Sunday, February 10, 2013

Gun Control: Fantasy and Facts

The following article and downloadable paper on gun control has been written by J. Vanne. It is well researched and quoted. Information is how we spread the message and  fight the anti-gun propaganda. Feel free to share it with people that need to know more facts about Gun control!

DOWNLOAD HERE —> Gun Control: Fantasy and Facts


The truth is, as Tim Young states in Personal Liberty, that “The Constitution was written with revolution in mind, not the peace that we have internally had for about 150 years now. I say 150 years, because we fought ourselves with our armed militias in the Civil War; we have been lucky to have had internal peace since then. But you can’t closed-mindedly say that the 2nd Amendment was for limited weapons. It just wasn’t. It was meant to keep people on the same level as the government so that they could fight for their rights if necessary.” http://personalliberty.com/2013/01/07/pointcounterpoint-your-2nd-amendment-rights/ And also of note re. the 2nd Amendment – the Constitution says it guarantees, not grants, our gun rights. There is all the difference in the world between those two verbs!
In fact, one Tienanmen Square survivor, who emigrated and moved to the US,  had virtually the exact same words to say about guns, freedom and liberty as those “dead white guys,” the Founding Fathers. His six minute address is at at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miEmIfhfxuc&feature=player_embedded#t=0s, or, to summarize his salient points:
”The power of the government is derived from the consent of the governed.”
Chinese patriots in Tiananmen were crushed by “AK-47′s” because they could “not fight back” as they “were not armed.”
The argument “that a man with a rifle has no standing against the military technology and machine of today” is ridiculous. 20,000,000 residents of Beijing would have quickly proved that wrong had they been armed in 1989.
When a government turns criminal, when a government turns deranged, the body count will not be 5, 10, or even 20. It will be in hundreds like Tiananmen Square, it will be in the millions
When a government has a monopoly on guns, it has absolute power.”
”When a government has all the guns, it has all the rights.”
To me, a rifle is not for sporting or hunting. It is an instrument of freedom. It guarantees that I cannot be coerced, that I have free will, that I am a free man.”
Here is a man we must listen to, unless we want to end up like oppressive China ourselves.

And let’s examine one case where guns ensured justice that will set the leftist gun grabbers’ hearts a-twitter – the 1964, desegregation of the Jonesboro High School in Louisiana. Authorities resisted the desegregation, including the use of fire hoses and similar on black citizens. Things did not look positive, until four regular, everyday-type black men with shotguns showed up. No shots were fired, the mob melted away, the authorities retreated, and the kids went into the school without incident. These men called themselves the Deacons for the Defense – an armed citizens’ militia in the town, which also protected black citizens from the Klan, and which spread throughout the south. 

Previously, if black citizens were unarmed, they could not protect themselves, nor go to the voting booths without fear and engage in their Constitutional rights to vote. The right to bear arms allowed blacks to protect these rights, and even. ML King even hired the Deacons to protect marches. A short video on this topic is found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qzYKisvBN1o

A similar situation occurred with a white population, at the so-called Battle of Athens, just after WWII, when a corrupt sheriff essentially took over Athens, TN., including usurping a free and fair vote. Armed citizens forced the corrupt political machine out, and freedom was restored.  A 13 minute YouTube rendering of this episode can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw&feature=player_embedded#t=4s, and would be very instructive for those leftists who think “it can’t happen here.”  A fictionalized – but full of verisimilitude as to how guns have protected freedom – account of a similar situation can been viewed at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViswBS1Q-_E&feature=player_embedded#t=0s

People like Piers Morgan continually make what they think is the clever point about the fact that we don’t allow people to purchase tanks or 50 caliber machine guns to defend themselves from government tyranny.  US Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI)  put it this way “Where are we going with [the Second Amendment]? I mean, do individuals get to own nuclear weapons? Do they get to own submarines, with this notion that they have a right to bear arms? No.”  The answer to people like Piers and Gwen, who have not taken the time to fully think through the issue is this:  It is true that society has decided that people should not be able to arm themselves with an Abrams tank, or F-16. But, despite all the technological advances since the Constitution was written, society still believes the core idea of defense against potential tyranny applies. As noted by the Chinese dissident above, a mass number of armed citizens disbursed throughout a city would indeed be able to turn back a modern army – unless that army was prepared to level a whole city.

Essentially, the argument for allowing citizens AR-15s is the concept first advanced by France with its Force de Frappe or Force de dissuasion. A brief history lesson is in order regarding this, as it is directly applicable to the question Piers Morgan just doesn’t get. In sum, after Charles de Gaulle’s return to power in 1958, he was concerned that the US would not protect France from a Soviet invasion – by the 1960s, the US was knee deep in Vietnam, and besides, why would the US risk America for France? As Wikipedia notes – and is critical to the discussion here – “The strategic concept behind the Force de Frappe is one of countervalue, i.e., the capability of inflicting to a more powerful enemy more damage than the complete destruction of the French population would represent. The enemy, having more to lose, would therefore refrain from proceeding any further. This principle is usually referred to in the French political debate as dissuasion du faible au fort (Weak-to-strong deterrence) and was summarized in a statement attributed to President de Gaulle himself:
“Within ten years, we shall have the means to kill 80 million Russians. I truly believe that one does not light-heartedly attack people who are able to kill 80 million Russians, even if one can kill 800 million French, that is if there were 800 million French.” Similarly, General Pierre Marie Gallois said “Making the most pessimistic assumptions, the French nuclear bombers could destroy ten Russian cities; and France is not a prize worthy of ten Russian cities” and French Admiral de Joybert in his book La paix nuclĂ©aire (1975), simply put it this way “Sir, I have no quarrel with you, but I warn you in advance and with all possible clarity that if you invade me, I shall answer at the only credible level for my scale, which is the nuclear level. Whatever your defenses, you shan’t prevent at least some of my missiles from reaching your home and cause the devastation that you know. So, renounce your endeavour and let us stay good friends.”

This, then, is the answer to the AR-15 question. While the force that is allowed citizens is indeed still asymmetrical, both the Constitution, as well as experience from history, dictates that citizens, to remain free, must have enough force at their disposal to be a “force de dissuasion.” The above, along with the facts that the AR-15 has indeed been used multiple times for home defense (as noted in this paper), and is almost never utilized in crimes, and is not automatic, is the answer why we should allow so called “assault rifles” (which in fact, are not assault rifles!) to the public.

DOWNLOAD HERE —-> Gun Control: Fantasy and Facts

No comments: