It probably will not surprise anyone to know that Pres. Obama is not the first president, or national leader, to want to institute gun control.
It constantly amazes me to find that the lessons of the past continue to be unrespected. The calls go forth to outlaw this; you don’t need that; it’s not “infringement” they say. Or more recently, they have taken to referring to disarming the citizens as “safety measures” instead of gun control. Meanwhile the Constitution was last amended on the subject of firearms in 1791 to read,
“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.”
If the Constitution does not say what you believe it should, you should amend it. Simply ignoring it has reduced America to something resembling third world dictatorship status over the last century of so. One wonders why the proponents of gun control have never taken the same path as the founders to rewrite the legal protections of American citizens. Maybe they fear that any attempt would lay bare their intentions of reducing the American populace to serfdom.
This article is addressed to any who are innocently following the path towards dictatorship and genocide laid out by someone else. If you think you are doing what sounds right, then I need to give you some historical perspective.
You believe in a civilized society, we don’t need to be able to defend ourselves? You think in a democracy government is by definition (since they are elected) immune from atrocities? Think that the majority will always be right, benevolent, and wise? Or just that America is “exceptional”, and with our form of government we will never have a dangerous government? You think the “checks and balances” will protect us? That judges will never let that happen here?
You are wrong.
To illustrate my point, I would like to describe the Weimar republic. I found the following in Wickipedia regarding the Weimar Republic
“In his book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, historian William Shirer described the Weimar Constitution as “on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen … full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy.”
The Weimar Republic must have felt much like we do since they chose their leaders, and since they could be removed by election, they had nothing to fear from gun control, right?
Fearing a revolution after disarming the military (as stipulated in the Versailles treaty), Weimar started with a complete ban on firearms ownership. With order restored somewhat in 1928, they changed to a strict licensing scheme requiring separate licenses for ownership, carrying, etc. With only ownership rights restored and only registration remaining, some modern day gun controllers would no doubt say they had all their rights and more than they should. Yet the Nazi’s used the simple Weimar database of gun owners to devastating effect.
After the Nazis took over in 1938, they wrote a new gun control law used to prevent any political enemies from getting guns, and to disarm the Jews. Since the old republic had a database of people who were registered to consult, the Nazi’s had an easy time completely disarming their enemies. And once they were disarmed, the Nazi’s wasted little time (as history sadly confirms) slaughtering the weak, and the (disarmed) masses of “racial inferiors,” as they saw them. The most devious twist here is that the new law actually eased up restraint on many people, but because they simply refused to renew permits for politically undesirables, nobody called it “gun control.” It was very much like the “gun safety” mantra of today. Simply put, gun owners were faced with the choice of turning in their guns, or becoming criminals. More interestingly, the US gun regulations of the 60s were modeled upon the Nazi gun control system. These are the same gun laws that remain for the most part in effect today.
People often forget that everything Hitler did, he did under color of law. The Nazi’s were elected to a majority position. Hitler took over Weimar democratically. The Modern day “democracy apologist” would have you believe the Jews should have just voted for somebody else… How absurd is that?
How about the courts? Wont they protect us?
They didn’t protect the citizens of Germany. They didn’t protect the Americans of Japanese/German decent in WWII. They didn’t protect the Cherokee. And, as it turns out, despite the high air of superiority, and all the deference we give to judges, they are merely human, simply highly connected lawyers, subject to graft, corruption, and vice just as every other person we give power to.
Trust needs to be earned. The noble “independent judiciary” acquitted four defendants of the Reichstag fire, so Hitler and the Nazis, simply convened a special court to convict these people anyway. In all, only one judge resigned in disgust after their power had been usurped, and reconfigured to work against the German people.
The government that is out of control was not, and will never be, the body to control its own excess. Consider Thomas Woods’ Rhetorical question: how much different would the history of the 20th century have been had Hitler only been in charge of Berlin?
As Patrick henry once famously said, “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined… The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”