Innocents Betrayed -- The True Story of Gun Control

[Doc91678]

[Video] Innocents Betrayed -- The True Story of Gun Control​

Aaron Zelman/JPFO
Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership ^
2003


Video: Innocents Betrayed -- The True Story of Gun Control

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAU9AJfttls]Innocents Betrayed - YouTube[/ame]​

Documentary showing that "gun control" has historically been used to disarm citizens and make them helpless before governments commit genocide. Dramatically covers major genocides in the Soviet Union, Germany, Uganda, Rwanda, China, Turkey, and other countries. Shows how "gun control" in the U.S. has been used to victimize blacks, Indians, children, women, and others. Combines gut-level emotional appeal and fast-paced, powerful graphics with a cool statement of historic facts and quotes from the relevant laws.

Caution the video contains photos that may be graphic. The Video is also 58 minutes long, it may be considered a copyright violation according to some. Of course our government would never allow this to happen here?

 

[bayoubill]

this thread has been up for more than an hour and a half...

it's gotten a few dozen views...

libs are conspicuous by their reticence in posting a comment...

 

[OKTexas]

this thread has been up for more than an hour and a half...

it's gotten a few dozen views...

libs are conspicuous by their reticence in posting a comment...

They won't take the time to watch the video.

I wonder how many folks know our early gun control laws were almost word of word of the laws Hitler put in place early in his regime.

 

[Oldguy]

this thread has been up for more than an hour and a half...

it's gotten a few dozen views...

libs are conspicuous by their reticence in posting a comment...

They won't take the time to watch the video.

I wonder how many folks know our early gun control laws were almost word of word of the laws Hitler put in place early in his regime.

You're right. I won't spend an hour watching it.

In any case, y'all seem to think gun control began about the time of Hitler, for some odd reason, but you well know it goes much farther back than that in this country.

For instance, colonial America had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and Indians. During our westward expansion, one of the first steps taken to "civilize" cow towns was to prohibit the carrying of guns in the city limits. Then, in 1911, New York passed the Sullivan Act, the first attempt at comprehensive gun control. That has been followed by a succession of actions right up until today, each further delineating the boundaries of the Second Amendment.

There has never been any doubt about the constitutionality of gun control and the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that guns CAN be constitutionally controlled, beginning with US vs Miller, US vs Cruikshank, Adams vs Williams and the more recent District of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago. There ARE boundaries to the Second Amendment and the courts have repeatedly upheld the right of states to regulate those rights.

On a positive side, male citizens otherwise capable were required to own and maintain military style weapons as a part of their militia duties and places like Forsythe County, GA have required gun ownership of its citizens. Neither action is, or was, un-constitutional.

Gun control is a fact of life in the United States and has been almost from day one. It is not some johnny-come-lately liberal conspiracy, but a legitimate and constitutional expression of the Will of The People, as represented in legislative or court bodies. Over the years, gun control has been both tightened, and loosened, as the Will of The People changed over time. Such will be the case in the future.

Y'all may see commies or prospective tyrants hiding under every bed if you like, but doing so ignores the history of gun control in this country and prevents the more important debate about just what KINDS of gun control we'll have.

The point is that if this were some kind of great conspiracy, we should be firmly under the thumb of some dictator by now and we're not (your conspiracy theories about Obama not withstanding). Instead, we are once again grappling with the dividing line between rights and responsibilities, something our Constitution protects our right to do.

The question is not whether we will have gun control, but WHAT controls and under what circumstances. You can either hide in the corner shrieking warnings about impending doom, or join the debate.

 

[Old Rocks]

I think that in spite of the horror visited on this nation this week, they will stay in their corner, shrieking, and will be up to we sane citizens to bring the proliferation of war weopons in this nation to an end.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

For instance, colonial America had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and Indians.

Yeah, that's relevant.

 

[Oldguy]

I think that in spite of the horror visited on this nation this week, they will stay in their corner, shrieking, and will be up to we sane citizens to bring the proliferation of war weopons in this nation to an end.

I wouldn't bet on that. We may see a return to the "assault weapons" ban of the 1990's, probably also including magazine and clip restrictions, but that will be about all. If that.

In any case, it won't be any more than it was last time: A feel good exercise that amounts to very little.

The truth seems to be that once the passions of the moment pass, there really isn't a whole lot of support for draconian gun control legislation.

Nor should there be. Risk of harm is a necessary adjunct to liberty and we cannot, and should not, try to protect ourselves from every conceivable evil.

 

[Oldguy]

For instance, colonial America had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and Indians.

Yeah, that's relevant.

It was relevant to the slaves and Indians.

The purpose of mentioning that was to demonstrate just how far back gun control goes but, of course, that went right over your head.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What goes over your head, smart guy, is that colonial times were monopolized by companies chartered from England (the dutch, french). There was no constitution, nor any second amendment yet. It's a failed comparison.

 

[Old Rocks]

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prevents a ban on assault rifles for those that cannot pass the same requirments as fully automatic weopons.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that prevents a law that states that if you store your guns irresponsibly, and someone takes them, you own the crimes committed with them.

There is nothing in the Second Amendment stating that we cannot require extensive background checks, and a months waiting period for all gun purchases.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Thanks, Cork.

 

[FA_Q2]

this thread has been up for more than an hour and a half...

it's gotten a few dozen views...

libs are conspicuous by their reticence in posting a comment...

They won't take the time to watch the video.

I wonder how many folks know our early gun control laws were almost word of word of the laws Hitler put in place early in his regime.

You're right. I won't spend an hour watching it.

In any case, y'all seem to think gun control began about the time of Hitler, for some odd reason, but you well know it goes much farther back than that in this country.

For instance, colonial America had laws preventing the ownership of guns by slaves and Indians. During our westward expansion, one of the first steps taken to "civilize" cow towns was to prohibit the carrying of guns in the city limits. Then, in 1911, New York passed the Sullivan Act, the first attempt at comprehensive gun control. That has been followed by a succession of actions right up until today, each further delineating the boundaries of the Second Amendment.

There has never been any doubt about the constitutionality of gun control and the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that guns CAN be constitutionally controlled, beginning with US vs Miller, US vs Cruikshank, Adams vs Williams and the more recent District of Columbia vs Heller and McDonald vs Chicago. There ARE boundaries to the Second Amendment and the courts have repeatedly upheld the right of states to regulate those rights.

On a positive side, male citizens otherwise capable were required to own and maintain military style weapons as a part of their militia duties and places like Forsythe County, GA have required gun ownership of its citizens. Neither action is, or was, un-constitutional.

Gun control is a fact of life in the United States and has been almost from day one. It is not some johnny-come-lately liberal conspiracy, but a legitimate and constitutional expression of the Will of The People, as represented in legislative or court bodies. Over the years, gun control has been both tightened, and loosened, as the Will of The People changed over time. Such will be the case in the future.

Y'all may see commies or prospective tyrants hiding under every bed if you like, but doing so ignores the history of gun control in this country and prevents the more important debate about just what KINDS of gun control we'll have.

The point is that if this were some kind of great conspiracy, we should be firmly under the thumb of some dictator by now and we're not (your conspiracy theories about Obama not withstanding). Instead, we are once again grappling with the dividing line between rights and responsibilities, something our Constitution protects our right to do.

The question is not whether we will have gun control, but WHAT controls and under what circumstances. You can either hide in the corner shrieking warnings about impending doom, or join the debate.

Who said anything about a conspiracy.

It is not that it is a conspiracy. It is about the gentle slide into what we do not want to be. I doubt that many of the examples in the video were originally planned out or part of some conspiracy. The reality is that these things usually begin with good intentions. It is where they end that is the real problem. We have to fight this every step of the way. As you said, we already HAVE gin control and we simply do not need any more. There can always be refinements but people here are not calling for that. They are talking about getting rid of weapons as much as possible. Eliminating long guns, 'assault' weapons that they can't actually define and things like this. We do not need more law that does not make any real sense. The evidence against grater gun control is pretty clear, these laws simply do not work.

 

[daveman]

You can either hide in the corner shrieking warnings about impending doom...

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

 

[Oldguy]

You can either hide in the corner shrieking warnings about impending doom...

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

 

[The Infidel]

You can either hide in the corner shrieking warnings about impending doom...

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

I for one obey traffic laws... I also obey gun laws.
I for one do not yet have my CHL, so my gun stays locked away at home.

Why? Because I follow the laws.

Outlaws don't...

 

[Oldguy]

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

I for one obey traffic laws... I also obey gun laws.
I for one do not yet have my CHL, so my gun stays locked away at home.

Why? Because I follow the laws.

Outlaws don't...

Good for you. You'll make a fine little Nazi.

By the way....are you SURE you've NEVER broken a law? Ever?

 

[FA_Q2]

You can either hide in the corner shrieking warnings about impending doom...

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

If the law is 100 percent ineffective at attaining the given goal then yes.

We see that speed limits are effective even if they are not followed all the time. We also see that gun control laws are NOT effective.

 

[Oldguy]

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

If the law is 100 percent ineffective at attaining the given goal then yes.

We see that speed limits are effective even if they are not followed all the time. We also see that gun control laws are NOT effective.

How do we see that speed limit laws are effective, even when not followed all the time? The number of wrecks or fatalities which DIDN'T happen?

You want to imply that speed limits work, even without 100% compliance, then would have us believe that's not true for gun laws. That doesn't wash. If you can presume a positive out come from speed laws, there's no reason not to presume the same thing with gun laws, is there?

 

[daveman]

You can either hide in the corner shrieking warnings about impending doom...

That's what the irrational gun haters are doing.

Have any of you figured out yet that criminals don't obey they law, thus everyone one of your ideas disarms ONLY law-abiding people?

Or do you really believe that criminals will obey the law if you pass just one more?

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

So...you DON'T have a way to make criminals obey the law.

Do you have any problem with disarming only law-abiding citizens?

I do.

 

[daveman]

Most of us don't obey the speed limit laws either. Is that a good reason to just not have any or never change it?

I for one obey traffic laws... I also obey gun laws.
I for one do not yet have my CHL, so my gun stays locked away at home.

Why? Because I follow the laws.

Outlaws don't...

Good for you. You'll make a fine little Nazi.

By the way....are you SURE you've NEVER broken a law? Ever?

"Nazi"?

What an asshole. Negged for stupidity.