Why Can't?
2006-10-23 17:20:18 · 31 answers · asked by creamy 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
*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.
Adolph Hitler imposed the first gun control on citizens in 1935 in the form of full registration.. Look what it led to in 1938 (confiscation) and beyond...
*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.
*It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent) !
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey are unarmed .
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians disseminating this information.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws 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'.
Gun control is the road to absolute power, and the destruction of free society. Simply stated, if you think, especially after reading the facts in this post that gun control does anything positive, you are living in a dream world, or are a complete idiot.
GUNS SAVE LIVES.
GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
IF GUNS KILL PEOPLE, SPOONS MAKE MICHEAL MOORE FAT!
2006-10-23 17:24:27 · answer #1 · answered by DT89ACE 6 · 13⤊ 2⤋
I wonder why the European Jews in the 30s and 40s didn't use guns to fight back when the Nazis came to take them to the concentration camps???
Oh thats right, Hitler and the rest of the Nazi party realized that the only way they could implement the final solution was to have a gun-free society.
Do you even know why the writers of the constitution put in the second amendment? Thats right, they just got done fighting against a tyrannical government and realized we might have to do it again.
In other words
The 2nd Amendment was intended as a final check of goverment authority...
Its just too bad that some are too trusting of the government and will hand those rights away because they have no concept of why we have them
2006-10-25 13:02:16 · answer #2 · answered by MacDaddy_781 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
History has proven that it just doesn't work. Criminals will always avail themselves of some kind of weapon, even if someone could actually eliminate all guns. Adolph Hitler claimed that Germany, under his control, was the first civilized nation in the world that had advanced so far that firearms in civilian hands were no longer necessary. Look what he did to the world.
Even our American military occupation forces know better than to try to disarm law-abiding citizens of other countries, like Iraq, because that would turn those citizens against us.
Guns by themselves aren't bad. Consider the M-1 Garand rifle, which General George S. Patton once called "the greatest battle implement ever devised". Garands aren't popular for hunting or even self-defense, due to their size and weight. Most of them in civilian hands today are held by law-abiding collectors and target shooters. You never hear of a crime being committed with a Garand, and their owners would fight tooth and nail before they would ever give them up.
2006-10-23 17:47:01 · answer #3 · answered by senior citizen 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
We don't want a free-gun country.
1. Right to bear arms is destroyed.
2. Criminals will always have guns. We won't be able to defend ourselves.
3. If there is a sudden war, what are we to do if we have no guns?
2006-10-24 05:42:44 · answer #4 · answered by John 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Can't beat DTSC's answer. I will add this though.. . A very honest, very sincere gun control lobbyist once upon a time decided to do some actual RESEARCH on guns & crime. The woman's name is Paxton Quigley and you need to read her book "Armed & Female" that she wrote as a result..
She is now a well-informed, ardent supporter of the right to bear arms and the positive effect it has on a society when the criminals aren't the only ones who are armed.
This includes prison interviews with hardcore criminals who flat-out state that they are more afraid of an armed civilian than they are of the cops.
That makes them "Not an Easy Target", another book of hers.
Human nature will never go away as long as there are human beings, and neither will the need to protect ourselves against those who do not value our lives as we do.
2006-10-23 20:36:12 · answer #5 · answered by gettin'real 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That happened in Poland before they were taken over by the Germans. No guns/ no protection.
What makes you think the criminals won't have guns? They get them illegally now. What about hunting? Many people I know use the animals for food and need to do this. Why wouldn't you want the average citizen to protect themself?
2006-10-24 00:50:41 · answer #6 · answered by stargazer 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think every body should have guns,and as many as they want.Who is gonna protect you,not the police.Hell,call 911 and see how many hours are days for them to show up.By the time they get there to help you,the hold neighborhood is dead.
But let some body get pulled over buy the police,and watch.With in 5 minutes there will be 10 police cars there to write that I guy a ticket.
2006-10-27 14:51:42 · answer #7 · answered by George K 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A "gun-free society" is one where the bad guys have guns and the good guys don't. I don't like that idea... see what happened in Australia when they went to a "gun-free society."
2006-10-23 17:25:00 · answer #8 · answered by Questioner 7 · 7⤊ 0⤋
What going to stop someone from breaking in your house using a knife to kill someone. Just about anything could be used as a weapons. My cousin was murdered four years ago, she was only 12 years old[ people from youngstown Ohio would have heard of this on the news] these guys cut her throat and poured gasolin on her body and burned her body. Anyone from my area would remember the name Shannon Koss. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun did not kill my cousin.
2006-10-23 17:35:35 · answer #9 · answered by Robin W 4 · 5⤊ 0⤋
The strangest paradox of the Second Amendment is that I don't feel a great need to own guns as long as it is observed by the government, but the more the government talks about repealing it, the more I seem to feel like I should probably be armed.
2006-10-23 17:29:00 · answer #10 · answered by open4one 7 · 8⤊ 0⤋
Article [II.]
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.
We must protect our country and it's people.
2006-10-23 18:29:27 · answer #11 · answered by Debbi 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋