[SJackson]

Thanks for posting this a couple years ago. The old thread is locked, and it seemed worthwhile revisiting.

[GnL]

"If we fail, we are likely to face even greater bloodshed and chaos in the decades ahead"

But we might avert the bloodshed that often follows civilian disarmament by government:

In 1929, The Soviet Union enacted gun control law Article 166 Penal Code. From 1929 to 1953, the Soviet Union killed 20 million Russian anti-Stalinists and anti-communists.

In 1928, on April 12, the German Republic enacted the Law on Firearms & Ammunition. In 1938, on March 18, they enacted the Weapons Law. From 1933 to 1945, the Germans killed 13 million German Jews, Gypsies and anti-Nazis.

In 1935, China enacted gun control law Articles 186-7, Penal Code. On October 22, 1957, China enacted the gun control law Article 9, Security Law. From 1949-1952, China killed her communists. From 1957-1960, China killed her farmers. From 1966-1976, China killed her reformers. All told, China killed 20 million Chinese.

In 1871, on November 25, Guatemala enacted gun control Decree 36. On October 27, 1964, Guatemala enacted gun control Decree 283. From 1960 to 1981, Guatemala killed 100,000 Mayan Indians.

In 1955, Uganda enacted the gun control Firearms Ordinance. In 1970, Uganda enacted the gun control Firearms Act. From 1971 to 1979, Uganda killed 300,000 Ugandan Christians and political rivals.

In 1956, Cambodia passed the gun control Articles 322-8, Penal Code. From 1975 to 1979, Cambodia killed one million educated Cambodians.

Governments have always proved themselves more capable of mass slaughter than any armed civilian population.

[inquest]

Man, I had to put on my gas mask just to get through the first three paragraphs. They talk about how the genocide in Rwanda was enabled by armed government-supplied paramilitaries, and then suggest that surplus arms from the end of the Cold War made it possible - as if any government wouldn't have had enough arms to do that in any other period in history! And of course, they neglect to mention that if the Rwandan people had had access to some of those surplus weapons, they'd still be alive.

[William Tell]

What nonsense. The article describes small paramilitary units numbering about 100 being able to capture and kill thousands. The implication should be that the 100 now have in their possession not only their own weapons but those of the people who were killed.

Unstated is the fact that the thousands killed were already disarmed. They were taken is small groups and hacked to death because they were unprepared to protect themselves. And it is typically an unpopular government which must disarm its citizens in order to retain power. This makes the people vulnerable to any group which can outnumber the government.

The idea that any government on earth incapable of defending itself against 100 armed men deserves anyone's support is laughable. Even tiny "nation-cities" like Monaco should be able to defend against 100 armed people.

[Frohickey]

On Christmas Eve in 1989, insurgent leader Charles Taylor invaded the country with only 100 irregular soldiers armed primarily with AK-47 assault rifles; within months, he had seized mineral and timber resources and used the profits to purchase additional light weapons.

A 100 or so irregular soldiers armed with AK-47s, within months, would be mincemeat if they go against a few thousand peaceloving deer hunters. Heck, I would say, a 100 or so irregular soldiers armed with AK-47s would be all dead or captured within a week or two when the radio and tv stations start broadcasting that these hoodlums are out and about and trying to take over the country.

Of course, some of their selective fire AK-47s might never be found. ;)