What History Teaches About Gun Confiscations

gun-confiscation-213
by Dave Hodges
It is clear that Obama, Boxer, a host of other elected representatives, the media, and Hollywood stars and are coming after our guns. Leading the media charge is none other Michael Moore in which he implores the nation to let the murders of 20 Sandy Hook elementary students not “be in vain and stand for gun control.” Moore seems to forget that he and his family have several armed bodyguards.
Then there is Obama who refuses to mandate that gun free zones at schools be replaced with armed guards designed in order to protect our children. And Obama also seems to forget to mention that he has 11 armed guards protecting his children while they attend school in a “gun free zone.”
Oh, I think Obama and Moore think that our children are important. It is just that their children are much more important than our children. Simply put, Obama and Moore advocate for “rules for thee but not for me.”
Outright Gun Bans Are Looming
Regrettably, I believe that we are going to see an incrementally based approach to seizing our guns on the part of the Obama administration. Subsequently, Americans could very well be on the verge of committing “National Suicide by Gun Control”.
The gun control advocates are positioning themselves and their gun-grabbing policies to be perfectly timed to influence people during this window of opportunity motivated by the highly suspicious set of mass shootings (e.g. Batman shootings, Sandy Hook shootings).
All totalitarian governments begin their invasion into civil liberties with the promise of safety from whoever plays the convenient role of the “bogeyman” of the day. In Nazi Germany, the original bogeymen were the communists, and then this specter of bogeymen kept expanding until anyone who was an enemy of the State needed to be controlled and disarmed. Isn’t this what we have witnessed since the days of 9/11 with the creation of the DHS-inspired MIAC report which lists returning veterans, gun owners, Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters and Constitutionalists as domestic terrorists. This is your list of people who will be disarmed first, and the list will keep growing until all Americans are disarmed. The totalitarian pleas of “Let us protect you from yourself” ring loudly and clearly through the halls of Congress and in the Oval Office. History shows that when governments demand to protect you from yourself, we should all get a little bit nervous.
History Speaks Will American Listen?
History shows that bad things, very bad things, happen when a government confiscates the guns of its citizens. It is an undisputed fact that gun control and gun confiscation have preceded every instance of genocide in the 20th century. How quickly we forget the lessons of history, or, perhaps we never bothered to learn the true lessons of history in the first place.
If we ever allow government to subvert the Second Amendment, we very well could be witnessing a prelude to an American genocide for specific targeted groups, for there is nothing as dangerous to a totalitarian regime as an educated and well-armed populace. Totalitarian regimes flourish in an atmosphere of ignorance. The dumbing down of American students has removed the first obstacle which could stand in the way of the establishment of a brutal police state control grid. The second obstacle, the removal of America’s citizens guns as a last line of defense against tyrannical government has commenced with the catalyst being the Sandy Hook shootings.
And let’s not forget that this criminal Obama administration has been caught shipping guns into Mexico to the drug cartels in order to undermine the Second Amendment; and we are supposed to trust these proven criminals to be the only ones who will have guns in the new UN-controlled America?
What Happens After Gun Confiscation?
Before we passively allow the Obama administration to strip away our last line of defense from an increasingly totalitarian government, by acquiescing to the United Nations and American advocates for gun control, perhaps we should examine the end game resulting from past gun control efforts:
1. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves against their ethnic-cleansing government, were arrested and exterminated.
2. In 1929, the former Soviet Union established gun control as a means of controlling the “more difficult” of their citizens. From 1929 to the death of Stalin, 40 million Soviets met an untimely end at the hand of various governmental agencies as they were arrested and exterminated.
3. After the rise of the Nazis, Germany established their version of gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves against the “Brown Shirts”, were arrested and exterminated. Interestingly, the Brown Shirts were eventually targeted for extermination themselves following their blind acts of allegiance to Hitler. Any American military and police would be wise to grasp the historical significance of the Brown Shirts’ fate.
4. After Communist China established gun control in 1935, an estimated 50 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves against their fascist leaders, were arrested and exterminated.
5. Closer to home, Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayans, unable to defend themselves against their ruthless dictatorship, were arrested and exterminated.
6. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves from their dictatorial government, were arrested and exterminated.
7. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million of the “educated” people, unable to defend themselves against their fascist government, were arrested and exterminated.
8. In 1994, Rwanda disarmed the Tutsi people and being unable to defend themselves from their totalitarian government, nearly one million were summarily executed.
The total numbers of victims who lost their lives because of gun control is approximately 70 million people in the 20th century. The historical voices from 70 million corpses speak loudly and clearly to those Americans who are advocating for a de facto gun ban. Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all the international and domestic wars combined. Governments murdered millions more people than were killed by common criminals and it all followed gun control.
Historically, American gun control legislation has been imitating Hitler’s Nazi Germany gun control legislation for quite some time. Consider the key provisions of the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 and compare it with the United States Gun Control Act of 1968. The parallels of both the provisions and the legal language are eerily similar.
The Nazi Weapons Act of 1938
1. Classified guns for sporting purposes.
2. All Germans desiring to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and submit to a background check.
3. The law assumed that non-Nazi German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law.
4. The Nazis assumed unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not, be owned by private persons.
5. The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats.
6. Citizens under 18 years of age could not buy firearms and ammunition.
United States Gun Control Act of 1968
1. Introduced term “sporting purpose.”
2. Exempted government agencies from the controls which applied to law-abiding citizens.
3. Age restrictions of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition.
4. Authorized the Secretary of the Treasury to decide what firearms could or could not be owned by private persons.
5.The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by governmental bureaucrats.
6. Age restriction of 18 years and 21 years were applied to anyone who wished to purchase firearms and ammunition.
Thomas Jefferson was very clear in his writings regarding the right to bear arms. Jefferson knew that the preservation of the Republic ultimately rested upon a well-armed citizenry. Jefferson felt it was absolutely necessary for American citizens to be able to protect themselves. The protection that Jefferson spoke of was not from our obvious enemies of the day (France and Britain), but from our own government. Jefferson made this point quite clear when he admonished future generations of Americans to fulfill their duty to overthrow a government if they failed to serve the needs of the majority of its citizens.
Private ownership of guns is the necessary component needed to fulfill the Jeffersonian mandate for national self-defense. Yet, increasingly reminiscent of Nazi Germany, the United States government is incrementally chipping away at private citizens’ right to own a gun. This does doesn’t make sense because FBI statistics clearly show that 90% of the guns used in the commission of a crime are stolen! Does the government really believe that criminals, both American citizens and illegal aliens, as well as terrorists, are suddenly going to perform their civic duty and immediately register their guns? How is America better-served if the only ones who don’t have access to guns are the law-abiding citizens? So, one must ask who are the gun control laws designed to protect and why?
 

 
 

Views: 50

Comment

You need to be a member of Tea Party Command Center to add comments!

Join Tea Party Command Center

Comment by James C. Watson DC on November 3, 2013 at 3:10pm

THE ONLY RIGHTS YOU HAVE ARE THOSE RIGHTS YOU ARE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR!

I DO NOT MEAN POLITICAL FIGHTING

I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT I SAID !

ARE YOU WILLING TO TAKE UP ARMS AGAINST THOSE WHO SEEK TO QUASH YOUR FREEDOMS?

THAT IS THE QUESTION?

LIGHTER SIDE

 

Political Cartoons by AF Branco

Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

ALERT ALERT

 Will  Tea Party Hand The Liberals Their Ass On Election Day? 

It was this week two years ago that Hillary Clinton’s victory looked assured, when the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape of Donald Trump bragging about sexual assault appeared all but certain to end his campaign.

Jesse Ferguson remembers it well. The deputy press secretary for Clinton’s campaign also remembers what happened a month later.

It’s why this veteran Democratic operative can’t shake the feeling that, as promising as the next election looks for his party, it might still all turn out wrong.

“Election Day will either prove to me I have PTSD or show I’ve been living déjà vu,” Ferguson said. “I just don’t know which yet.”

Ferguson is one of many Democrats who felt the string of unexpected defeat in 2016 and are now closely — and nervously — watching the current election near its end, wondering if history will repeat itself. This year, instead of trying to win the presidency, Democrats have placed an onus on trying to gain 23 House seats and win a majority.

The anxiety isn’t universal, with many party leaders professing confidently and repeatedly that this year really is different.

But even some of them acknowledge the similarities between the current and previous election: Trump is unpopular and beset by scandal, Democrats hold leads in the polls, and some Republicans are openly pessimistic.

FiveThirtyEight gives Democrats a 76.9 percent chance of winning the House one month before Election Day. Their odds for Clinton’s victory two years ago? 71.4 percent.

The abundance of optimism brings back queasy memories for Jesse Lehrich, who worked on the Clinton campaign and remembers watching the returns come in from the Javits Center in New York.

“I was getting texts after the result was clear – including even from some political reporters and operatives – texting me, you know, ‘Are you guys starting to get nervous?’ or ‘What’s her most likely path?’” he said. “I was like, ‘What do you mean, starting to get nervous? What path? They just called Wisconsin. We lost.’”

“People were so slow to process that reality because they just hadn’t considered the possibility that Donald Trump was going to be the next president,” he continued.

Lehrich said he sees similarities between 2016 and 2018. But he said he thought Democrats were cognizant of the parallels and determined not to let up a month before the election, as many voters might have two years ago.

Other Democratic leaders aren’t so sure. Asked if he thought his party was overconfident, Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton responded flatly, “Yes.”

Democrats could win a lot of House seats, he said, or could still fall short of capturing a majority.

“The point is that we’ve got to realize that this not just some unstoppable blue wave but rather a lot of tough races that will be hard-fought victories,” Moulton said.

If Democrats are universally nervous about anything after 2016, it’s polling. The polls weren’t actually as favorable to Clinton and the Democrats as some remember, something 538’s Nate Silver and some other journalists pointed out at the time.

But Clinton’s decision not to campaign in a state she’d lose, Wisconsin, and the failure of pollsters everywhere to miss a wave of Trump supporters in red areas are mistakes Democrats are still grappling with today.

“Clearly last cycle, polling was off,” Ben Ray Lujan, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told reporters last month. “There were a lot of predictions that were made last cycle that didn’t come to fruition.”

Lujan emphasized in particular how pollsters missed the rural vote, calling it a “devastating mistake.” He said the DCCC has taken deliberate steps since 2016 to get it right this time around, but underscored a congressional majority still required a tooth-and-nail fight.

“So I’m confident with the team that’s been assembled, but I’m definitely cognizant of the fact we need to understand these models and understand the data for what it is,” he said.

One Democratic pollster said the data he’s seen makes plain that the party is favored to win a majority — but that it’s still not a sure thing. He said even now it’s unclear if the political environment will create an electoral tsunami, or merely a good year where Democrats might still fall short of a House majority.

“We’ve all learned a lesson from 2016 that there are multiple possibilities and outcomes,” said the pollster, granted anonymity to discuss polling data one month before the election. “And if you haven’t learned that lesson, shame on you. That 20 percent outcome can happen. That 30 percent outcome can happen.”

This year, Democrats have history on their side: The incumbent president’s party historically struggles during midterm elections. That wasn’t the case in 2016, when Democrats were trying to win the presidency for three consecutive terms for the first time in their history since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (The GOP accomplished the feat only once in the same period, with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.)

Some Democratic leaders say the reality of Trump’s presidency — unlike its hypothetical state in 2016 — changes the dynamic entirely.

“Democratic energy is at nuclear levels,” said Steve Israel, a former DCCC chairman. “Democrats would crawl over broken glass to vote in this election.”

Israel said he still has concerns about November (political operatives always have concerns about the upcoming election). But he waves away the notion that the party might fall short of a House majority.

“Most Democrats and a heck of a lot of Republicans I speak to believe that Democrats will have the majority,” he said. “The real question is, by how much?”

Ferguson is, of course, of two minds: He thinks the push to repeal the Affordable Care Act and the day-to-day reality of Trump’s presidency fundamentally changes how voters will see this election.

But he’s also gun-shy about what could change in the next month, after the multitude of surprises that occurred during the last month of the 2016 race, whether the “Access Hollywood” recording or then-FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that the investigation into Clinton’s emails was re-opened.

Many Republicans argue the 2018 election has already seen its October surprise, with the confirmation fight over Brett Kavanaugh finally motivating conservative voters to vote.

“I don’t know what the October surprises will be,” Ferguson said. “But we make a mistake if we assume that what we’re seeing today is what we’ll see for the entire month. We lived through it two years ago.”

© 2018   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service