The UN oversaw the genocide in Rwanda, and now they want to disarm Americans.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
saveenergy on 65 Years Of Progress! Jeff L. on Analyzing The Western Water Cr… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Approaching 100% I… Morgan Wright on Great Lakes Set Another Spring… gelcarrion0t on New Visitech Features saveenergy on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Ice-Free Arctic By 2014 gelcarrion0t on Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast gelcarrion0t on Seventeen Years Of Fun Barbara Stockwell on Nuclear Safety In The US
I actually don’t agree that it can only happen after they disarm all of their intended victims. Lenin’s genocide began with the Bolshevik revolution, and the Bolsheviks largely stole their weapons from their intended victims. They depended on the element of surprise, they depended on psychological tactics to disorient their opponents, and they depended on a tactic of repeatedly lying about what was going on (on both sides) in order to produce hesitation in their opponents. Lenin later said that seizing power in the relative vacuum that then existed in Saint Petersburg was “as easy as picking up a feather”. There was really no time at all between that moment and the onset of genocide for the systematic disarming of royalists or anti-communists. I suspect that one might also say the same for Mao and Castro, though I am not as well versed in the history of China and Cuba.
So I think that while disarming certainly makes their intended task easier, it is not a prerequisite for genocide. I would agree that would-be mass murderers seek to have a military or tactical advantage of some kind over their intended victims. But we should not labor under the belief that if we manage to preserve our right to keep and bear arms, that we have vanquished genocide forever. I can foresee a situation where a firm and unwavering global dictatorship emerges under a ruthless dictator, who begins wiping out his enemies in the U.S. without first systematically disarming all or even most of them. All he has to do is, of course, to make the label of “unstable” or “disloyal” stick in a way that his security officers might find believable (no matter how ludicrous it may be) and that then provides a pretext for disarmament (and imprisonment) of individuals without requiring a general surrendering of weapons.
I know Hitler did it differently and I know that historically the worst genocides are of a disarmed populace. But I still think that we should understand that in the fog of a communist revolution, all kinds of genocide can happen before any systematic disarmament even gets started. Food for thought, and I hope not too contrarian for your liking.
RTF
I’m not sure gun buyers are motivated by fear of the gov’t today. It may be more about fear of gov’t blunders and incompetence making matters worse. When you look at what passes for “progress” in the last 50-60 years, that’s what really worries people.
Nobody really thinks they can overpower the US military, should a revolution ever happen. But people certainly believe they can defend themselves in a time of chaos and anarchy resulting from whatever manmade or natural calamity happens.
Amen to that.