portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

human & civil rights | media criticism

Gun Control is not a leftist position:history of class, race, &relig. minority persecution

Hate to be the first to tell ya, though gun control is not really a leftist position historically or currently. Gun control is a right wing totalitarian, genocidal, classist, ethnic caste, and religious caste domination policy by powerful minorities. I'm really surprised that more lefties don't want to understand it though as they say "there are none so blind who don't want to see". The Chinese have a version of this I have read: "you can't wake a man who is pretending to be asleep." At least you'll have to pretend to be asleep now. Don't simply blame those people introducing such legislation, you should blame yourselves for having your idealism manipulated by very cold blooded people against your own very rights. If scale of unrequired deaths shows anything, there are many other things that you could concern yourselves to talk about--from the first chart below.
Table 2.3
Top Underlying Causes of Preventable Death* in the United States, 2000

Cause Number.........................................Percentage of All Deaths
Iatrogenic [induced inadvertently by treatment] deaths...783,936
2001 heart disease annual death rate.....................699,697
annual cancer death rate.................................553,251
Diet/activity patterns...................................100-400,000....17
Bacteria and viruses c...................................75,000.........3
Toxic agents.............................................55,000.........2
Motor vehicles d.........................................43,000.........2
Sexual behavior..........................................20,000.........1
Illicit use of drugs.....................................17,000.........1

* deaths caused neither by old age nor by genetic disease
a Estimates vary.
b Number of deaths is a rough estimate, since different studies have looked at different locations (in-hospital versus out-of-hospital) and different types of errors (surgical, medical, pharmacological).
c Does not include deaths related to HIV, tobacco, alcohol, illicit drugs, or infections caused by non-microbial diseases.
d Includes motor vehicle accidents linked to drug use, but not to alcohol use.
cites here:  http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/7/healthcare_death.htm

That chart only proves only one thing: guns are not really a problem, hardly of much concern.

Frankly, a "war on bad diets and pesticide poisoned foods" would be more appropriate way to address mental imbalance, if that is what this is. If the school had organic food, everyone would be much better. A 'war on bad medicine' would be even better. Impeaching Bush who has killed around 665,000 Iraqis recently would be even healthier.

Gun control in the U.S. has always been an outgrown of --

dearming the slave population and then dearming free Black Americans even though it was illegal--and now it seems, dearming everyone simply based on strategically sold television news?

It's not a pleasant pattern though it's best to not be naive about U.S. gun control or the policy of gun control historically

First for the U.S.--then some international statistics about the history of gun control legislation.

For those who only passively watch videos, this is even in Michael Moore's film on Columbine, folks...

George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal
Vol. 2 (1991): 67.
Stefan B. Tahmassebi*

The history of gun control in America possesses an ugly component: discrimination and oppression of blacks, other racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, and other "unwanted elements," including union organizers and agrarian reformers. Firearms laws were often enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive action against these groups.
The first gun control laws were enacted in the ante-bellum South forbidding blacks, whether free or slave, to possess arms, in order to maintain blacks in their servile status.



The historical purpose of gun control laws in America has been one of discrimination and disenfranchisement of blacks, immigrants, and other minorities. American gun control laws have been enacted to disarm and facilitate repressive actions against union organizers, [Page 69] workers, the foreign-born and racial minorities.[2] Bans on particular types of firearms and firearms registration schemes have been enacted in many American jurisdictions for the alleged purpose of controlling crime. Often, however, the purpose or actual effect of such laws or regulations was to disarm and exert better control over the above-noted groups.[3] As Justice Buford of the Florida Supreme Court noted in his concurring opinion narrowly construing a

Florida gun control statute:

I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . .[T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested.[4]

Implicit in the message of such a law was the perceived threat that armed Negroes would pose to the white community. As applied, therefore, the statute sent a clear message: only whites could be trusted with guns, while Negroes could not.

A. Gun Control in the South

The development of racially based slavery in the seventeenth century American colonies was accompanied by the creation of laws meting out separate treatment and granting separate rights on the basis of race. An early sign of such emerging restrictions and one of the most important legal distinctions was the passing of laws denying free blacks the right to keep arms. "In 1640, the first recorded restrictive legislation passed concerning blacks in Virginia excluded them from owning a gun."[5]

Virginia law set Negroes apart from all other groups . . . by denying them the important right and obligation to bear arms. Few restraints could indicate [Page 70] more clearly the denial to Negroes of membership in the White community. This first foreshadowing of the slave codes came in 1640, at just the time when other indications first appeared that Negroes were subject to special treatment.[6]

In the later part of the 17th Century fear of slave uprisings in the South accelerated the passage of laws dealing with firearms possessions by blacks. In 1712, for instance, South Carolina passed "An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and Slaves" which included two articles particularly relating to firearms ownership and blacks.[7] Virginia passed a similar act entitled "An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrections."[8]

Thus, in many of the ante-bellum states, free and/or slave blacks were legally forbidden to possess arms. State legislation which prohibited the bearing of arms by blacks was held to be constitutional due to the lack of citizen status of the Afro-American slaves. Legislators simply ignored the fact that the United States Constitution and most state constitutions ....


Gun Control in the North

In the Northeast, the period from the 1870's to the mid-1930's was characterized by strong xenophobic reactions to Eastern and [Page 77] Southern European immigrants. Armed robbery in particular was associated with the racial stereotype in the public mind of the East and South European immigrant as lazy and inclined to violence. Furthermore, these immigrants were associated with the concept of the foreign-born anarchist. The fear and suspicion of these "undesirable" immigrants, together with a desire to disarm labor organizers, led to a concerted campaign by local and national business associations and organizations such as the Immigration Restriction League and the American Protective Association, for the enactment of a flat ban on the ownership of firearms, or at least handguns, by aliens.[41] In 1911, New York enacted the Sullivan law.[42] "Of proven success in dealing with political dissidents in Central European countries, this system made handgun ownership illegal for anyone without a police permit."[43] The New York City Police Department thereby acquired the official and wholly arbitrary authority to deny or permit the possession of handguns; which the department used in its effort to disarm the city's Italian population.

The Sullivan law was designed to

strike hardest at the foreign-born element . . . . As early as 1903 the authorities had begun to cancel pistol permits in the Italian sections of the city. This was followed by a state law of 1905 which made it illegal for aliens to possess firearms 'in any public place'. This provision was retained in the Sullivan law.[44]

Conservative business associations, through a nationwide handgun prohibition campaign endorsing the Sullivan-type law concept, were responsible for enacting police permit requirements in Arkansas, Hawaii, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina and Oregon, between 1911 and 1934. The then conservative institutions of the New York Times and the American Bar Association supported this campaign.

****By fueling a spreading fear*** of armed robbery, these business interests were able to push for restrictive gun laws....


Canada also adopted a handgun permit law in 1919, partly in response to a recently crushed general strike which was erroneously believed to have been engineered and led by foreigners.

[IN SHORT:] Most of the American handgun ownership restrictions adopted between 1901 and 1934 ***followed on the heels of highly publicized incidents*** involving the incipient black civil rights movement, foreign-born radicals or labor agitators.

[Anything changed in the mass manipulation of social psychology for political goals? Nope.]


The resurgence of the Klan was neither limited to the South geographically, nor to blacks racially. The Klan was present in force in southern New Jersey, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Oregon. All of these states enacted either handgun permit laws or laws barring alien handgun possession between 1913 and 1934. The Klan targeted not only blacks, but also Catholics, Jews, labor radicals, and the foreign-born; and these people also ran the risk of falling victim to lynch mobs [Page 79] or other more clandestine attacks, often after the victims had been disarmed by state or local authorities.[48]


Gun Control and Native Americans

The history of firearms prohibitions in regard to native Americans presents a parallel example of the use of gun control to oppress and, in this case, to exterminate a non-white ethnic group. Though many legal restrictions against blacks in respect to firearms were abolished, at least racially, during Reconstruction, the sale of firearms to Indians often remained prohibited. Federal law prohibited the sale of arms and munitions to "hostile" Indians.[50] Idaho prohibited the sale or provision of firearms and ammunition to "any Indian."[51]

Usually the disarmament of Indians was quickly followed by the imposition of oppressive measures or even murder and wholesale massacres.


Federal government restrictions on the sale of firearms to Indians were only abolished in 1979.[54]



Behind current gun control efforts often lurks the remnant of an old American prejudice, that the lower classes and minorities are not to be trusted with firearms. The bias originated in the post-antebellum South for political reasons and may have changed its form, but it still exists. Today the thought remains: if you let the poor, and especially the black poor, have guns, they will commit crimes with them. Even noted anti-gun activists have admitted this. In his book The Saturday Night Special, anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control guns but to control Blacks." [55]
rest of article:

And a nice segway into another topic I wanted to mention is that quote above about the 1968 law on gun control in the U.S.

Startling evidence suggests that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.

by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

JPFO knows who implanted into American law cancerous ideas from the Nazi Weapons Law.

The likely culprit is a former senator, now deceased. We have documentary proof -- see below -- that he had the original text of the Nazi Weapons Law in his possession 4 months before the bill that became GCA '68 was signed into law.

This former senator was a senior member of the U.S. team that helped to prosecute Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg, Germany, in 1945-46. That is probably where he found out about the Nazi Weapons Law. He may have gotten a copy of it then, or at a later date. We cannot imagine why any U.S. lawmaker would own original texts of Nazi laws. To find out his name, read on.


We started to hunt for the text of the Nazi Weapons Law. We eventually found it, in the law library of an Ivy League university.

Until 1943-44, the German government published its laws and regulations in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt,' roughly the equivalent of the U.S. Federal Register. Carefully shelved by law librarians, the 1938 issues of this German government publication had gathered a lot of dust. In the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' issue for the week of March 21, 1938, was the official text of the Weapons Law (March 18, 1938). It gave Hitler's Nazi party a stranglehold on the Germans, many of whom did not support the Nazis. We found that the Nazis did not invent "gun control" in Germany. The Nazis inherited gun control and then perfected it: they invented handgun control.

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 replaced a Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 13, 1928. The 1928 law was enacted by a center-right, freely elected German government that wanted to curb "gang activity," violent street fights between Nazi party and Communist party thugs. All firearm owners and their firearms had to be registered. Sound familiar? "Gun control" did not save democracy in Germany. It helped to make sure that the toughest criminals, the Nazis, prevailed.


The Nazis inherited lists of firearm owners and their firearms when they 'lawfully' took over in March 1933. The Nazis used these inherited registration lists to seize privately held firearms from persons who were not "reliable." Knowing exactly who owned which firearms, the Nazis had only to revoke the annual ownership permits or decline to renew them.
In 1938, five years after taking power, the Nazis enhanced the 1928 law. The Nazi Weapons Law introduced handgun control. Firearms ownership was restricted to Nazi party members and other "reliable" people.
The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 -- one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.


Given the parallels between the Nazi Weapons Law and the GCA '68, we concluded that the framers of the GCA '68 -- lacking any basis in American law to sharply cut back the civil rights of law abiding Americans -- drew on the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938.

Finding the Nazi Weapons Law whetted our appetite. We wanted to know who implanted this Nazi cancer in America. We began by probing the backgrounds of lawmakers who championed "gun control". We focused on those whose bills became part of GCA '68. GCA '68 as enacted closely tracks proposals dating to August 1963. We felt that if the culprit were a lawmaker -- or a congressional staffer -- he or she would know Germany, German law and possibly even speak German. He or she probably would have spent time in Germany on business or during military service. Alternatively, if the culprit were not a member of Congress or a staffer, there would be testimony at the hearings to that effect.

Most potential suspects were quickly eliminated; they had no apparent ties to Germany. But one lawmaker caught our attention.

An old "Who's Who" entry showed he had been a senior member of the U.S. team that prosecuted German war criminals at Nuremberg in 1945-46. Thus, he had lived in Germany just after the Nazi period. His official duties required him to look at Nazi records, including Nazi laws. In 1963 he led the effort to greatly expand the Federal Firearms Act of 1938.

We then got a break. We told a legal scholar of our findings. He was intrigued. He sent us an extract from the record of hearings held a few months prior to the enactment of GCA '68. At the end of June 1968, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee to investigate Juvenile Delinquency -- chaired by Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) -- held hearings on bills: (1) "To Require the Registration of Firearms" (S.3604). (2) "To Disarm Lawless Persons" (S.3634) and (3) "To Provide for the Establishment of a National Firearms Registry" (S.3637), among others.

U.S. Representative John Dingell (D-MI) testified at these Senate hearings on "gun control". Senator Joseph D. Tydings (D-MD) chaired some of these hearings, in Dodd's absence.

Rep. Dingell expressed concern that if firearms registration were required, it might lead to confiscation of firearms, as had happened in Nazi Germany. Tydings angrily accused Rep. Dingell of using "scare tactics":

"Are you inferring that our system here, gun registration or licensing, would in any way be comparable to the Nazi regime in Germany, where they had a secret police, and a complete takeover?"

Rep. Dingell backed away.

(Hearings before the Subcommittee to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency of the Committee on the Judiciary, 90th Congress, 2nd Session, June 26, 27 and 28 and July 8, 9 and 10. 1968, pp. 479-80, 505-6 cited as Subcommittee Hearings.)

Tydings later inserted into the hearing record various documents, "concerning the history of Nazism and gun confiscation."

Exhibit No. 62 (see reproduction) is fascinating. This letter -- dated July 12, 1968 -- is to Subcommittee Chairman Dodd from Lewis C. Coffin, Law Librarian at the Library of Congress. Coffin wrote:

" ... we are enclosing herewith a translation of the Law on Weapons of March 18, 1938, prepared by Dr. William Solyom-Fekete of [the European Law Division -- ed.] as well as the Xerox of the original German text which you supplied" (Subcommittee Hearings, p. 489, emphasis added).

This letter makes it public knowledge that at the end of June 1968 -- 4 months before GCA '68 was enacted -- Senator Thomas J. Dodd, now deceased, personally owned a copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law.
Why did Dodd own the original German text of any Nazi law? Why did he make known that he owned it?

The Library of Congress then had (and still has) the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' in its collection. The Library of Congress translator, Dr. Solyom-Fekete, could easily have used the Library of Congress' own copy.

Any member of Congress who wanted to read the Nazi Weapons Law need only have asked for it to be produced from the shelves of the Library of Congress and for it to be translated by Library of Congress experts. Why should any member of Congress ever have owned the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law?
Without access to Tom Dodd's personal papers, archived under his heirs' control, we unfortunately cannot offer definite answers.

Dodd could have acquired the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg. But he had no need to do so.

Dodd did not personally handle the prosecution of Nazi Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, who signed the Nazi Weapons Law. The case against Frick was presented by Robert M.W. Kempner, Assistant Trial Counsel for the United States (see 'Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal,' cited as TMWC, Vol. V, pp. 352-67, Nuremberg, Germany, 1947).

Nor should the Nazi Weapons Law otherwise have come to Dodd's attention. The Nazi Weapons Law was not used as evidence against Frick (see Kempner's speech, TMWC, V, pp. 352-67 and 'Index of Laws, Decrees, Orders, Directives, and the Administration of Justice in Nazi Germany and Nazi Dominated Countries', TMWC, Vol. XXIII, pp. 430-33). The Nazi Weapons Law is not listed among documents submitted as evidence to the Tribunal by the American prosecutors (see Vol. XXIV, pp. 98-169).

The prosecutors at Nuremberg doubtless knew of the Nazi Weapons Law. They probably saw it in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt.' On the same day that Nazi Interior Minister Frick signed the Weapons Law, March 18, 1938, he signed another law governing security measures in newly annexed Austria. This law concerning Austria appeared in the 'Reichsgesetzblatt' -- directly in front of the Weapons Law -- and was introduced into evidence at Nuremberg ('Reichsgesetzblatt' 1938, I, p. 262; the Nazi Weapons Law was published in the same volume, p. 265; see TMWC, Vol. V, p.358 for reference to law concerning Austria).

Thus, the Nazi Weapons Law appeared to have no historical merit at Nuremberg and should not have attracted anyone's notice, certainly not to the extent of causing anyone to want to keep a copy of it as a separate document.
If Dodd got his copy of the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law during his time at Nuremberg, it likely was part of a collection of documents, for example, issues of the 'Reichsgesetzblatt'.

But if he acquired the original German text of the Nazi Weapons Law after his service at Nuremberg, he must have done so for a very specific reason. The Nazi Weapons Law plainly did not figure at Nuremberg.

We may safely conclude it had little, if any, interest for those interested in the history of the Nazis' rise to power. For example, the Nazi Weapons Law is not mentioned at all in William L. Shirer's very thorough study of Nazi Germany, 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1950).

At the hearings held by Dodd's subcommittee at the end of June 1968, Rep. Dingell had objected to the firearms registration provision then being discussed. Dodd may have offered his copy of the Nazi Weapons Law to show that the specific proposal did not resemble anything in the Nazi law.
He may not have realized that he was revealing a broader truth; that the whole fabric of GCA '68 was based on the Nazi Weapons Law, even if the specific registration proposal was not so based.

Alternatively, Dodd may not have cared whether or not anyone knew that he had the German text of the Nazi Weapons Law. He doubtless knew that months would pass before the hearing record was printed and so generally available for scrutiny. Thus, even if anyone then noticed the parallels between the two laws, the bill would already have become law.

Rep. Dingell does not appear to have pursued the matter: the firearms registration provision was not included in GCA '68. The Congress was stampeded on "gun control" by public enthusiasm. Martin Luther King had been murdered on April 4, 1968, and Robert F. Kennedy had been murdered on June 6, 1968.

We are not the first to have seen this hearing record. But we appear to be the first to have recognized its importance. This hearing record suggests strongly that the late Senator Thomas J. Dodd (D-CT) himself implanted the Nazi Weapons Law into American law, or, at very least, helped others to do so.


The only sensible conclusion is:

"Gun Control is a Prelude to Totalitarian rule..."
--Theodore Haas

And with the Native Americans, that segways well into International statistics aobut the politics of gun control internationally:

Cite as 75 Wash. U. L.Q. 1237
Don B. Kates, Jr.[*]

This essay seeks to reclaim a serious argument from the lunatic fringe. We argue a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide[1] upon its own people. This notion has received a good deal of disdainful public attention over the past several years because of the Oklahoma City bombing,...

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."[2] Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage. Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed.


We argue that there is a great deal more to weapons policy than some sort of cost-benefit calculation of firearms' crime control benefits versus public health costs. The larger point, that no one who has lived through the greater part of the twentieth century may conscientiously disregard, is that sometimes people in power behave like Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, or Mao Zedong rather than like President Clinton. Of course public policy must acknowledge that exceptional brutality is indeed exceptional rather than commonplace. But it is senseless to pretend that what has happened many times before cannot possibly happen again.


Governments have exterminated or cooperated in the extermination of something like one hundred and seventy million of their own people in the twentieth century.[107] This stark fact makes it reasonable to distrust the state and to fear the terrible crimes it may occasionally commit.


Nor is the choice always one between genocide and civil war. There is a third option: peace. An illustration can be drawn from the Balkans, where there is a tense lull in an ancient civil war. Josip Broz Tito, who ruled that part of the world for thirty five years until his death in 1980, was an enthusiastic practitioner of Max Weber's [rather sinister, actually] idea of the state as a "community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."[116] Disarming the Yugoslavians lowered the cost of maintaining himself in power, which Tito did by having tens of thousands of his countrymen shot during his reign.[117]

Such ethnic cleansing has largely ceased today, thanks to both United Nations intervention and to the surreptitious arming of the Muslim population with the tacit approval, welcome though many years late, of the United States.



It is often pointed out how different the contemporary world is from the one in which Madison and Jefferson lived. In those days what passed for tyranny was "send[ing] hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance,"[119] "cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World,"[120] and calling "together Legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant,"[121] and other such complaints. Even with the example of the French Revolution before them, Madison and Jefferson could hardly have imagined in detail the characteristic perils of the twentieth century. But they certainly understood the crux of the problem. After all, more than two thousand years earlier, in 416 B.C., the Athenians put the population of Melos to the sword, exempting only those deemed suitable for sale as slaves.[122] The lesson Thucydides drew from this incident remains persuasive today: "The strong do what they will, the weak endure what they must."[123] The Founders of American democracy saw the persistence of this Thucydidean reality. They rejected the concept of a state monopoly of armed power--"the most dangerous of all monopolies," according to Madison--****in favor of "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation."[124]****


Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries

1. Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates.1

2. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions.

* Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%."2

* Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." 3

* England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997.4

* Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."


And some international instances in this chart:

Ottoman Turkey..1915-1917...Armenians...........1-1.5 million.......1886 1911
(Art. 166, Penal Code Art. 166 Penal Code)

Soviet Union....1929-1953..Anti-Communists Anti-Stalinists...20 million..1929
(Art. 182 Penal Code)

Nazi Germany/Occup.Europe...1933-1945....Jews, Gypsies, Anti-Nazis...13 million...1928 1938
(Law on Firearms & Ammunition, April 12 Weapons Law, March 18)

China...........1949-1952 1957-1960 1966-1976....Anti-Communists Rural Populations Pro-Reform Group....20 million....1935 1957
(Arts. 186-7, Penal Code Art. 9, Security Law, Oct. 22)

Guatemala.......1960-1981.......Maya Indians.....100,000.....1871 1964 (Decree 36, Nov 25 Decree 283, Oct 27)

Uganda....1971-1979....Christians Political Rivals....300,000....1955
(1970 Firearms Ordinance Firearms Act)

Cambodia....1975-1979....Educated Persons....1 million
(1956 Arts. 322-8, Penal Code)

if that chart doesn't come through well:

Hate to be the first to tell ya, though gun control is not really a leftist position historically or currently.

Gun control is a right wing totalitarian, genocidal, classist, ethnic caste, and religious caste domination policy by powerful minorities. I'm really surprised that more lefties don't want to understand it though as they say "there are none so blind who don't want to see". The Chinese have a version of this I have read: "you can't wake a man who is pretending to be asleep." At least you'll have to pretend to be asleep now.

Don't simply blame those people introducing such legislation, you should blame yourselves for having your idealism manipulated by very cold blooded people against your own very rights. If scale of unrequired deaths shows anything, there are many other things that you could concern yourselves to talk about--from the first chart above.

good iron not to waste...........on guns 19.Apr.2007 10:47

more affraid to kill, then I am to die.

lets take all the goverments guns, all that good quality steel, and turn them into musical instruments.

I disagree 19.Apr.2007 12:58


Gun control is a common leftist position; it's gun prohibition which is not. Those that don't understand or can't articulate the difference are not of much use to the debate in my opinion.

gun control is a common elite caste position, and nothing more 19.Apr.2007 15:12


comment quote:

"Gun control is a common leftist position; it's gun prohibition which is not."

You totally immune to the information above, aren't you?

The question is WHY ANY form of gun control is a common leftist position [1] if it doesn't work and doesn't do what nearsighted leftists (not all are nearsighted!) claim which is 'stop crime' and/or 'make people peaceful' and instead [2] punishes only ethnic, religious, and political minorities [3] by encouraging selective administration on the sly or [4] by intentional ethnic/religious/minority profiling from the start where minority populations [5] have their universal equal rights under the law removed in practice, and [6] in many cases leads directly to minority genocide? There are no cases of genocide without gun control legislation.

It historically ONLY encourages ethnic/minority assault, victimization, and ethnic caste forms of law--the very people leftists want to protect, and the very types of law that leftists dislike. Therefore it's not a very well thought out leftist position to support gun control. Pull away the advertising veil, and it supports a slave caste society over universal labor rights, supports the ethnic caste aspects of the post Civil War, and supports gratuitous elite and criminal violence.

That's SIX major leftist preferred tenets that gun control destroys in practice that have always been associated with it and which are very anti-leftist.

I'll tell you why it is sometimes "called" a leftist position. Because there are suckers born every minute. There are leftist dupes as much as there are rightist dupes. Elite politics are politics of encouraging dupes to feel they are proud and intelligent. Gun control is a leftist dupe pitch by the same corrupt caste of elites--that leftists typically work against. You fell for the corporate marketing slogan that's all. Not all leftists do.

It's just sold with whatever discourse elites poll people to find out how to sell the same strategies that have failed under other discourses. Same as how eugenics and master race philosophies are now sold as "family planning."

Tell religious minorities that "sorry, it's a leftist position--I support Hitler" to surviving Jews from Nazi Germany. Would you support the Hitler 1938 gun control law?

Tell ethnic minorities that "sorry, it's a leftist position to support the KKK policies" to a Black American family who just had their father lynched. Would you support laws that exclusively banned Black Americans from carrying guns?

Tell family of someone who had their son shot 21 times merely for "driving or standing while Black", that "sorry, it's a leftist position--I support ethnic profiling, whether officially or tacitly on the sly." Would you support laws that are forms of ethnic profiling?

Hopefully the cognitive dissonance will do you good. Because this is exactly what one would be required to say if you are a "leftist" who supports gun control. Surely there's something (in the chart above) that you can find that is more important than the 1% of preventable deaths that is blown out of proportion by scare tactics by the monopoly corporate media? If you support gun control, you innately support a slippery slope to minority genocide, you openly support the policies of the KKK, and you openly support ethnic profiling.

Where the rubber meets the road, there are no cases where gun control works to facilitate aspects of society that leftists like. Instead, historically (meaning case by case and not some empty philosophical "could be" wishful argument), gun control has only facilitated aspects of society that leftists hate.

try writing less and saying more, and avoiding strawman arguments 19.Apr.2007 16:40


>> there are no cases where gun control works to facilitate aspects of society that leftists like

There are plenty of countries with much stricter gun regulation with much lower incidence of gun violence. Most leftists (and rightists) prefer that aspect of society, less gun violence.