Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Age
    37
    Posts
    4,042

    Default A little "anti-gun" history...

    Gun History

    After reading the following historical facts, read the part

    about Switzerland.



    A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

    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.

    ------------------------------

    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 programme costing Australian taxpayers more than $500

    million dollars. The first year results are now in:



    List of 7 items:



    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 is

    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 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 South Africans and citizens of the world, before it's too late!



    The next time someone talks in favour 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.

    SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!

    SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT TO WHOM THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.

    SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED
    COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

    IT'S A NO-BRAINER!

    DON'T LET YOUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF YOUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN
    EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.



    Just think how powerful your government is getting!

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

    Learn from history.




  2. #2
    Moderator camouflage762's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Alberton
    Posts
    12,024

    Default Re: A little "anti-gun" history...

    Switzerland is to hold a referendum on keeping service rifles at home. confused0083
    Recent studies show that 1 out of every 3 liberals are just as dumb as the other 2

  3. #3
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Age
    51
    Posts
    879

    Default Re: A little "anti-gun" history...

    Interesting post,

    I can't say I agree 100% with Japan not invading America because of gun ownership as indicated by the following article;

    ...One of the more fanciful claims in the message is that during World War II "the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!" In fact, according to the U.S. Army’s Center for Military History, Japan in World War II had set its sights mainly on Asia; its attacks on U.S. military targets were intended to clear the way for Asian conquests.
    American Military History, p. 165: Japan entered World War II with limited aims and with every intention of fighting a limited war. Its principal objectives were to secure the resources of Southeast Asia and much of China and to establish a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” under Japanese hegemony. Japan believed it necessary to destroy or neutralize American striking power in the Pacific (the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Far East Air Force in the Philippines) to secure its otherwise open strategic flank before moving southward and eastward to occupy Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, the Gilbert Islands, Thailand, and Burma.
    Japan had no thought of invading the U.S. mainland, and the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd.
    Note: The author alludes to a belief, widely held by supporters of gun rights, that Japan’s WW II Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his country’s leaders against invading the U.S., supposedly saying "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." This alleged quote appears literally thousands of times in various Internet postings. So far we have seen none that cite any source, or even give a specific time, date or place where Yamamoto is supposed to have said or written this. We invite any of our readers who can validate this remark to send us a citation that we can check out. Until then we must classify this alleged quote as unverified and probably a fabrication.

    It just seems very unlikely that Japan would invade America whether the private citizens were armed or not.


  4. #4
    User
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Age
    43
    Posts
    857

    Default Re: A little "anti-gun" history...

    Quote Originally Posted by Skurk777
    Interesting post,

    I can't say I agree 100% with Japan not invading America because of gun ownership as indicated by the following article;

    ...One of the more fanciful claims in the message is that during World War II "the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!" In fact, according to the U.S. Army’s Center for Military History, Japan in World War II had set its sights mainly on Asia; its attacks on U.S. military targets were intended to clear the way for Asian conquests.
    American Military History, p. 165: Japan entered World War II with limited aims and with every intention of fighting a limited war. Its principal objectives were to secure the resources of Southeast Asia and much of China and to establish a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” under Japanese hegemony. Japan believed it necessary to destroy or neutralize American striking power in the Pacific (the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Far East Air Force in the Philippines) to secure its otherwise open strategic flank before moving southward and eastward to occupy Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, the Gilbert Islands, Thailand, and Burma.
    Japan had no thought of invading the U.S. mainland, and the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd.
    Note: The author alludes to a belief, widely held by supporters of gun rights, that Japan’s WW II Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his country’s leaders against invading the U.S., supposedly saying "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." This alleged quote appears literally thousands of times in various Internet postings. So far we have seen none that cite any source, or even give a specific time, date or place where Yamamoto is supposed to have said or written this. We invite any of our readers who can validate this remark to send us a citation that we can check out. Until then we must classify this alleged quote as unverified and probably a fabrication.

    It just seems very unlikely that Japan would invade America whether the private citizens were armed or not.

    Was just about to say.

    Also, I'm not convinced by the argument from "genocide/pogrom". To actually escape some sort of state military action / institutionally supported political genocide you would need a level of firepower that is extremely difficult to licence here, and even then if actually targeted chances of survival would be slim. Further, presenting such an argument to the powers that be would surely not be helpful. I'll stick with the right to private defense against violent crime.

Similar Threads

  1. Thoughts on "premium" vs. "normal" hunting bullets
    By Andrew Leigh in forum General Hunting Discussion
    Replies: 87
    Last Post: 21-08-2017, 10:37
  2. Your application was "Cancelled" and not "not Approved" - Update and Appreciation
    By Howa M1500 in forum Firearm Licensing and Re-licensing
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-07-2012, 22:57
  3. Snappy Responses to the "Anti-Gun" Crowd
    By Porramedic in forum Small Talk
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 05-02-2009, 18:38

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •