 |
|
Add to My Group
|
December 17, 2007 at 11:23:26
Disarming of the Population and the Tyranny of Gun Control by Dana Gabriel Page 1 of 1 page(s) |
|
|
There is a war on our freedoms and this includes the right to bear arms. Over the years there has been a mass indoctrination to the evils of guns, which has resulted in the systematic psychological disarmament of the American people. With less armed law-abiding citizens and more gun-free zones, the result has been more helpless victims. It has also demonstrated that we cannot rely on government to protect us from criminals. Most crime we are facing will not be solved by further gun control legislation. Furthermore tyrants like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao all sought to disarm their own citizens in order to control them and ensure their own power. Many genocide victims were deprived of the necessary means to adequately defend themselves. A clear violation of the Second Amendment took place after Hurricane Katrina, when authorities engaged in gun confiscation. In many cases, it was these same guns that kept many individuals, families, and property safe from criminals and thugs when there was no police presence. This has set the precedent for future gun grabbing in times of crisis. There is also a new program in Boston that would allow police with parental permission to search their children's rooms for guns without a search warrant. There has been legislation introduced that would ban U.S. veterans who have experienced even mild forms of Post-Traumatic Stress from ever owning a firearm. The Second Amendment is about upholding the Founding Fathers vision of a free society, and the disarming of the population is a path to tyranny. History serves as the best example, and we all need to stop being naive and thinking that it can't happen here. There are calls for stricter gun control laws after almost every mass shooting. Taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens won't prevent such tragedies; it makes us less safe. Gun control laws do little to prevent criminals from acquiring guns, and they simply ignore any gun-free zones which in turn makes them victim disbarment zones. In many cases it was a gun that prevented a situation from further escalating. We can't rely on the police to save us as they usually show up after a crime has been perpetrated. It is our responsibility to protect ourselves and our families. Criminals fear an armed citizenry, and it is not surprising that crime tends to rise in an environment where people have lost their ability to properly defend themselves. On the heels of a mass shooting that took place in a mall in Omaha Nebraska, there were two recent shootings in Colorado which took place some 12 hours and 70 miles apart by the same shooter. It began at a Youth Mission office and ended in Colorado Springs at the New Life Church. The gunman opened fire in the parking lot, and was later shot several times and brought down by an armed security guard. Although he later shot himself in the head, this is a good example of guns saving lives. The attacker had a backpack which contained as much as 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and the heroic actions of an armed security guard prevented anymore bloodshed. Also recently, Washington Redskin's football player, Sean Taylor became yet another victim of gun control and disarmament. Although his probation had ended, he was unable to own a gun because he had plea bargained. Someone broke into his house, and he tried to defend himself and his family with a machete. He was shot and later died. A population that is disarmed is defenseless and is more easily enslaved. Only an armed civilian population can properly defend themselves and resist a tyrannical government. When the Nazis seized power in Germany in 1933, they immediately began massive search and seizures of firearms to further neutralize their political opponents. The Gestapo later established a system of central registration of persons obtaining firearms. Hitler's gun control and disarming of the population almost completely guaranteed that firearms were in the possession of Nazi supporters and sympathizers and made any kind of armed resistance inside Germany next to impossible. Hitler said, “The most foolish mistake we would possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquers who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing.” The Second Amendment protects the gun rights of individuals and is about preventing tyranny. Gun control and the disarming of the population threatens a nation's very survival. It should come as no surprise that the United Nations, which is essentially the mechanism for world government, wishes to gut the Second Amendment and institute a global gun ban that would include the private ownership of firearms. 
The threat to the Second Amendment is also coming internationally as the United Nations has a goal of disarmament. They have actively campaigned for worldwide gun control, and have declared that civilian ownership of guns is a major cause of violence around the world. The reality is that the UN has failed miserably in preventing crimes against humanity, and has further facilitated in the disarming of populations, leaving them defenseless. Many who advocate gun control want every gun in the world to be under UN control. This includes rifles, shot guns, and hand guns. Past UN conferences and forums have proposed a ban on possession of handguns by anyone other than a government official and strategies to reduce the number of handguns in private hands. Others initiatives include a worldwide licensing of firearms registered and administrated by the UN and mandating a maximum one gun per person. They also wish to develop and implement an effective disarmament, dembilization, and reintegration program. The United Nations remains a threat to the Second Amendment , our sovereignty, and security and international laws, and treaties further jeopardize our freedoms. Only after the American people have been disarmed can world governance truly be achieved.
Gun control and the disarming of law-abiding citizens should never be a solution to reducing crime and serves as a recipe for tyranny. Criminals rarely obtain firearms legally, and gun-free zones act as safe havens for criminals and crazies alike, making us all less safe and potential victims. There is a push for tougher gun control in Europe that would include a centralized firearm registration program as opposed to one controlled by individual European Union nations. History has demonstrated that the biggest advocates of gun control and limiting self-defense are those wishing to further empower the state. The training and tactics of police departments have changed, and in the process their traditional role of serving and protecting has been largely abandoned. We need to become more self sufficient and rely less on government, and this includes our own personnel safety. In many respects we are already in a police state. We have almost lost our freedom to challenge the government, and one of the final stages will be the disarming of the American people. It is a fact that the state is the leading cause of unnatural death. An armed citizenry remains an obstacle and a threat to the New World Order's agenda and its power monopoly. We need to restore and protect the Second Amendment and support gun rights. This is not a privilege, and the right to bear arms not only protects citizens and their property, but acts as a deterrent to government tyranny.
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
 Contact Author |
Contact Editor |
 View Authors' Articles |
|
|
|
|
| 9 comments |
|
Hear Hear
Well said. Civil disarmament is not a liberal or progressive or American position; it's a statist, fascist, globalist, etc., one. And it employs backward, Orwellian logic, to boot. Alcohol prohibition did nothing to stop the number of alcoholics or the volume of alcohol sales; it actually made things worse, as the alcoholics and rumrunners resorted to crimes in order to get their booze and sell it. The same applies to marijuana prohibition and gun-control. People will get their fix edgewise. If a man is determined to protect his life, family, and property — which is fully within his constitutional rights to do — then he will go to whatever lengths necessary to do just that, including buying guns from the black market or making his own. And if a criminal makes his living robbing and murdering, then no gun law will stop him. He'll do what he has to in order to keep business good; that means possessing firearms from the black market which will always thrive, especially if strict gun-control laws are in effect. by Dan Alba (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 52 comments) on Monday, Dec 17, 2007 at 12:17:33 PM  (0+)
|
|
Guns are not toys or tools
The main problem with guns is not ownership. Everyone knows that guns cannot be confiscated because so many people have a romantic attachment to them. A gun in the house is like a can of gasoline in the house. It is an attractive nuisance and should be treated as such. A gun is also useless in defense, unless a burglar or bully is especially stupid and noisy. If someone seriously wanted to kill you and your family, they could easily do so because guns are basically assault weapons. Many people surrounded by bodyguards, who never sleep, have been easily killed by guns. Historically, the right-wing has murdered almost every decent progressive politician with a gun, although they have lately favored airplanes. The worst thing about guns is the complaisancy that they breed. Instead of organizing politically or talking to friends and neighbors, too many people think "ol betsy" is going to be of use. Machiavelli encouraged the ownership of weapons for precisely that reason. A peasant with false hope is not a peasant to fear. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Dec 17, 2007 at 10:57:02 PM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Guns are not toys or tools
You sir are wrong. I would like to hear your defination of a tool. I am not worried about someone assisanitating me. I am worried about a random criminal coming into my house and trying to rob me. If I happen to wake up and get in his way what will stop him from shooting me to get what he wants? You wont hear about all of the people that defend themselfs with guns because it doesn't fit in with wat the gun grabbers want you to think about guns. I have a definition of a tool and it is you. by chessmaster (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 27 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 6:54:38 AM (0+)
|
|
Reply: Prayer might be more useful
Just pray that your random intruder is really random, stupid, noisy, and unarmed. I used to be a tool of the NRA protection racket, but then I realized what they really were. They are just a bunch of deluded crooks and suckers working for the weapons industry. by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1760 comments [39 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:33:20 AM (0+)
|
|
The second amendment
I understand that we need to protect the second amendment along with all of the other amendments. We can't pick and choose which ones we want. More gun laws are not the answer but enforcing the ones we already have would be nice. Your idea of guns preventing tyranny is flawed. Saddam's Iraq allowed citizens to own guns and most families did. Guns could be bought at the store like you would buy sugar and rice. That didn't prevent Saddam from being in power for a couple of decades. by Willard Russell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 9:20:27 AM (0+)
|
|
Save The Republic, Vote Ron Paul
Ron Paul is the only candidate running for president that has the vision of the founding fathers of this country ingrained in his heart. Core Character Counts. He is the only one in the field that I would trust my money and my family's safety with. Research him for yourself, but be wary of the Mainstream Medias Bias. Here are some sites I recommend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul Think For Yourself; Do Not Be Easily Led. Views Untested Are Worthless. >> 20th Century Gun Control History Current Case at the Supreme Court that could be very bad for citizens: by Brad Evans (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 221 comments [11 recommended, 2 rejected]) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 11:08:32 AM (0+)
|
|
ARMED CITIZENRY NESSESARY TO SAFEGUARD AGAINST TYRANNY
First, the second amendment means what it says, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The introductory clause about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state only states the reason for the amendment about the right to keep and bear arms. Some argue that since the old coloniaL militias no longer exist or are no longer necessary under modern conditions, the right no longer exists. However, EVEN IF it were true that a militia is no longer necessary, there would still be nothing in the language of the second amendment allowing us to infer that the right no longer exists. The same consideration answers those who argue that the second amendment is obsolete under modern conditions. An amendment to the Constitution can only be repealed through the process the Constitution specifies for amending itself, through a resolution passed by two-thirds of the Congress passed by three-fourths of the states. If we allow the precedent of amendments being repealed by people deciding that they are obsolete, then people can repeal the amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion by deciding that it is obsolete. Perhaps, they can be repealed they same way officials in the Bush Administration dismissed the Geneva Conventions, by calling them "quaint." The argument is made that the right to keep and bear arms is a collective right and that it does not apply to individuals. However, those living at the time of the second amendments ratification did not first have to run to some central community repository to check out their weapons whenever they needed them. The people living at the time the second amendment was ratified could not have had an interpretation of it that made it useless to them in practice. They considered the right to keep and bear arms an individual right and the legal sophistry and double talk of the 1895 Supreme Court ruling that it was a collective right cannot alter that fact. Secondly, it is logically impossible to provide everybody with 24 hour per day police protection. Assuming eight hour shifts, the police would have to comprise three times the actual population to do this, which is a logical impossibility. When the need for self defense arises, people will have to have their weapons on their persons in order to exercise their right of self defense. And third and last, an armed citzenry is necessary as a safeguard against a tyrannical government. If Bush ever tries to make his assertion that "The Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper" a reality, we will all have reason to be gratefull that a portion of the citizens are stilled armed. The Constitution cannot jump off the parchement and enforce itself but an armed citizenry can. Robert Halfhill rhalfhill@juno.com by rhalfhill (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 325 comments) on Tuesday, Dec 18, 2007 at 10:02:59 PM (0+)
|
|
Ron Paul is not the answer
Ron Paul would do nothing to address the core problem: corporate tyranny. Government isn't the problem, corporate cooption of government is. by all owners (1 articles, 58 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 144 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 1:33:38 AM (0+)
|
|
GUN CONTROL THE OPEN DOOR TO DISTATORSHIP
WHEN YOU HEAR THE DRUM BEAT OF GUN CONTROL IN CONGRESS, THIS WILL BE THE TURNING POINT TO DICTATORSHIP, AMERICAN PUBLIC IS MOST ARMED IN THE WORLD, AND THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM FOR THE NECONS AND GLOBALIST, AND IF WE GET RON PAUL AS PRESIDENT HE WILL RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT WILL BE A LIVE AND WELL, THE REST THE CFR GLOBALIST CANDIDATES WILL AT SOME POINT WANT GUN CONTROL. by RICHARD SHADE (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 460 comments) on Wednesday, Dec 19, 2007 at 3:40:07 PM (0+)
|
Want to post your own comment on this Article? 
|
||||
|
||||||||||||||
Must Read (0) 
Well Said (0) 
News (0) 
Touching (0) 
Funny (0) 
Supported (0) 
Interesting (0) 
Inspiring (0) 
Valuable (0)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell a Friend:
|
Copyright © 2002-2009, OpEdNews |
