From Pravda writer Stanislav Mishin:
…it (gun control) is about power and a total power over the people. There is a lot of desire to bad mouth the Tsar, particularly by the Communists, who claim he was a tyrant, and yet under him we were armed and under the progressives disarmed. Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question.
The gentleman from the former Soviet Union has it spot on. Control is the issue. Think about this for a few minutes. If the second amendment falls, what of the others? Free speech, illegal searches and seizures (already happening to some in the name of “security”), having a national guardsmen in your home, and the right to not incriminate yourself just to name a few. A further look at amendments and the constitution suggest that if the 2nd amendment falls that it would also be possible for the 22nd amendment to be ignored as well. Think on the ramifications of that, a president seeking a third term….
Mr. Stanislav’s article discusses the disarmament of the Russian population, particularly the former members of the tsar’s army:
Moscow fell, for example, not from a lack of weapons to defend it, but from the lying guile of the Reds. Ten thousand Reds took Moscow and were opposed only by some few hundreds of officer cadets and their instructors. Even then the battle was fierce and losses high. However, in the city alone, at that time, lived over 30,000 military officers (both active and retired), all with their own issued weapons and ammunition, plus tens of thousands of other citizens who were armed. The Soviets promised to leave them all alone if they did not intervene. They did not and for that were asked afterwards to come register themselves and their weapons: where they were promptly shot.
Trust politicians much? I don’t. Again the idea of the slippery slope applies. If we give up our right to bear arms, what recourse do we have as, “The People,” if some or all of our enumerated rights disappear? I would go into unenumerated rights but Senator Fienstein just wouldn’t be able to comprehend my argument or I would have to direct her to John Locke if she knows who that is.
And now for the Soviet Union’s slippery slope:
… the Reds learned from their Civil War experience. One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers that were. The worst they had to fear was a pitchfork in the guts or a knife in the back or the occasional hunting rifle.
Sounds like fun doesn’t it?
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government” – Thomas Jefferson