All Journal Entries Journals

Gun Control-Learn From History or Repeat It

Aug 01, 2010 - 26 comments

gun control



Do you want to repeat or learn from history???


After reading the following historical facts,

read the part about Switzerland, twice.


In 1929, the  Soviet Union established gun control...  From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and

  In 1911,  Turkey  established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
millionArmenians, 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.



  The number of defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th
Century because of gun control:

56 million!

  You won't see this data on the  US  evening news, or hear politicians
disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes----
gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens

Take note, my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this
history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'---

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade  America  because they knew most
Americans were ARMED!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of
your friends.

The purpose of fighting is to win.. There is no possible victory in defense. The
sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than
either. The final weapon is the brain.  All else is supplemental.






I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

  If you are too,

please forward this message.

Just think how CONTROLLING our government is BECOMING!

  They think these other countries just didn't get it right.

(Or maybe they think they did!)

  Learn from history!

Post a Comment
Avatar universal
by Dazon50, Aug 01, 2010
Thanks for the post!!!

535822 tn?1443976780
by margypops, Aug 01, 2010
I did know about Switzerland ... this is good information for all to read and whether one has a gun or not we should still vote for the 2nd amendment and not allow them to take it away ..

Avatar universal
by Dazon50, Aug 01, 2010
I agree.  There was a reason the framers put this in.  People should have a right to protect themselves.  We are in an imperfect world.  Taking guns away won't stop people from being violent or killing.  They will use bedsheets to strangle, burn homes down, etc.  Invest in people and be fair while taxing, etc. and maybe there won't be so much "unrest" and "anger" in the people.  

There are so many problems but with compassion, understanding, wisdom, and care and work (yes....effort--Work) we will see some good results. There are good ideas out there...let's tap in :-)))

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 01, 2010
To Dazon50:  Thank you!  Excellent comment.  We have right to carry laws here in Texas.  Our crime rate, as did the one in Florida when they got right to carry laws, have decreased dramatically.  THe bag guys now go after other bad guys or people they know are not armed.  But as they have no idea whether the driver of the car they want to carjack is armed or not, that crime has really gone down.  Crooks even admit that one.  They will tell authorities that they are now more careful who they go after.  Even little old ladies, like me, carry guns!  I know how to use (been shooting since my teens) and I WILL!

1173196 tn?1292916490
by KarenDiane, Aug 02, 2010
I agree that people should have the right to bear arms. However, the 2nd amendment was put in place with the intent that America should have a militia. People tend to only quote part of the 2nd amendment.

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
KarenDiane:  I agree with you on the militia.  But if you will recall, when the Bill of Rights was written, the militia meant armed civilians.  Not the army or the National Guard.  I'm sure you're familiar with your American History.  I don't know you but you do seem to be an informed educated intelligent lady.

My belief is that if looked at in the context in which it was written, the Founders meant armed civilians who can be called upon to defend their country from without or within.  But not Government forces.

535822 tn?1443976780
by margypops, Aug 02, 2010
I heard this on Beck, he has been giving a history lesson on the founding fathers , to folks like me on Fridays and yes you are correct Sara it was meant for civillians ....

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
Margy:  Really?  I knew her did great American History lessons but I didn't watch Friday. I fell asleep!!  I thought I knew my history.  But I have learned a lot watching his lessons.  Especially about the contributions of Black Americans during the American Revolution.  Did you know that a black man was the first one killed in the Boston massacre?  I didn't.

144586 tn?1284666164
by caregiver222, Aug 02, 2010
The original newspaper concerning the death of Crispus Attucks, the first African American killed in the revolution is in the New York public library arvhives.  I have handled it. He was shot by British soldiers while caught stealing apples.

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
Caregiver:  Thank you for the clarification.  That is certainly not what is being taught.  But no shock there.  Texas has fortunately tightened up factual accuracy in our textbooks.  This has liberals howling because we won't teach revised history.

Revised history is one of the most dangerous things in our Republic.  ACCURACY is what is needed, warts and all.  Or else, we WILL repeat it.

535822 tn?1443976780
by margypops, Aug 02, 2010
sorry.... what do you was you that said the founders meant armed civillians . read your own post , so what do you mean by 'Really' sorry I dont understand ....I was agreeing with you ,

144586 tn?1284666164
by caregiver222, Aug 02, 2010
My hobby is the revolutionary war and I was researching the documents of that era by special permission in the documents section. They have the actual Boston newspapers on file. It is difficult to state what happened, but it appeared to be comon theft. That does not mean that African-Americans did not fight in the revolution. What is interesting also is the anihilation of the Stockbridge Indians, who fought for Washington in the Battle of Brooklyn in White Plains by the Hessians. They were bayonetted without mercy. General Howe's battle map (in the map library) is there also, marked with notations next to the houses as to whether they were friendly to the King. General Howe issued an order for citizens not friendly to the King to be disarmed.

The right to keep and bear arms was decided on by men who knew a lot about the history of governments on this planet, including the history of slavery (for white men, as well as those of color). They read of the atrocities of Rome and Attila the Hun and of massacres around the planet through the ages, and were determined to form a community where this could never happen.

Unquestionably, this was meant to be an individual right.

It was not meant for citizens to necessarily defend their "country", but for them to protect themselves and their families.

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
I do mean armed civilians.  The really was a sincere question.  Not a pop at you or anyone.  You're taking it the wrong way.  I was agreeing with you Margy.

377493 tn?1356502149
by adgal, Aug 02, 2010
I have been reading a fair amount on this issue of late and can honestly say that I have now changed my mind on the issue of gun control.  I had always believed that countries that allowed citizens to be armed had higher crime/murder rates and have discovered I was quite wrong.  There does not seem to be a direct link between gun control (or lack of) and crime rates...nothing consistent anyway.  It seems to have far more to do with the laws punishing criminals then anything else (for example, Singapore is extremely tough on crime/criminals and as a result has very little.  I believe they too are allowed to own guns). I do still believe that a background check should be done as I worry about known criminals getting their hands on them.  I know they get them anyway, but don't think it should be made easier then it already is if you know what I mean.  But I can honestly say that this is a subject where my feelings have been changed.  

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
Caregiver:  Again thank you.  This is very interesting to me.  I love history!  Could you clarify something for me?  Who massacred the Stockbridge Indians?  Us or the British?

I know we broke our promise to black slaves.  We offered them freedom in exchange for bearing arms after the British did.  Only we didn't keep our promise.  We sent them back to being slaves.  How shameful of us.  But the British were more honorable.  They did evacuate the ex slaves along with Tories.  At least someone did the right thing.

535822 tn?1443976780
by margypops, Aug 02, 2010
Misinterpretation ..apologies .

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
Margy:  I'm glad you understand.  We do think alike on this issue.

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
Adgal:  I am glad you are looking at this issue.  When you get through the propaganda, you will find that guns in the hands of law abiding citizens make it a much safer society.  Criminals will get guns. They are running them up through Mexico and the same back.  That's why I want the border closed.

With gun control, the only ones left with guns are those we don't want to have them!


1173196 tn?1292916490
by KarenDiane, Aug 02, 2010

I found this on wikipedia -

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock....

I do not believe that the founding fathers meant that every person has a right to bare arms. I believe they meant that men who were involved in the militia (which later became the National Guard) needed a firearm to protect their communities. I do think that this is outdated but if people are going to use the 2nd amendment as their reasoning to have firearms, then they should know what the entire amendment says instead of only quoting part of it.

Avatar universal
by pertykitty, Aug 02, 2010
i am a woman who grew up with guns as a normal thing.  we target practiced, kept the house safe, learned safety and the do's and dont's.  i dont own a gun personally but i would.  gun control doesnt protect people like you and i who want to keep our families safe, it prevents us from doing just that.

803938 tn?1403748253
by Ecologic, Aug 02, 2010
Just saw this post and thought I would add my grain of salt... like most Europeans, I am anti-guns. I got my Texan husband to get rid of his 2 pistols after we were married. And even more than ever with a young child in our house, we don't need guns.

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
KarenDiane:  From Wikipedia: The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights  that protects the right to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The U.S. Supreme Court made influential rulings interpreting this amendment in 2008 and 2010, the first time since 1939. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court ruled that "on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."[1]  It also ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governmental authority to the same extent that it limits federal authority.[2]  An ordinance, banning handguns in the home, was found to violate this amendment and was struck down. The Supreme Court also stated that its ruling was not to be taken as an indication that all firearm restrictions are unconstitutional.

here are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[3] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[4]
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[5]
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

Why would a government wish to disarm peaceful civilians unless for nefarious reasons???

1173196 tn?1292916490
by KarenDiane, Aug 02, 2010
What was ruled on in 2008 and 2010 has nothing to do with what our founding fathers intended. Which is the reasoning I hear from 99% of gun toting citizens. The US supreme court is trying to keep things current, which I agree that they should.

A government might wish to disarm citizens because they might not be so peaceful. Who can make that judgement?

Personally, my father always had guns and taught all the kids how to shoot. My husbands family was the same way. I will not have guns in my home with my children. I have relatives with legally concealed weapons and they have to leave their guns in the car when they visit. I would not be opposed to owning a gun after my kids are out of the house.

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 02, 2010
Well, I believe we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.  I believe the founders were well aware of what could happen when the citizenry is disarmed.  Please see caregivers post in this journal.  I do believe The Founders meant we could all have a gun with which to defend ourselves.

1173196 tn?1292916490
by KarenDiane, Aug 02, 2010
I've read all the posts to your journal. I agree, we'll have to disagree :)

1301089 tn?1290666571
by Sarajmt, Aug 03, 2010
To ecologic:  That is your personal decision and what is right for you.  I respect that.  I just resent those who would disarm citizens who have broken no laws, no  mental issue.  Those who just want to take away everyone's guns make me wonder what motives are.

Post a Comment