And FUCK the US with its brainless 2nd Amendment 'rights'. Guess what? Us British colonialists were defeated in 1783, and we haven't been back since. Give it a rest. We aren't going to take over your country again (and neither are the Native Americans and freed slaves who were on *OUR* side), so you can put your damn guns down.
Tyrannical regimes disarm their populations, and when they do those governments inflict terrible control violence and killing onto their now disarmed populations for example:
In 1911 turkey established gun control and then from 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians now unable to defend themselves were rounded exterminated.
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control then from 1929 to 1953 20 million people unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. Then from 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents unable to defend themselves were rounded up and killed. Oh, and the people in china still exist under a brutal regime today
Germany also established gun control in 1938 and then from 1939 to 1945 13 million jews and others who were unable
to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. I wonder if Hitler purposely disarmed the population so he
could tyrannically take over and kill all people opposed to him? it's probably just a coincidence.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956 then from 1975 to 1977 one million educated people were rounded
up and killed because they were unable to defend themselves.
Guatemala established gun in 1964 then from 1964 to 1981100 000 Mayan Indians unable to defend
themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970 then from 1971 to 1979 300 000 Christians unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
56 million people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control.
Credit to JP Sears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbkNIoJ-9jY
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
Does this mean you think that most of Europe is "tyrannical"?
reply
share
Galilguy (2530)
2 years ago
I do. I don't want to live in a country where only criminals and gangsters have weapons.
reply
share
WandererFromYs (2406)
2 years ago
Not necessarily. But it does mean if a tyrannical regime takes over, you have no means to defend yourself.
reply
share
Skavau (15993)
2 years ago
I mean guns are available, just much more restricted than in the USA (with two exceptions: Switzerland and Finland)
reply
share
WarrenPeace (2267)
2 years ago
The thing with that example, that I have seen before, is apples to oranges.
Just because it happened over there does not mean it will happen here since we have a stable government in place under the foundations of democracy or checks and balances that is not and will not be a dictatorship as it was in those countries.
So you are just deluding yourself if you think guns is keeping the Govt. in check from going power mad.
Take a look at what happened right after the Boston Marathon bombing.
What did the police do?
House to house searches forcing the owners/renters out at gun point from their residences where they pretty much put the city on lockdown and declared martial law.
If they were so scared of gun owners shooting them in that temp. take over they would not have done that.
And that deer rifle that Jeb owns ain't gonna do nothing to stop that tank or that airplane miles up from dropping bombs on him.
So your comparison is bullshit.
It is also based on fear and no surprise that it comes from gun nuts who are paranoid chicken shit cowards since they are too scared of things they feel like they need a gun when it is not needed.
reply
share
WandererFromYs (2406)
2 years ago
The example shows a clear pattern. Itβs even worded the way it is so that you are reading the same thing over and over again. Itβs happened countless times before, and it can happen anywhere, itβs just a matter how of getting right regime in place. Disarming citizens is simply the first step.
The rest of your post contradicts itself. You say it couldnβt happen here because we have a system of checks and balance, and then you immediately give an example of the government overstepping their boundaries, and violating the rights of the citizens. I think we are all grateful that nothing happened in that case, but citizens are allowed to reasonably defend themselves. If you want a high profile example, just look at the Breonna Taylor case.
It is also based on fear and no surprise that it comes from gun nuts who are paranoid chicken shit cowards since they are too scared of things they feel like they need a gun when it is not needed.
Itβs based History, which I already listed. I doubt there are many examples of an unarmed population rising up against their armed oppressors.
reply
share
WarrenPeace (2267)
2 years ago
Yeah, but it is history that happened in other countries under unstable governments in different times.
Just because it happened there does not mean it will happen here.
Take a look at places where they have a fair and stable governing system in areas that have less guns.
Such as England, France, New Zealand, Australia and other free countries etc etc.
You don't see those leaders oppressing the people and murdering them in massive numbers.
So your logic is flawed and wrong.
Besides the Boston Marathon Bombing for more proof at how gun owners are not as strong as you like to think they are vs the Govt., take a look at what happened at Waco.
The FBI, using tanks managed to defeat a group of ppl. that were well armed that beat back a bunch of ATF agents when all they had were just guns and no tanks.
The Govt. with it's military is much more equipped and better trained and would defeat all the gun owners if they wanted to.
The reason they don't is because of our system of checks, balances and voting in the origins of democracy.
Anyone who thinks it is their guns that is keeping the Govt. in check is a deluded crackpot full of shit.
"I doubt there are many examples of an unarmed population rising up against their armed oppressors."
You are right that there are not many but there are at least two I can think of right away.
Gandhi who freed India using non violence.
Which was incredible if you really think about it.
And then you have MLK who got civil rights, also using non violence.
So it does happen.
reply
share