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
In 1911, Turkey
established gun control.
From 1915 to 1917, 1.5
million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
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
China established gun control in
From 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded
up and exterminated
Guatemala established gun control in
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000
Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Uganda established gun control in
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000
Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and
Cambodia established gun control in
From 1975 to 1977, one
million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up
Defenseless people rounded up and
exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56
12 Months after Australians were
forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms
to be destroyed by their own
a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
The first year results were
List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides up 3.2 percent.
Australia-wide, assaults up 8.6 percent.
Australia-wide, armed robberies up 44% (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms up 300 %
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them
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
those 12 months,
since criminals are guaranteed that their prey is
There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of
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.
Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
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'.
Ever notice that 90% of gun related shootings are commited by
Left Wing Ding Bat Liberals?
Must be a psycological disorder.
Take a look at the ground at liberal events. Trash everywhere.
Tea party events are spotless afterwards.
Pay attention to what really is going on.
During WWII the Japanese decided not
to invade America because they knew
most Americans were
If you value your freedom,
please spread this anti-gun control message
to all of your friends.
As the Supreme Court heard arguments for and against the Chicago, IL
this man offered you another stellar example of a letter
(written by a Marine),
that places the proper perspective on what a gun means to a civilized
Interesting take and one you don't hear much. .
. . . .
Read this eloquent and profound letter and pay close attention to the
last paragraph of the letter....
"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and
If you want me to do something for you,
you have a choice of either convincing me via argument,
or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without
Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact
Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction
and the only thing that removes force from the menu
is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.
You have to use reason and try to persuade me,
because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a
100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger,
a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger,
and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with
The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers
between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad
These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns
were removed from society,
because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his
That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are
either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most
of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the
the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized
A mugger, even an armed one,
can only make a successful living in a society where the state has
granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that
otherwise would only result in injury.
This argument is fallacious in several ways.
Without guns involved,
confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting
overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute
watch too much TV,
where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at
The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor
of the weaker defender,
not the stronger attacker.
If both are armed,
the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an
octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.
It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both
lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight,
but because I'm looking to be left alone.
The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only
I don't carry it because I'm afraid,
but because it enables me to be unafraid.
It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me
only the actions of those who would do so by force.
It removes force from the equation...
and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
After WWII, a photo was found in an album owned by a German
On the back of the picture was written the words "The Last Jew of
At one point there were over 28,000 Jews in and around Vinnytsia, in
And then, one day, there was only one.
Look at his face in the picture above.
Do you think for one second that
5 years before that picture was taken
he thought this was how
things would play out?
What about just a year before?
I would imagine that if you could go back in time
to a point several years before the slaughter
and tell him he should actively arm himself against the possibility
along with most of his friends and family,
would be shot in the head and dumped in a ditch by the government.....
his arguments against doing so would be eerily similar to
that of modern day gun control advocates.
He would have thought you were an extremist wacko.
The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no
possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the
and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is
All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND 'S GOVERNMENT
TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE TO.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST
GUN RELATED CRIME RATE
OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX
IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! If you are too, please
Another webpage by
Web Stuff & More
Email this Page To A Friend
Page dedicated to everyone who fights for