were also volunteers.

The rest of your post is such utter nonsense it boggles the mind.
Click to expand...

You just proved the writer's argument!

Also, the second militia act expanded the requirement to all white males of a certain age. Later, that applied to males of all races.
 
Londo_Jowo said:
Australia didn't have a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to own and bear firearms.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the issue. Also, constitutions can be amended.

Fenixgoon said:
the irony is that most violent crime is committed in big cities with illegally acquired pistols, not out in the boonies with an AR, yet everyone wants to ban scary black rifles. you want to tackle gun crime? tackle drug and gang crime. that's by far the largest source of gun violence in the US, but no politician will admit that because it's not a popular talking point. it makes too much sense.
Click to expand...

Of course there are more than one way to deal with the issue, but claiming gun regulation doesn't work, when clearly it did work in Australia is silly. Here you have a comparative nation (at least more so than Nazi Germany or 1911 Turkey) in modern time restricting gun ownership and seeing it have positive effect on everything gun related. But no, let's disregard all that because Australia isn't exactly like the US and if it isn't exactly like the US then it doesn't work.

You can both attempt to tackle drug related crimes and regulate guns. Call it a two-pronged attack. You don't have to go with a one-trick pony.
 
Last edited:
PingviN said:
Of course there are more than one way to deal with the issue, but claiming gun regulation doesn't work, when clearly it did work in Australia is silly.
Click to expand...

Official government statistics demonstrate that the ban/confiscation had absolutely no effect on the murder rate. A more thorough analysis shows the same results across all classes of violent crime.

The only "positive" impact it may have had is a reduction in the rate of mass shootings, but that just led to arson as the preferred weapon of mass murder. Arson incidents have claimed more lives than any recorded mass shooting except for Port Arthur.

If that's what you consider success, I'd hate to see what failure looks like.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top