Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
I wasn't referring to warfare, I was referring to things like ethnic cleansing and genocides.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. Subsequently, from 1915 to 1917, 1.5-million
Armenians, deprived of the means to defend themselves, were rounded up and killed.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. Then from 1929 to 1953,
approximately 20-millon dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945 over 13-million Jews,
gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill, union leaders, Catholics and others, unable to fire a
shot in protest, were rounded up and killed.
In 1935, China established gun control. Subsequently, between 1948 and 1952, over
20-million dissidents were rounded up and killed.
In 1956, Cambodia enshrined gun control. In just two years (1975-1977) over one
million "educated" people were rounded up and killed.
In 1964, Guatemala locked in gun control. From 1964 to 1981, over 100,000 Mayan
Indians were rounded up and killed as a result of their inability to defend themselves.
In 1970, Uganda got gun control. Over the next nine years over 300,000 Christians
were rounded up and killed.
Over 56-million people have died because of gun control in the last century . .
|
All right, let's say both sides in each of these struggles had guns. Would that have reduced the 56million casualties or increased it? You can't say either way, and neither can I. Genoice occurs when deep seated problems in that society erupt, and unfortunately, I dont know how to make it stop either. The Holocaust happened because Hitler found an easy scapegoat for all of Germany's problems following WWI, and anti-Semitism had always been a strong undercurrent among the Aryan races (is that it?). I don't know about the rest of the situations, but I've got a feelign you don't either. To say that both sides having guns would have gotten rid of such seroius problems is to trivialize the reasons for which holocausts happen.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
well, heres the deal about the bill of rights. They were written as the debate between the federalists and the anti-federalists grew concerning a central government. They were initially not going to be written because the federalists said it would be assumed that all rights are inherently belonging to the people. As a compromise, they were written in to the constitution with the express purpose of declaring that these rights are pre-existing, with or without a constitution, and that no government body can ever take them away. Of course with the courts siding with the government as of late, the judicial tyranny has certainly whittled away at them, but they are supposed to be pre-existing or 'natural law' rights belonging to all people. To write them away or consider them outdated seems a foolish concept to me, and I believe that it would seem that way to them as well.
|
I guess I dont see it as judicial tyranny, but forget that. I appreciate the right to free speech, I appreciate the right to a free press and all the other rights. I'm glad they wrote it in. I mentioned the federalist vs anti-federalist compromise earlier. That still does not mean that every one of those rights is necessary. It's not as if when you were born, you came with certain rights inscribed in your flesh, or imprinted in your brain. We reasoned these rights out to help make a stable soceity. So, now can we not reason that one of these rights isn't actually necessary now that times has changed, or that the cumulative effect of that right is negative to the soceity? Perhaps if they became necessary again, we'll have to fight for them. Feels liek we're jsut going aroudn in circles.