Thursday, December 27, 2007

Gun Control? Check This Out.

While Ol' BC doesn't own a gun, he is among the strongest proponents of the 2nd amendment to the U.S. constitution without exception (as it is written). As a kid though, Ol' BC belonged to a gun club. I learned gun safety as well as how to shoot and actually became more than semi-proficient. I'd hate to guess how many rounds we fired at the National Guard armory. This post by Colonel Hogan gives more than ample reason to assume such a position when gun control comes into question. A couple of examples. . .

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20
million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and

And then

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13
million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and

Colonel Hogan points out numerous other instances where gun control has had nothing but a negative effect including the recent Australian law and the increase in violent crime that followed.

Ol' BC is not one to question everybody's motives, but sometimes you just have to wonder. . .
in light of the historical data available, what would lead someone to be in favor?

Just a thought.


At 8:23 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The problem with this argument is that if a legion of soldiers arrived at your door and told you to turn in your guns, you would either turn in your guns or you would die.

I fail to see the legitimacy of your argument in this context. If the Jews had had guns they would simply have died faster. They were not a mobilized, unified force.

Now, having said that, I am not a supporter of gun control. There are instances when an armed country could be beneficial. Just look at Iraq! They are causing some serious strife there because the resistance has guns... oh, wait, bad example. ;)

What we need is a more loving and social community that provides and promotes caring relations with others. Only then will we see a decline in crime and shooting sprees. When people become marginalized or rejected, it is a psychological fact that they will seek violence toward the body that rejected them.

We live in a society that promotes many negative social behaviors. People are dehumanized and perceived as mere production and dollar segments. In the homes, kids are left to fend for themselves with no positive adult relationships. It is little wonder to me why some kids who have been particularly disenfranchised grow up and go on rampages to kill us all. The real question is why isn't it happening more?


At 9:08 AM, Blogger Ol' BC said...

Marco, what you say about community is true. There will probably always be that need. The problem is that the pendulum tends to swing very close to the middle. As far as the Jews go, if the National Socialists had to shoot them in the streets instead of herding them onto trains, maybe the world would have awakened earlier and Hitler would have been an asterisk in history. Our founding fathers weren't perfect, but they did a damned fine job overall.

At 9:51 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess what I am saying is that there would have been very little shooting by the Jews. Of course this is all speculative, but psychologically speaking, it is conceivable that fear would have simply encouraged the Jews to choose life and not resist at all regardless of having the family pistol. Does this make sense?

If BC is suddenly confronted with ten soldiers with automatic rifles, is he going to go to his closet and find his shotgun or is he going to piss his pants and hope he lives through it? It is fine to imagine that we would heroically struggle against the oppressors, but when the oppressors come for you in the night when you are in your jam-jams, the result is that the average man who might have a family and children is more likely to wet himself and hope for the best.

As for community, the fact that it is always an issue makes it all the more relevant. We have to address this. Gun control is a band aid measure. We need to focus more on what makes people go rampaging. Preventive medicine is what is needed.

At 11:02 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

The problem with this argument is that if a legion of soldiers arrived at your door and told you to turn in your guns, you would either turn in your guns or you would die.

They'd have to kill off a whole lot of people (and lose a lot of their own) in the process if Americans took their Second Amendment rights seriously.

THIS is the true essence of the problem, not some bleeding heart "oh if we were just more loving and understanding towards them, they won't shoot at us" bullshit.

The fact remains that an assailant will think twice if the possibility exists that his victim may be armed, regardless of the actual state of affairs. That self-preservation thing works both ways, you know. Even that legion of soldiers has to try to find a way around THAT (if their victim is armed, they aren't all coming home even if they do succeed in getting the guns).

Spare me the crap about kids being left to fend for themselves in the home. If the liberals hadn't encouraged millions of women to join the work force just because they could, and then taxed the average family to the point where having two working parents was the only way to survive, things might be a little more kid-friendly in the average home.

Still, the family as a nurturing source for children really didn't exist until the 19th Century in this country, and the Founders weren't dealing with all this crap. Could it be because they respected people's gun rights??

Just a few thoughts on the matter ...


At 3:55 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

First of all, you are mixing messages. Soldiers attacking is a little different than assailants or rampage shooters. Love and teaching people to love can cure the latter. No one is saying that love will stop people who want to kill you. I am saying that love can prevent people from wanting to kill you. And if this is liberal bullshit, then I am a liberal full of shit.

If a military wants to enslave a people, it will, and there are ways of achieving this without much need for bloodshed. Even if the Jews had had weapons, their resistance would have been circumvented quite easily. One, they were not unified. Two, they were confused. Three, they were in disbelief. Four, one or two vivid instances of people or children murdered in the street would have ceased any thoughts of rebellion. The Jews were not a military. They were isolated families with kids who would very likely not have thought of armed resistance even if they had had the chance. Self preservation, as you put it, takes many forms, the least of which is fighting with guns. The more likely manifestation of self preservation is to seek the path of least resistance. This is human nature.

And liberals didn't encourage any women to go into the work force. Women encouraged women to go into the work force. Why is it always the liberals with you? Is that all you can say? You are a broken record. It is boring to talk to you.

At 9:16 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

Anonymous is ignoring hundreds of years of history when he dismisses the many cases in which a poorly armed guerrilla force successfully wages a war of attrition against an organized army.

Anyone would be foolish to resist if a platoon of jackbooted thugs demanded the Glock you use to defend yourself against home invaders. But, many platoons of jackbooted thugs will be unable to stand against the millions of Americans who might conduct such a battle against those who'd disenfranchise them. It's been done many times before. Even Hitler was destroyed as much because of internal resistance as by organized military fighting.

At 9:20 PM, Blogger Col. Hogan said...

Oh, and thanks BC, for the mention and the link.

At 2:30 AM, Blogger RightWingRocker said...

And liberals didn't encourage any women to go into the work force. Women encouraged women to go into the work force. Why is it always the liberals with you? Is that all you can say? You are a broken record. It is boring to talk to you.

No, idiot. LIBERAL women encouraged women to go into the work force. I'm not saying that a woman who wants to do that shouldn't, but to say that women in general, who largely had it made just staying home and taking care of it and the family while their husbands went out and "brought home the bacon". Do you REALLY mean to tell me that NOW is a women's group, and not a liberal women's group?


The simple fact is that liberals and their foolishness, including socialism, are to blame for most of the things that are wrong in this country.

A wake up call is DEFINITELY going to be necessary, as Americans have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.

And what I do to you has nothing to do with boredom. I repeatedly put liberal foolishness on display for all to see, and all you can do is sing the bullshit songs we've been fed for nearly 100 years in this country. Come up with something new, already.



Post a Comment

<< Home