Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below 
p0ink
New member
The True Face of Gun Control
From the Mass Extermination Of Humans to NYC 1991
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control1 in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: at least 56 million... that we know about.
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do you want to round up and exterminate?"
Something to think about as the Liberal media attempts to demonize firearms and gun owners in what amounts to an unending propaganda blitz. They are sympathetic to the politicians who seek to blame crime on "the easy availability of guns" through evil devices like "the gun show loophole."
At one point gun confiscation in this country was unthinkable, yet we saw it occur quite openly and overtly in 1991 in New York City, enabled solely due to a registration scheme put into place in 1967.
Firearms Registration: the Lesson of NYC
In their hearts, supporters of "gun control" desire gun prohibition; they promulgate every "gun control" measure as a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to target shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime.
Anyone inclined to trust these assertions would be wise to study the history of firearms registration, not in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia or Communist China, but in 1967 New York City when Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a long gun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council.
Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an inexpensive permit to possess it.
The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law.
In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:
...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons.
Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...
...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.
The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by wizardry escallated to $55.00! And then, on 12 July 2004, that permit fee rose again... to $140.00, an increase in excess of 4,600%. One cannot accuse the New York City Council of encouraging new registrations!
Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on the legislation that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong," since in Broderick's view, it assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles," adding:
There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted.2
Fast forward to 1991 when the New York City Council, at the urging of Mayor David N. Dinkins, passed, and the Mayor signed into law3, an out-and-out prohibition on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns... namely, various imitation or look-alike "assault" firearms. The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm... and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown's testimony that no "assault weapon" registered with the Firearms Control Bureau had been used in a violent crime in New York City. Mayor Dinkins' response to that bit of information was that he wanted "to send a message."
New York City firearms owners' message back to Dinkins was the chant "We complied, you lied!" Then they made sure he was a one-term mayor.
The year following the enactment of the prohibition, a man's home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city's ban. He was arrested, his guns were seized, and a New York City Police Department spokesman rationalized its actions against the citizen by citing his defiance as proof that he was unfit to possess firearms, telling The New York Daily News:
...obviously, someone like that shouldn't be allowed to have guns!
NYPD had notified some (but, inexplicably, not all!) of the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or physically removed from the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.
The department subsequently announced that the majority... 2,615 out of 3,360... of these previously-registered faux "assault firearms" had been taken out of the city. In addition, Jeremy Travis, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, told The Daily News:
...for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned.
This once unthinkable situation in New York City demonstrates that those who had opposed the concept of registration back in 1967, and were dismissed as "paranoid," were not only not paranoid but were remarkably prescient. (Still not concerned? Watch what's happening right now in California!) For New York City's sad scenario vividly exemplifies the nationwide plan of the gun-grabbers to destroy the civil right and liberty, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, to keep and bear arms... not to mention other provisions of the Constitution.
This plan should now be apparent to all but the most easily gulled:
Initial Step, enact a nationwide firearms waiting period law.
Second Step, when the waiting period doesn't reduce crime, then enact a national registration law.
Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe," then U.S. Senator-elect Dianne Feinstein told the Associated Press on 18 November 1993.
The California Democrat is still in the Senate, and she hasn't changed her mind one iota.
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
From the Mass Extermination Of Humans to NYC 1991
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control1 in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: at least 56 million... that we know about.
The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do you want to round up and exterminate?"
Something to think about as the Liberal media attempts to demonize firearms and gun owners in what amounts to an unending propaganda blitz. They are sympathetic to the politicians who seek to blame crime on "the easy availability of guns" through evil devices like "the gun show loophole."
At one point gun confiscation in this country was unthinkable, yet we saw it occur quite openly and overtly in 1991 in New York City, enabled solely due to a registration scheme put into place in 1967.
Firearms Registration: the Lesson of NYC
In their hearts, supporters of "gun control" desire gun prohibition; they promulgate every "gun control" measure as a "reasonable" step that supposedly would not infringe upon the rights of law-abiding citizens to target shoot, hunt, or protect themselves from violent crime.
Anyone inclined to trust these assertions would be wise to study the history of firearms registration, not in Nazi Germany, or Soviet Russia or Communist China, but in 1967 New York City when Mayor John V. Lindsay signed into law a long gun registration ordinance passed by the New York City Council.
Under that law, every citizen who possessed or would later possess any rifle or shotgun within the five boroughs of New York City was required to register it by make, model and serial number, and obtain an inexpensive permit to possess it.
The fee was set at a modest $3.00, which figure City Councilman Theodore Weiss, sponsor of the bill, with great sincerity pledged would never be raised, and that the municipality would always bear the brunt of the actual costs of administering the law.
In an effort to allay firearms owners' fear of registration, The New York Times, never a friend to firearms-owners, editorially assured everyone that the bill:
...would protect the constitutional rights of owners and buyers. The purpose of registration would not be to prohibit but to control dangerous weapons.
Interestingly, just after the bill became law, a 16 December 1967 Times editorial entitled Encouraging Rifle Registration opposed the Mayor's proposed amendments to increase the fee to $10.00, or to $25.00 as he had originally proposed, expressing concern that...
...too-high license fees right off the bat would undermine effective operation of the law. The idea is to get maximum registration for the public safety.
The onimous hint of what was to come, of course, is in the phrase "right off the bat," and should have raised alarms that this was indeed, in an expression made infamous 30 years later by anti-gun politico Charles Schumer, the "camel's nose under the tent," for the fee had as if by wizardry escallated to $55.00! And then, on 12 July 2004, that permit fee rose again... to $140.00, an increase in excess of 4,600%. One cannot accuse the New York City Council of encouraging new registrations!
Most significantly, just before the registration bill became law, one-time (1962) U.S. District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and former New York City Police Commissioner Vincent L. Broderick, who was later given a federal judgeship (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in 1976), testified at a City Council committee hearing on the legislation that the philosophy underlying the bill was "all wrong," since in Broderick's view, it assumed that all law-abiding citizens somehow had a "right to own shotguns or rifles," adding:
There should be no right to possess a firearm of any sort in 20th Century New York City, and unless good and sufficient reason is shown by an applicant, permission to possess a gun should not be granted.2
Fast forward to 1991 when the New York City Council, at the urging of Mayor David N. Dinkins, passed, and the Mayor signed into law3, an out-and-out prohibition on the private possession of certain semi-automatic rifles and shotguns... namely, various imitation or look-alike "assault" firearms. The ban was flat in the sense that it applied regardless of reason or need for the firearm... and it was passed despite then-Police Commissioner Lee Brown's testimony that no "assault weapon" registered with the Firearms Control Bureau had been used in a violent crime in New York City. Mayor Dinkins' response to that bit of information was that he wanted "to send a message."
New York City firearms owners' message back to Dinkins was the chant "We complied, you lied!" Then they made sure he was a one-term mayor.
The year following the enactment of the prohibition, a man's home in Staten Island was raided by the police after he had announced that he would not comply with the city's ban. He was arrested, his guns were seized, and a New York City Police Department spokesman rationalized its actions against the citizen by citing his defiance as proof that he was unfit to possess firearms, telling The New York Daily News:
...obviously, someone like that shouldn't be allowed to have guns!
NYPD had notified some (but, inexplicably, not all!) of the 2,340 New Yorkers who had been licensed earlier to possess semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that any of those licensed firearms that were covered by the ban had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable or physically removed from the city. The recipients of the notification were directed to send back a sworn statement indicating what had been done with those firearms.
The department subsequently announced that the majority... 2,615 out of 3,360... of these previously-registered faux "assault firearms" had been taken out of the city. In addition, Jeremy Travis, NYPD's Deputy Commissioner of Legal Matters, told The Daily News:
...for now, the department is taking owners at their word, but spot checks are planned.
This once unthinkable situation in New York City demonstrates that those who had opposed the concept of registration back in 1967, and were dismissed as "paranoid," were not only not paranoid but were remarkably prescient. (Still not concerned? Watch what's happening right now in California!) For New York City's sad scenario vividly exemplifies the nationwide plan of the gun-grabbers to destroy the civil right and liberty, guaranteed by the Second Amendment, to keep and bear arms... not to mention other provisions of the Constitution.
This plan should now be apparent to all but the most easily gulled:
Initial Step, enact a nationwide firearms waiting period law.
Second Step, when the waiting period doesn't reduce crime, then enact a national registration law.
Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms.
"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe," then U.S. Senator-elect Dianne Feinstein told the Associated Press on 18 November 1993.
The California Democrat is still in the Senate, and she hasn't changed her mind one iota.
With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects.
