Political Crossfire Forums

[lilwolf]

Many have argued over different wording of Gun Control. In my opinion the following gives some of the clearest interpretations of the wods "Gun Control". I have posted the high lights of the article.

"Gun control" is a vague term that means different things to different people. For example, it is unlawful for 14-year-olds to buy firearms (or for that matter, cigarettes or alcohol). There are, to be sure, many adolescents who exhibit more common sense than their parents. However, experience has shown that the activities of people below a certain age (be it 18 or 21) should be restricted due to their general lack of maturity and judgment. Laws against minors purchasing firearms are but one of many restrictions society places on young people that most of the public would find reasonable. They are, nonetheless, a form of gun control.

"Gun control" as envisioned by extremist groups such as Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI) means something entirely different. To them gun control is a means to an end -- gun prohibition. And not just for minors, violent criminals, or those who warrant institutionalization. Groups like HCI ultimately seek to prohibit firearms ownership by anyone except the government (i.e., the police and military). Two points that are central to prohibitionist thinking are: (a) in order for a society to be civilized, ordinary people must be disarmed; and (b) disarmament of the citizenry can only be achieved gradually, or as HCI's founder put it, "a slice" at a time.

Gun-prohibitionists, being true elitists, deem themselves to know what is best for the rest of us and camouflage their true agenda in order to lessen resistance from the citizenry. However, when writing in statist newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times gun-prohibitionists are often quite candid about their ultimate goal. In an op-ed piece entitled "Disarm The Citizenry", The Washington Post, Friday, April 5, 1996, page A19, columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote:

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today. Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.
The July 26, 1976 issue of The New Yorker magazine contained an interview with Nelson T. Shields, III. "A Reporter At Large - Handguns", page 53. Mr. Shields (also known as "Pete" Shields) was a founder of the National Council To Control Handguns, which subsequently changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. (HCI). On pages 57-58 of The New Yorker article, Mr. Shields was very forthright as to the ultimate agenda of his then-fledgling organization:

"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given the political realities - going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, `This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get all handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors - totally illegal."

http://www.secondamendment.net/2amd6.htm


This what they envision for us as americans and people who are law abiding citizens. There are those here that fully support this crap but in my opinion this will not happen without an internal civil war.

[JoeBen81]

lilwolf wrote:
This what they envision for us as americans and people who are law abiding citizens. There are those here that fully support this crap but in my opinion this will not happen without an internal civil war.

That's what it's going to take for them to take my guns.

[Wolverine]

Proving again that the anit-gun are in the Anti-Freedom. :clap:

[lilwolf]

JoeBen81 wrote: lilwolf wrote:
This what they envision for us as americans and people who are law abiding citizens. There are those here that fully support this crap but in my opinion this will not happen without an internal civil war.

That's what it's going to take for them to take my guns.


I must agree that "IF" (big word there) thegovernment were to attempt something stupid like that they would indeed have an interanl civil war, of the likes they could not win. If they thought they could they would have already made the gun grab.
But if they did try....bring a sack lunch, cuz they gonna be here for awhile

[lilwolf]

There is a clear agenda and it is not paranoia either. Take a look at this dated June 2006.

The United Nations is holding a conference beginning this week in New York that ironically coincides with our national 4th of July holiday. It’s ironic because those attending the conference want to do away with one of our most fundamental constitutional freedoms – the right to bear arms.

The stated goal of the conference is to eliminate trading in small arms, but the real goal is to advance a worldwide gun control movement that ultimately supercedes national laws, including our own 2nd Amendment. Many UN observers believe the conference will set the stage in coming years for an international gun control treaty.

Fortunately, U.S. gun owners have responded with an avalanche of letters to the American delegation to the conference, asking that none of our tax dollars be used to further UN anti-gun proposals. But we cannot discount the growing power of international law, whether through the UN, the World Trade Organization, or the NAFTA and CAFTA treaties. Gun rights advocates must understand that the forces behind globalism are hostile toward our Constitution and national sovereignty in general. Our 2nd Amendment means nothing to UN officials.

Domestically, the gun control movement has lost momentum in recent years. The Democratic Party has been conspicuously silent on the issue in recent elections because they know it’s a political loser. In the midst of declining public support for new gun laws, more and more states have adopted concealed-carry programs. The September 11th terrorist attacks and last summer’s hurricanes only made matters worse for gun control proponents, as millions of Americans were starkly reminded that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals.

So it makes sense that perhaps the biggest threat to gun rights in America today comes not from domestic lawmakers, but from abroad
For more than a decade the United Nations has waged a campaign to undermine Second Amendment rights in America. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has called on members of the Security Council to address the “easy availability” of small arms and light weapons, by which he means all privately owned firearms. In response, the Security Council released a report calling for a comprehensive program of worldwide gun control, a report that admonishes the U.S. and praises the restrictive gun laws of Red China and France!

It’s no surprise that UN officials dislike what they view as our gun culture. After all, these are the people who placed a huge anti-gun statue on American soil at UN headquarters in New York. The statue depicts a pistol with the barrel tied into a knot, a not-too-subtle message aimed squarely at the U.S.

They believe in global government, and armed people could stand in the way of their goals. They certainly don’t care about our Constitution or the Second Amendment. But the conflict between the UN position on private ownership of firearms and our Second Amendment cannot be reconciled. How can we as a nation justify our membership in an organization that is actively hostile to one of our most fundamental constitutional rights? What if the UN decided that free speech was too inflammatory and should be restricted? Would we discard the First Amendment to comply with the UN agenda?

The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government.

June 27, 2006

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul330.html

[Norbert]

The UN claims to serve human freedom and dignity, but gun control often serves as a gateway to tyranny. Tyrants from Hitler to Mao to Stalin have sought to disarm their own citizens, for the simple reason that unarmed people are easier to control. Our Founders, having just expelled the British army, knew that the right to bear arms serves as the guardian of every other right. This is the principle so often ignored by both sides in the gun control debate. Only armed citizens can resist tyrannical government...

:tu:+1... As long as the citizentry have guns, they will tell the government to jump, and the government will say "how high, sir?"

[lilwolf]

I came across this article that I found to be pretty interesting.


Open Letter To Liberals Favoring Gun Confiscation

by Liz Michael

LizMichael.com, www.lizmichael.com
Released August 3, 2001 for immediate release
I know a lot of liberals. Hell, some of my best friends are liberals. And to those liberals, who so often favor gun control and gun confiscation, I have just one simple question....

Have you lost your bloody minds?

Let me tell 'ya a little story 'bout a man named Adolf. In the 20's the National Socialists were heavily armed (heavily for that day, anyway). The Bolsheviks were also somewhat armed, not to the degree of the Nazis. They were both probably better armed than the regular army, which was through the Treaty of Versailles, rendered next to useless.

German gun control didn't begin under the Nazis. It began in large measure because of the Nazis. They did not demand it, though. It was being aimed AT them. Yes. You heard me right. Check your history. The politcal establishment of the Weimar Republic wanted gun control to control undesirables in the population. To disarm them. They all thought it was a peachy idea.

It didn't work. German gun control was aimed at the Nazis and the Bolsheviks, the radical parties of the day. Because the National Socialists weren't about to obey laws that were not in their interest, gun control only wound up disarming what little armory was already in public hands.
What happened? One of the groups who refused to disarm ultimately took over the country. And there was absolutely nothing their opponents could do about it. Because they were without an army and without many firearms.
Now, the Weimar Republic is not a direct comparison to today's United States. But fast forward to today. There are a lot of people, most of them liberals of some type, who say one of the major reasons they want to disarm Americans is because of guns in the hands of "them crazy rednecks", like me. (Even though I'm Black, Indian and Jewish.) Well, let's assume for a minute you get your wish. Let's say that HCI and the Brady bunch get everything they want in their political agenda passed into law. Who is and is not willing to obey those laws is of prime strategic importance to the liberal agenda.

Under a gun confiscation, who will likely surrender arms and who will utterly refuse to, cuts sharply across political lines. The liberals will probably cooperate, for the "good of the children", or "the environment", or whatever pabulum of the day they're being fed. Maybe a few radical anarchists won't. But most of your mainstream Democrats will comply. After all, they TRUST the government to take care of them.

However, the groups who will not are the conservatives and the libertarians. The conservatives, who prominently feature the Religious Right caucus. The Patrick Buchanan, anti-immigration caucus. The anti-gay caucus. And the libertarians who plain and simply represent the "leave me the hell alone" caucus. The libertarians who would if they had their way gut as many liberal government programs as they possibly could.
Of course, the criminals will not comply. Not ever. They never do. They will, of course, profit from the illicit traffic from those who feel the need to have a weapon without the permission of a government bureaucrat or local police official. But I'm not really talking about the criminals here.
So what would happen under strict gun control is that the political groups most likely to be armed to the teeth are the conservatives and the libertarians, and the Religious Right and Buchananites with them. To a distinctly disporportionate degree.
Now, if you are a liberal, ask yourself this question.... do you really feel comfortable about that. Do you really WANT the conservatives to have significantly more guns than you? Because that group of armed individuals will be able to throw out any election they wish: you all complain Bush stole the 2000 election. Well, son, under strict gun control, you ain't seen NOTHIN' yet!!!
And they would likely, in the case of an armed insurrection of any serious import, be the people who take over the government. Either that, or a very organized somewhat fascist element within the government will defeat them, and take power themselves. Where would the liberals fit in the picture? Disarmed, with no power, no agenda and no voice, with their pet programs likely in shambles, with both camps of a civil war who hate them.
The SINGLE STUPIDEST thing that liberals could do for their causes is pass gun control. They would be writing their own death warrant, just as the Weimar Republic did.

I reiterate the question. Does anyone here want their activist movement fully disarmed, and completely trusting the other side in power without the check and balance of the potential for armed revolt?
Let me guess: some of you reading this right now, are thinking with your gut. And your gut is telling you: "the more I read of your essays, Liz, the more I see the need for strict gun control. So people like YOU won't have guns."

People like ME won't have guns.

That's a real belly laugh.

People like me, understand, as Mao understood, that power flows from the barrel of a gun. So people like me will NEVER not have guns
Your gut feeling is the same gut feeling the Weimar Republic had about the Nazis. I'm not going to challenge your feeling..If you understand my politics, REALLY, it's in fact, nearly laughable, as someone like Hitler or Stalin is practically the diametric opposite of myself.. But let's go with your feeling for a sec. Say I am the danger. Me and my "conservative libertarian anarchist radical antigovernment whatever" thugs are going to march down and destroy America. So what then...."WE GOTTA TAKE EVERYBODY'S GUNS!", you say. And let's pretend for a bit that you manage to get legislation to that effect. Who will obey it and who won't?

I'll tell ya, who, my liberal friends. You will obey it. The liberals will dutifully obey.
I won't obey it. The libertarians won't. The radicals won't. The conservatives won't. The religious right won't. The gayhaters won't. You may think they will but you don't know them like I do.

I won't obey it because in the end, in addition to saving my own ass, and the asses of people who think like me, I may have to save YOUR asses as well.

Who will have more power, liberal friend, at that point? Who will have more power? The liberals or the conservatives? The left or the right? Because at that point, my side, and whoever happen to be my allies, whatever you think of my side, will have all the guns. Yes, the government will have them, too. But do you really think that the government agencies with the most arms give a rat's ass about the liberal agenda? Do you REALLY think the GOVERNMENT... do you really think that government agents at this point in time, care about benign things such as gay rights, women's rights, racial minority rights and human dignity?

At that point in time, the only real battle left will be between the government and the conservatives and their allies. Unless, the conservatives take the government and consolidate absolute power, which Hitler did. So you either will have a government dominated by the conservatives, or dominated by FBI-CIA-DEA types.... or you will have a government in shambles due to a domestic rebellion....and remember that libertarians LIKE to see governments in shambles. And you will have encouraged the only Americans willing to oppose these people to disarm themselves.

At that point in the equation, liberal friend, unless your side is armed, your side won't count. Your side will not only be irrelevant, but to quote former California Governor Pete Wilson, it will be "f***ing irrelevant". And if you disarm Americans, remembering that we won't disarm, you will have no power, and we might very well have all of it.

In the light of what I've just written, liberal friend, let me ask you again. Do you want to disarm the American people so that they will not be able to fight back against a tyrannical government? Or do you want to trust whomever comes to power to not be a tyrant. Germany did the latter and got the Third Reich. What will YOU get?

By the way, lest anyone have a cow, I do not believe conservatives and libertarians can possibly be equated with the Nazis. But I'm comparing the Weimar Republic to America of today, in one aspect, and one aspect only, and that is exposing the fallacy that the political enemies of the ruling government can be successfully disarmed by disarming the society at large, which is what we're really talking about. I am responding specifically to people who say that the NRA, the GOA, myself, and many of our allies are so dangerous that we need to be disarmed, and that that could be accomplished by disarming the populace as a whole.
Targeting the most military styled political enemy you have in a nation with general gun control against everyone actually strengthens the political enemy.

I can also use Weimar Germany and probably a 100 other examples to demonstrate that in most conflicts, that when the "gunphobics" decide to square off against the "gun lovers", the gun lovers almost always win. To beat us, you have to become just like us. Ultimately, to successfully disarm us, you will have to pick up a gun and make it so. Or hire someone and pay them to do the same.

This is why I am so adamantly against the gun controllers. Because I know that. I know ultimately that for them to win, they will have to turn into far worse than whatever they perceive we are. You still think you all will simply talk us out of it or legislate us out of it, but I know better. I know that either you will lose to us or you will beat us by becoming monsters. And I know there will be no other choices.

Remember what I said, people. Nothing you do will cause the hardcore conservatives and libertarians to disarm. Probably, gun control will only cause more of us TO arm. Because we know what happens next if we don't.

Governments in the 20th century have killed 100 million people. Almost all of those governments had one thing in common.....they stripped their eventual victims of firearms. Almost every people who have tried to appease a tyrant have lived to regret it. There is a more important spiritual lesson, in your zest to avoid the sword, that some of you have forgotten...."Put not your trust in princes". By disarming, you are trusting the princes.

I don't trust the princes. Do you?

Hitler probably would have come to power anyway in Germany. However, with a disarmed populace, he came to power with a minority of the vote, and without a check and balance against his power. Had there been an armed populace, he might not have been able to consolidate absolute power. Probably no World War II. Probably no Holocaust. Guns in the right hands could have stopped it all.

Anyone in today's political climate personally strike you as dangerous?

It doesn't really matter who it is, or what party they belong to. Just understand this: gun control strengthens their hand. YOU personally disarming strengthens their hand.

Again, I'll reask the question of those who support gun control. Have you lost your minds?

http://www.lizmichael.com/openlett.htm

[evil muppet]

BRILLIANT!!!

[Jefferson]

Here are my definitions for anti-gunners:

Sensible gun control = Really means gun bans.

Rational gun control = Really means gun confiscation.

Too dangerous = Target shooting at a controlled range.

Some people should not have them = Everyone should not have them.

Illegal activities = hunting

Criminal activities = Boy Scouts earning marksman badges.

Responsible gun owernship =

passing an approved government test that will cost $1000s of dollars, proving you 'need' one (in reality only rich and powerfull will get them), proving you have a suitable storage, giving your name/fingerprints/address to the police so they know where you gun is at, then joing an approved gun club with $1000s of dolars of fees.

[britboy]

Great post Lilwolf, I was most impressed when you directly quoted the sentence

Quote: German gun control didn't begin under the Nazis. It began in large measure because of the Nazis.

Excellent. It's brilliant when the truth shines through.

Raise your right hand if you think the open letter is telling a untruth, and in actual fact the nazis increased gun control. Hello? Anyone??

[lilwolf]

The laws that were brought onto line in 1939 as in after 1938 are the ones that took guns from the jews and that is a fact. That is why nazi gun control killed millions. It had nothing to do with what was the old laws it was the new laws that were made by hitler and his clowns.

I stated the facts as I see them and there is no changing the fact that after 1938 is when it really got bad. Hell they actually started it all in 1933.