Are "free countries" disarming their populations?

It seems that gun laws everywhere are a one way ratchet. They only get less permissive and more punitive.

The usual chain of events are that some shooting spree happens, and the government pledges action, and action means banning e.g. pistols, high capacity magazines, assault weapons, ammo limits, etc.

Now, I can understand countries like Iran, N. Korea, China or Russia wanting to prevent their citizens from getting guns. But what about “democratic” countries like those in Europe, Asia, Oceania, etc.?

Also, why don’t the masses in said democratic countries understand that historically, massacres happen when there is a disparity in force? There are many examples of governments turning their guns inwards to suppress or oppress their population.

The way I see things, it is firstly about control. In the Bible, when Israel asked for a King, the Prophet Samuel warned in 1 Samuel 8 that:

“This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. 12 He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots.

So it is the manner of kings over us to hoard power and authority over us to cement their rule (a system of taxation is also mentioned further on in the passage).

Next, it is also about people in power seeing where things are going and taking steps to again cement their control. In many free countries today, there is increasing polarization - haves and have nots, religious differences and so on. If there is, for example, hyperinflation and the economy collapses, social unrest is probable. So better to get the guns off the streets now before the SHTF.

What do y’all think? Is this a concerted, coordinated effort at disarmament or just the product of students with the ingrained indoctrination “Guns are bad, trust your government to protect you, etc.” reaching the corridors of power?

5 Likes

It can feel that way, but take a look at the United States.

When I started carrying, there were precisely 2 states that allowed concealed carry without a permit. Two. They were AK and VT.

Now it’s 29 states.

Back when I started carrying, there were NO concealed carry permits at all in a bunch of states. WI, IL, KS, IA, and a bunch of others had no concealed carry period (well, other than the special classes like LEO, deputized folks, certain politicians, etc)

Now look at us. :slight_smile:

Oh, and back then…you couldnt’ buy a magazine that held 10 rounds. Not a new one, anyway. Nor could you buy a new AR style rifle. Federally banned. Now look at us. :slight_smile:

11 Likes

Our ‘elected government’ feels that they are to lord over us instead of work for us. History shows what happens to people and countries that are forced to give up their guns. Our government tries to restrict and disarm us as they quickly become tyrannical. We need term limits for congress to limit the opportunity to become deeply entrenched, gain wealth, and power. The majority of these people either don’t know or don’t care what the Declaration of Independence even means. In the first paragraph of the Declaration it points out that it is the right and the duty to put and end to a tyrannical government and form a new one. If we continue to see this decline I can see it happen. We must NEVER give up our firearms no matter what our self proclaimed ‘lords of DC’ say.

10 Likes

Free country? What is this free country you speak of?

All of our freedoms under the Bill of Rights are being abused, except for maybe the 3rd Amendment.

Freedom of speech? Religion? Public gathering? Privacy? Speedy trial by a fair and impartial jury? Excessive bail or fines? States rights?

Get real. The federal government has gotten too big and too powerful. The 2nd Amendment and SCOTUS are the only things preventing DC from turning us all into communists sheep.

10 Likes

United Nations (UN) has been working for a long time on tactics to disarm and control Americans. The purpose of the UN Arms Trade Treaty ( UN-ATT) is to regulate the transfer of weapons . That obviously requires that all guns be registered and tracked by governments’. Of course, they really do not want to track the guns, per se. They want to track the gun owners. You and me!
April 19, 1775
An English attempt to confiscate guns from Americans triggered a successful revolution.

7 Likes

A small but also large point: April 19 1775 was not really the English trying to take guns from Americans…it was the army (redcoats) trying to take arms/munitions (especially powder) from their own people.

The Colonists were British, that was their own army that marched to Concord.

3 Likes

Reminds me of the war on drugs. Let the manufacturers keep making the product. Then regulate and tax the crap out of it. Get in on the money.

5 Likes

That one just made the Quote Of The Day List. Too bad So So So many Americans don’t understand that one single concept…

4 Likes
2 Likes

All well and good, but…it was their own army that was coming for their supplies. This was not a foreign invader, this was their army. The Alarm Riders would not have said “the British are coming”, they would have said “the regulars are out” or similar. Regulars, maybe Recoats…but not “the British”

I recommend this book if you want to deep dive that day

2 Likes

Also

6. His most famous quote was fabricated.

Paul Revere never shouted the legendary phrase later attributed to him (“The British are coming!”) as he passed from town to town. The operation was meant to be conducted as discreetly as possible since scores of British troops were hiding out in the Massachusetts countryside. Furthermore, colonial Americans at that time still considered themselves British; if anything, Revere may have told other rebels that the “Regulars”—a term used to designate British soldiers—were on the move.

1 Like

I think it is the latter, people think guns are bad because these people don’t know how to think or are too traumatized. They don’t think they should have to protect themselves because they think that is what they pay the police for.

Thank you for the recommendation but I have a complete library on the subject. My father’s side of the family fought in the Revolutionary War .
If your intent was to belitte you have accomplished that goal.

2 Likes

What? Not at all.

I just want everybody to, despite popular culture and sometimes history books telling us otherwise, the Army moving on April 18/19 and the shot heard round the word was initiated by their own army.

This wasn’t a foreign invader, this was their army.

I think all Americans should be aware of this…and most probably aren’t.

2 Likes
  1. Police are employed to enforce the law. If, in doing so you are protected, that can be considered “unintended consequences”.
  2. Having observed the governments “efforts” at enforcing immigration laws on the borders and the amount of taxpayer money it is spending by handing out “Freebies” to individuals whose first act was to break the law to get here instead of serving the needs of their constituents who, sadly, elected these twits and will probably do so again. For these reasons, I am of the opinion that the government has a demonstrated inability to protect a cup of lukewarm urine.
3 Likes

However, history will tell us that the colonies did not approve of the King ruling from overseas. Since the government derives it power from the consent of the governed, the final and capstone natural right is the right not to consent to any government.
When the state assaults freedom and offers no accountability, as we simply to consider the matter as a lost cause.
No,like the American colonies in North America that originated from Britain, we must do the same as the colonists did 1776 alter or abolish the government and institute a new system of laws that allow us to pursue are natural yearnings.
Freedom answer book
My natural rights were given to me by God not government.

7 Likes

Exactly!

One of those things many state incorrectly, just as a matter of habit/pop culture, but you clearly understand…the Second Amendment (and other docs but we’ll focus on this one for obvious reasons) grants us nothing. It recognizes what naturally exists and protect it from infringement by the government. 2A doesn’t “give/grant”…it protects (as do other aspects to the Constitution and BoR)

Including when a People’s own army tries to trample those Rights/Liberties

3 Likes

If I read the new Louisiana right to carry law correctly it extends to those visiting from out of State (so long as they are legally able to possess). That is quite a leap forward.

2 Likes

You did.

Currently, every permitless carry (sometimes referred to as Constitutional carry) state applies to residents of other states exactly the same. Meet the age and non-prohibited requirements and those from other states can indeed carry.

Leap, indeed

2 Likes

I agree. I think. If you are referring to the government as the people that can’t think.