Gun control is the first step to disarmament. When a government wants to disarm a free People we have a serious problem, wake up and smell the tyrants: "Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." Aristotle34
“Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man [Sir William Keith], who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”George Mason35
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster36
"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun", Mao Tse-tung37
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so". Hitler38
The following statistics were reported in the September 11th, 1999, issue of The Economist magazine, page 7, titled “A League of Evil” original source: Death by “Gun Control”, by Aaron Zelmen and Richard W. Stevens; Mazel Freedom Press, Inc; January 1, 2001;
1915-1917 Ottoman Turkey banned gun possession, then targeted Armenians (mostly Christians) and killed 1-1.5 million people.
1929-1945 Soviet Union banned gun possession, then targeted political opponents and farming communities, killing 20 million people.
1933-1945 Nazi Germany (and occupied Europe) banned gun possession, then targeted political opponents, Jews, Gypsies, and critics, killing 20 million people.
1927-1949 Nationalist China banned private ownership of guns, then targeted political opponents, army conscripts, and others, killing 10 million people.
1949-1952; 1957-1960; 1966-1976 Red China instituted death penalty for supplying guns to “counter-revolutionary criminals” and anyone resisting any government program, then targeted political opponents, killing 20-35 million people.
1960-1981 Guatemala banned gun possession, then targeted Mayans, other Indians, and political enemies, killing 100,000-200,000 people.
1971-1979 Uganda registered gun owners and instituted warrantless searches, then targeted Christians and political enemies, killing 300,000 people.
1975-1979 Cambodia registered gun owners then targeted educated persons and political enemies, killing 2 million people.
1994 Rwanda registered gun owners then targeted Tutsi people and killed 800,000 people.
Unarmed people have no defense against a “demonical” government. In the 20th century alone, governments killed a total of 262 million civilians. [Nobel Peace Prize finalist R.J. Rummel, in an update to statistics originally presented in his Death by Government, Transaction Publishers, 1994;
John R. Bolton, former United States Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security urged the United Nations in 2001 to recognize how an “oppressed non-state group defending itself from a genocidal government” will need ready access to firearms. Mr. Bolton may have been the first U.S. official in modern history to argue before the UN that private citizens might need to be armed against their own killer governments39.
Governments murdered four times as many civilians as were killed in all their international and domestic wars combined40. How could governments kill so many people? The governments had the power - and the people, the victims, were unable to resist, because the victims were unarmed.
History clearly teaches that every government that moves towards gun control ends up killing the people who disagree with it. Disarmed people are neither free nor safe, rather they become the criminals' prey and the tyrants' playthings. When people are defenseless and their government goes rogue, thousands and millions of innocents die.
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." Richard Henry Lee41
Clearly our founders understood and experienced the need and right to be armed. Nature and logic dictates that self defense is a right.
For the state to audaciously infringe upon this unalienable right and duty of man is a direct assault upon Liberty's light. History necessitates their allegiance questioned and motives suspect, for we find it repugnant and an act of tyranny for our government servants to resist and defy the decree42 of a sovereign People43.
In the twentieth century, 170 Million citizens were executed by their own governments, presumably for political reasons, September 11th, 1999 issue of The Economist magazine, page 7, titled A League of Evil
“If I were to select a jack-booted group of fascists who are perhaps the largest danger to America in my knowledge, I would pick the BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms]. They are a shame and a disgrace to our country!”U.S. Representative John Dingell44
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist." Dwight D. Eisenhower45
President John F. Kennedy in an Address to the American Newspaper Publishers Association on April 27, 1961, three weeks after the Bay of Pigs incident and just three months after President Dwight D Eisenhower’s warning, where he warned us of problems within the very councils of government, saying. “The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know. Today no war has been declared — and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.”
Today in America we have a federal government with strong influences and economic control over the States. We have presidents who lie to the people, defy Congress, bypass them with executive orders, go to war without congressional approval, maintain secret prisons and private armies like Blackwater, assassinate foreign leaders, assassinate Americans, spy on the people, maintain American terrorist lists and no-fly lists, call patriots who belong to liberty groups terrorists, call returning veterans potential terrorists, and this sitting president is now preparing to send drones over America.
We have a Congress that passes bill after bill that they do not author, or read, all without any concern for the Constitution. We have cameras everywhere; a compliant press; an unnecessary energy crisis: genetically modified foods; fluoride in our water; mercury in our inoculations; hormones, dyes. and antibiotics in our food supply; chemtrails in our skies; a federal reserve contrived monetary crisis; and a constitutional crisis, because oath-takers are derelict of duty. We have more people in jail than any other country, per population, and we have arrived at corporatism46,47. In short, we have an out-of-control-government that ignores the people, and when you add gun control to the list along with the mantra "necessity", it is an undeniable recipe for tyranny.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. William Pitt the Younger
Needless to say, the state has no authority to license, restrict, or disarm the people, nor should it be moving in that direction. If our founding fathers taught us anything, they taught us that only tyrants want gun control.
"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner". Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5
"In recent years it has been suggested that the Second Amendment protects the "collective" right of states to maintain militias, while it does not protect the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms. If anyone entertained this notion in the period during which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were debated and ratified, it remains one of the most closely guarded secrets of the eighteenth century, for no known writing surviving from the period between 1787 and 1791 states such a thesis". Stephen P. Halbrook48
"Americans have the will to resist because you have weapons. If you don't have a gun, freedom of speech has no power." Yoshimi Ishikawa49
"Whether the authorities be invaders or merely local tyrants, the effect of such [gun control] laws is to place the individual at the mercy of the state, unable to resist." Robert Anson Heinlein, 1949
“In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined ‘militia of the United States’ to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the [20th] century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a ‘militia’, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a ‘well regulated militia’ of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms. “If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying - that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 — establishes the repeated, complete and inevitable failure of gun laws to control serious crime. “Immediately upon assuming chairmanship of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, I sponsored the report which follows as an effort to study, rather than ignore, the history of the controversy over the right to keep and bear arms. Utilizing the research capabilities of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the resources of the Library of Congress, and the assistance of constitutional scholars such as Mary Kaaren Jolly, Steven Halbrook, and David T. Hardy, the subcommittee has managed to uncover information on the right to keep and bear arms which documents quite clearly its status as a major individual right of American citizens. We did not guess at the purpose of the British 1689 Declaration of Rights; we located the Journals of the House of Commons and private notes of the Declaration's sponsors, now dead for two centuries. We did not make suppositions as to colonial interpretations of that Declaration's right to keep arms; we examined colonial newspapers which discussed it. We did not speculate as to the intent of the framers of the second amendment; we examined James Madison's drafts for it, his handwritten outlines of speeches upon the Bill of Rights, and discussions of the second amendment by early scholars who were personal friends of Madison, Jefferson, and Washington and wrote while these still lived. What the Subcommittee on the Constitution uncovered was clear — and long-lost — proof that the second amendment to our Constitution was intended as an individual right of the American citizen to keep and carry arms in a peaceful manner, for protection of himself, his family, and his freedoms.” Senator Orrin Hatch50
“[Those] who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it’s not an individual right or that it’s too much of a safety hazard [are] courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”Alan Dershowitz51
“A historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right.”U.S. District Judge Sam R. Cummings52
"No matter how one approaches the figures, one is forced to the rather startling conclusion that the use of firearms in crime was very much less when there were no controls of any sort and when anyone, convicted criminal or lunatic, could buy any type of firearm without restriction. Half a century of strict controls on pistols has ended, perversely, with a far greater use of this weapon in crime than ever before". Colin Greenwood, in the study "Firearms Control", 1972