A Little Gun History

My Recent Posts

World history in our school system and public life in many ways has been marginalized and deemphasized. This has been done intentionally so people are not aware of all the evilness of mankind and the corruption of governments. The following is a little gun history that all should be aware of:


In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control: From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control: From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


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


China established gun control in 1935: From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964: From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Uganda established gun control in 1970: From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.


Cambodia established gun control in 1956: From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated


56 million defenseless people were rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control.     

This history lesson proves that there will always be people, groups or governments that want to exterminate people who do not agree with them. Keep a close eye on those gun grabbers in the USA, who want to ban guns. Are their evil intentions in their hearts to suppress and/or exterminate their opposition?


Therefore be vigilant, because you never know when the gun grabbers will be coming for you. Do not think for a moment, that this could not happen in the USA !!!!!!


Paul Sanders Added Jan 17, 2019 - 5:39pm
Great article, Marty.
Gun control has nothing to do with crime control.  It is 100% about subjugation.  Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant.
Marty Koval Added Jan 17, 2019 - 8:05pm
As history has proven in just the 20th century, many gun grabbers use gun control to exterminate their opponents or people they do not like. Anyone, who says otherwise is lying or extremely foolish. 56 million people exterminated and you do not hear hardly a word from the gun grabbers. Makes you wonder, if their true intentions is to emulate all these evil world leaders?
FacePalm Added Jan 17, 2019 - 9:44pm
i've had that info for many, many years - and the numbers are underestimated, according to some other sources i'm aware of, particularly in China, where the slaughter continues to this day.
i often trot it out as irrefutable evidence to the gun-grabber crowd, but save it as the coup de grace; many, many people have spoken up in defense of your ability to defend yourself, family, friends, neighbors, and so on, all the way up to your country, like Smedley Butler said, that is, that he'd not fight for any bankers any more, but only to defend the borders of America OR to defend the Bill of Rights...which, of course, includes PREVENTING gov't agents from taking our ARMS - ANY of them.
But IMO, the only thing that's going to stop leftist socialists like FrankenFeinstein is to place her and those of her ilk under arrest for felony perjury charges every time they violate their Oaths of Office by voting in favor of limiting our God-given right to self-defense to the slightest degree.
Once the "In __________, ________________ established gun control; in _____, X number of __________, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and slaughtered" sentence gets repeated enough times, even the dullest intellect cannot then say "taking the guns stops gun crime" with the slightest degree of credibility any longer.
Marty Koval Added Jan 17, 2019 - 10:00pm
Your are correct, that some of the deaths numbers are probably low. The slaughter of unarmed people is seen throughout the world. It continues in many countries that are led by totalitarian regimes or in the middle east where Muslims are killing the Christians.
Paul Sanders Added Jan 17, 2019 - 11:54pm
"But IMO, the only thing that's going to stop leftist socialists like FrankenFeinstein is to place her and those of her ilk under arrest for felony perjury charges every time they violate their Oaths of Office by voting in favor of limiting our God-given right to self-defense to the slightest degree."
I have pondered this exact approach myself and agree, but the question is, how do we go about implementing it when we have a complicit DOJ and federal judges who twist and construe the 2A into so many knots it looks like a pretzel?
FacePalm Added Jan 18, 2019 - 1:40am
There's only 2 ways i know of:
First, publicize the bejabers out of this approach in your state, gather 100k signatures or more, and petition your State reps to act on our behalf to do just that. 
The reason why is that despite the language of "We, the People" with which the Constitution begins, many courts have ruled that the People are not parties to the Constitution, as below:
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it.  The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do, they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain."
~Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520
But the majority of States are beholden beggars to the USG, and so are quite unlikely to do much of anything to rock the boat which funds many of their pet projects - however, nothing can stop an idea whose time has come.  Publicize, go to town halls and candidate speaking engagements(esp. town halls where you can ask direct questions of office-seekers), get in the news, make a Big Noise.
The only OTHER way i can think of is via a Convention of the States, where if 2/3'rds of State reps agree, an Amendment can be sent out to the States for ratification, and if 3/4's of those agree, the Amendment becomes part of the Supreme Law, and neither Congress nor the President nor SCOTUS can frustrate or overthrow the will of the People as expressed via the states.
One last thing, though i don't know if Shadegg is still a rep, or not:
“In each new Congress since 1995, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) has introduced the Enumerated Powers Act (HR 1359)... Simply put, if enacted, the Enumerated Powers Act would require Congress to specify the basis of authority in the U.S. Constitution for the enactment of laws and other congressional actions. HR 1359 has 28 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives. When Shadegg introduced the Enumerated Powers Act, he explained that the Constitution gives the federal government great, but limited, powers. Its framers granted Congress, as the central mechanism for protecting liberty, specific rather than general powers. The Constitution gives Congress 18 specific enumerated powers, spelled out mostly in Article 1, Section 8. The framers reinforced that enumeration by the 10th Amendment, which reads: ‘The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people.’ Just a few of the numerous statements by our founders demonstrate that their vision and the vision of Shadegg’s Enumerated Powers Act are one and the same... I salute the bravery of Rep. Shadegg and the 28 co-sponsors of the Enumerated Powers Act. They have a monumental struggle. Congress is not alone in its constitutional contempt, but is joined by the White House and particularly the constitutionally derelict U.S. Supreme Court.”
 —Walter E. Williams
No honest Congresscretin would vote against a Bill of this nature...and if they didn't, if they voted in favor, they could lose the "cretin" designation, in my book.
Johnny Fever Added Jan 18, 2019 - 4:56am
What about all the countries that enacted gun control, where the government didn't round people up and kill them? 
In any of those countries that you named, do you really believe lives would have been saved if gun control legislation hadn't been enacted?  After all, we're talking about a common people against the military apparatus.  The killings might have been more severe.  
FacePalm Added Jan 18, 2019 - 5:48am
The dead tell no tales - or mostly so.  (there are many NDE's, and Christ Himself rose from the dead, not to mention many others.)
But we won't know.  Places like the UK and Australia have yet to be either invaded or have gov't agents engage in naked tyranny, but i do know this:
“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone.... Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation ... inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
~ Patrick Henry
Steel Breeze Added Jan 18, 2019 - 10:35am
Marty...well said...
Marty Koval Added Jan 18, 2019 - 1:33pm
Johnny Fever:
Ever person needs to be fully aware, any government (including America) over time can become tyrannical. Throughout history, most governments have become tyrannical.
Just how does a government become tyrannical? It rarely happens in an instant; it arrives like twilight, and, at first, the eyes adjust. Over time people do not recognize it until it is too late to stop, particularly if they have been disarmed.
Is it when elected officials do not have to obey the same laws as the people they represent? Is it when laws are not enforced or enforced only when elected officials seek power or control? Or is it when government seizes unconstitutional power for solving some problem, or to redistribute wealth to the advantage of the supporters of the dominant faction? What about subversion of internal checks and balances within the Constitution? The appointment to key positions of persons who can be controlled by their sponsors, such as the appointment of judges that will go along with unconstitutional acts by the other branches of government.
It can be any career politician(s) in office taking lobbyist money to make decisions that go against freedom. They stop voting for the best of the country and only care for the people who are enriching them. Always be aware of the politicians who describe guns as evil and want to greatly restrict or ban guns. They say they are doing this for the welfare of all people. This is a Big Lie. It is only for their welfare to gain more power and become tyrannical.
The moment "we the people" allow our government officials to get outside incentives  and place restrictions on gun ownership, we put them on the road to becoming tyrants. This picture has been played out by numerous tyrants over the history of mankind.
Remember: It can occur in any country, at any time. It's been going on for centuries and will continue, because some people are just EVIL.
Eric Reports Added Jan 18, 2019 - 3:05pm
For anyone who has investigated what really happened at Sandy Hook, they would know it was a gov't inside job.  The supposed murderer Adam Lanza was borderline retarded.  He'd have trouble tying his shoe, much less going on a commando raid. 
Rusty Smith Added Jan 18, 2019 - 3:32pm
I don't believe most of the people who want to take guns away from private citizens have evil intentions, only a very few do.  The vast majority think we will be much safer, and homicide and suicide rates will drop very significantly if they can take away the guns.  That is why most people vote for new gun control laws.
Unfortunately from all I can see they are sadly misguided and like the vast majority of the public, unaware that where guns have been taken away, homicide and suicide rates did not go down, (in the long run).  They get excited over biased statistical information, and vote for what they think is a good idea.  
Even where guns have been taken and homicide and suicide rates have not gone down, like in the UK, guns are still horribly demonized by the overwhelming majority of the public who haven't bothered to look at the numbers and realize it made no difference.  Instead of realizing the same death rate must mean taking away the guns did not deter the carnage, they stubbornly cling to the belief that there must be less carnage... because the guns are gone.
Dino Manalis Added Jan 18, 2019 - 5:13pm
 History is an important lesson to see what's worked and what hasn't.
Marty Koval Added Jan 18, 2019 - 5:52pm
Rusty Smith
On the surface, guns are actually a step towards equality. Guns give the physically weak a way to defend against the strong. A world without guns is not a more peaceful world, but a more savage one, where brute strength allows bullies to exploit people incapable of fighting back.
Since the rise of the New Class, political power in America has not rested so much on religion or even money but on the ability to regulate behavior. Leftists oppose guns at a primal level because they provide a way for citizens to exercise power without going through their managerial state.
A gun allows a citizen to take responsibility for his own security and the security of his family. To a Leftist, this is frightening because it means that a person is acting without ideological supervision. Leftist demands for “training,” “education,” and “licensing,” in guns and most everything else is simply a way of asserting dominance over uncontrolled social interactions. In the modern context, “freedom” does not mean freedom to act without restriction on your own property or to interact with others provided you don’t violate their basic rights. Instead, “freedom” means the right to act only in accordance with government-determined social norms.
When the government determines social norms based on one sided and tainted beliefs, this provides them the ability to achieve the totalitarian state they lust for. This is why 43% of the American household have at least one gun and have no intention of giving them up to government.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 18, 2019 - 7:46pm
"In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control:"
This actually began with the Revolutions (yes plural) in Red October of 1917. 
"What about all the countries that enacted gun control, where the government didn't round people up and kill them?"
Violent crime rates skyrocketed. 
Doug Plumb Added Jan 19, 2019 - 10:33am
I think we need to ask ourselves, how did people become so stupid as to only want government to have guns?
Doug Plumb Added Jan 19, 2019 - 10:34am
The Russian revolution was a Bolshevik revolution, paid for by Wall St banks.
Doug Plumb Added Jan 19, 2019 - 10:35am
Same as all the others in the past century. US army fights for democracy in far away land and destroys republics in the process. Democracy is a quick way to socialism. Republicanism stops socialism because governments must obey the same laws as the people in a republic.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 19, 2019 - 10:47am
Until they commence running the republic as a democracy as they are doing at present in the US. 
Marty Koval Added Jan 19, 2019 - 2:30pm
Ward Tipton:
You bring up a good point about running America as a democracy in lieu a republic. The sad fact is that most Americans, particularly the younger ones do not have a clue what the differences are. Most believe America is a democracy. I blame this on our failed public school systems that are run by liberal minded administrators and teachers.
A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or constitution. A democracy is a government that is ruled according to the will of the majority. Although these forms of government are often confused, they are quite different.
The main difference between a republic and a democracy is the charter or constitution that limits power in a republic, often to protect the individual's rights against the desires of the majority. In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of any consequences for individuals or for those who are not in the majority on an issue.
These same people also do not realize that the Amendments are also part of the constitution. The majority of the Democrats, detest the first and second amendments, because it is a road block to their desire to transform America into a country our founding fathers would not recognize. They are already suppressing free speech through political correctness  and wanting to fully control or ban guns through  local, state and federal legislation. This type of thinking leads to totalitarianism.
People who think America is a democracy can be very dangerous people and this is seen every day in their desire to control things they do not believe in.
Rusty Smith Added Jan 20, 2019 - 12:30pm
Marty Koval when guns are taken away the profiles of victims and violent criminals changes a bit but the overall effect is not less crime.
Without guns violent criminals tend to be larger and have better physiques because wimps can't overpower their intended victims it it comes down to a physical confrontation.  
Without guns victims tend to be smaller and older citizens who appear to be physically incapable of defending themselves.  When the guns are gone generally so is their ability to resist violent criminals.
I find it amusing that many of affluent people with the most to lose and worst physiques often do support gun control, when it fact it often puts them in the victim category.
Ward Tipton Added Jan 20, 2019 - 1:34pm
That is a product of the selective "education" of the masses Rusty ... intentional by design. 

Recent Articles by Writers Marty Koval follows.