A Little Bit Of History To Think About
 |
From over the transom:
December 29, 2012 marked the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection.” The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry’s death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation.” And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.
Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.
Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting.” The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.
As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty.” Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection.” The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety.” Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety.”
Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute. — Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.
Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders….but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they no longer pose a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened.” Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was — confiscation of firearms from the people.
Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.
This was posted as received in its entirety even though I don’t know who wrote it. If its yours and you want credit and a link let me know.
.
.
Leave a Reply
"A Little Bit Of History To Think About"
January 15th, 2013 at 12:34 pm
[...] http://www.commonsensejunction.com/?p=21553 [...]
January 15th, 2013 at 6:26 pm
[...] of modern assault weapons. An example is an article that evidently first appeared at the “Common Sense Junction Political Blog” on 14 January 2013 and has been re-blogged several times on right-wing extremist [...]
January 15th, 2013 at 7:05 pm
Roxanne Marie 01/10/13:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151382653701278&set=a.51212001277.86317.568266277&type=1&relevant_count=1
January 31st, 2013 at 12:09 am
The blogger, like some others, intentionally and wrongly,suggests that any measure of gun control implies an intention to remove from all people the right to bear arms. It does not. The intention is to remove the right to bear certain excessively and unnecessarily powerful weapons. in particular, semi automatic weapons and large magazines:also to remove from certain limited classes of people,e.g criminals and the mentally disturbed, the right to bear arms that they cannot be relied upon to use in a reasonable fashion. The Supreme Court has stated that the right to bear arms must be exercised with due regard to other rights ( to begin with one might suggest life liberty and the pursuit of happiness). And to suggest that arms are needed to resist a duly elected US Government comes close to treason, besides being ludicrously impractical.
January 31st, 2013 at 4:49 pm
The commenter, like ALL leftwing wack jobs, assumes that those reading his comments are as dumb as he wants us to be. The right to keep and bear arms was not put in the Bill of Rights to permit citizens to hunt. It was put there to keep people like him from taking away our liberty. To suggest that the National Guard, other military units and police should have EXCLUSIVE rights to possess the best firearms is the braying of a jackass.
February 1st, 2013 at 1:52 pm
Do you really want to be capable of an arms race with a future US Government? Do you think that such a hypothetical conflict could be settled by assault rifles ?Have you no confidence that the electoral system in the US, which has a good claim to be the the most democratic system in the world, can avoid a future tyrannical government? Are you really prepared to adduce fanciful hypotheses to justify the risk of the very real massacres of schoolchildren that have taken place?
If so, ask yourself who is the jackass.
February 1st, 2013 at 6:04 pm
Trevor: If you have no fear of government, ANY and ALL governments, you are revealing who’s the jackass and there’s no room for reasoning with your kind of blind liberalism.
February 1st, 2013 at 8:23 pm
Least of all governments would I fear the US Government. There would have to be a great deal of such fear to justify the massacre of schoolchildren on the scale which has happened in the past few years, when this can be avoided by banning assault rifles and large magazines and licensing guns and owners in the same way that we treat automobiles and their owners.
If you seriously think that armed resistance to the US Government is practical and must be planned for at such a cost in children’s lives then there is nothing more to be said. I rest my case.
Have a good day
February 1st, 2013 at 10:12 pm
Trevor: You have no case. All you’re doing is echoing the nonsense your control freak idols have scripted for you. The most threatened liberty on earth is right here in what used to be a free country.
Ask an old timer in China, Cuba, Venezuela, Chile or any other disarmed population how they feel about the firearm debate in the good ol’ USA. They now have no liberty except that granted by the governments they didn’t fear.
It’s amazing to me how people like you can so easily dismiss reality. Chicago is a virtual “gun free” zone yet the city had twice as many murders by firearms in January, 2013, as they had in Newtown. Yet nobody seems to give a crap that young black and Hispanic males in Chitown seem to be wiping each other out.
Tell me again how single-fire guns, small magazines and a disarmed staff would stop murders in schools. Furthermore, only a lunatic like Obama and his ilk would shout “take their guns” from behind a highly armed company of Secret Service agents while another armed group watches over his kids at their school. …. Absolute insanity!
February 1st, 2013 at 11:45 pm
Frank You do not answer any one of my questions. Now, on one final comment I will answer yours about how the banning of assault rifles and control of ammunition would lessen the risk of mass shootings in schools ( or, for that matter,cinemas or any other gathering place you can think of):
1. the number of potential murderers with firearms would be reduced enormously by a system of licenses to own firearms; the grant of such licenses would be subject to thorough preliminary inquiry in each case and subject to regular renewal and potential withdrawal at any time, similar to the way in which vehicles and drivers are now licensed.
.
2. the fire power available to the rare ny perpetrator who managed to slip through the licensing net would be limited and they would do less harm before they could be overpowered;
3. Such a system already works very well in England, Germany and many other countries. Please see also the following comments from a relative of mine in Australia
“I’d like to put Victoria, Australia’s gun laws up as an example of a workable system. Sure, they most certainly are not perfect. They need work, but any law system is essentially a continual work in progress. After the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were killed by a maniac wielding a semiautomatic rifle with a high capacity magazine, all the states met and uniformly across Australia banned the use and possession of any sort of semiautomatic firearm (automatics were already illegal). An amnesty was put in place where anyone could hand in weapons, no questions asked. 1 million guns, both semi-auto and bolt-action were surrendered. People were compensated a fair market price for any surrendered firearm. Since then, not a single mass killing has occurred in Australia. I own a high powered rifle. I am required to prove ‘genuine reason’ for the privilege (not the ‘right’) of holding a firearms license and owning a gun. Genuine reason for me is Deer and feral pest animal hunting, and for this I am required to hold separate permits beyond the firearms license. I am required to keep the firearm locked in a safe with the ammunition locked in a separate box. I need to show my license every time I buy ammunition, even at the gun shop where they know me and I always buy my stuff. I agree with all these requirements.”
February 3rd, 2013 at 11:22 am
Trevor: My apologies; I assumed you to be a native born citizen that understands the U.S. government, how it works and how it was formed. I see you don’t know squat about the American system. You gave yourself away with the ignorant remark that “to keep and bear arms” is a privilege, not a right. Au contraire! In the U.S. it’s an unalienable RIGHT that all citizens may have guns. Look it up. It’s pretty clear in the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution. While you’re there, look at Article V, another pretty clear piece of writing that explains how to change the Constitution if advocates for gun control want new rules of ownership.
Because you’re not enlightened enough to have this debate, I’m terminating my end with this post. The following excerpts and links can help correct your inability to comprehend the difference between liberty and bondage. The excerpts are from Wikipedia but I remember the stories well and Wikipedia has the essential parts correct.
Here’s what happens (as in Aurora, CO) when the good guys are disarmed.
One survivor of Luby’s, Suzanna Gratia Hupp, had a permit to carry a concealed weapon but had complied with the restaurant’s rule. She left her gun in her vehicle and had to watch helplessly as the gunman deliberately executed her mother and father. Later she appeared before a Senate committee that was suffering a knee-jerk reaction to make a law to tightly control guns. She summarily condemmed the committee. Among the things she said was:
Suzanna Hupp later served in the Texas Legislature for ten years from 1997-2007 and has also written a book: From Luby’s to the Legislature: One Woman’s Fight Against Gun Control
February 3rd, 2013 at 1:04 pm
Frank
If you read my post with due diligence you will see that I am not an Australian. The husband of a second cousin of mine happens to live there and his talk of privilege was his view of the position there. I think he is mistaken in this since there is a common law right to bear arms that dates from the English “Assize of Arms” of 1128.
You do not seem to understand that what we are talking about is the REGULATION of that right not its rejection. The second amendment covers the right to bear arms of ” a well regulated militia”.I regard a militia as a military unit, but even if one person can be assumed to be a militia the need for regulation remains. Australia just gives one example of reasonable regulation.
February 3rd, 2013 at 2:30 pm
There you go again. If you’re a natural born American you ought to sue your school teachers. They left you knowing less about the Constitution and American history than most immigrants.
You asserted that the RIGHT to bear arms is just a privilege. Now you completely misquote the 2nd Amendment by switching the words around. The 2nd Amendment clearly applies to individuals. If it applied only to a military unit, why wouldn’t Congress simply outlaw guns? You know, like they do drugs. BTW: How’s that working for you?
Actually, if you’ve been paying attention, Washington D.C. tried that nonsense but SCOTUS said they can’t outlaw guns. Now Chicago is trying to show the consequences of mass stupidity in government. The results so far are streets that are completely out of control. 50+ murders in January alone.
You keep harping that you’re talking ONLY about regulating firearms and accessories but your verbiage is clear. Like Obama, Feinstein, et al, you’re advocating the removal of guns from the population except for a few select individuals that your ilk approves. I wonder…Would you so easily and callously regulate speech? How about the other 8 Amendments? Are they just there for filler?
You know well, that the real way to protect children in schools is to provide them the same protection they get out on public streets. That means armed police and that also means allowing teachers and staff (that so choose) to pact heat just like airline pilots are allowed to do. Any other approach is asinine.
February 4th, 2013 at 12:05 am
Given the totally disproportionate volume of firearm deaths in the USA as compared to the rest of the world, I remain convinced that your objections to the better REGULATION ( NOT total elimination) of personal firearms are not soundly based.
If, beyond the scenarios below, you can conceive a practical reason for individual ownership in the USA of semi or fully automatic weapons and large magazines, I should be interested to see them:
To confront another individual armed with a similar weapons (A reasonably effective ban on such weapons would minimize the risks to third parties, particularly children);
To oppose the forces of a foreign power on US Territory (unrealistic , since US military power exceeds that of all other nations of the world combined);
To confront a duly elected US Government (inconceivable, since the ethics of US electoral system are amongst the highest in the world, and likely to remain s:moreover, in view of the military strength described above, individual ownership of unbanned weapons could hardly be a decisive factor).
The drafters of the Second Amendment in 1791 cannot have foreseen the bolt action rifle (1824) and the machine gun (1861), much less today’s developments in weapon technology. We need to look forward, not back. If you think that action to a halt to massacres, such as the recent one in Connecticut, must depend on addition to the stock of firearms or an amendment to the Constitution , there is no need for you and me to waste further words.
February 4th, 2013 at 7:44 am
You are stuffed full of PURE liberal (Progressive, Obama, Feinstein, etc,) socialist BULLSHIT. Nobody, I mean nobody, with half a brain actually believes that the US government is not a threat to personal liberty.
Furthermore, anybody that says we can solve firearm abuses by “outlawing” guns has to believe The People are morons. The government tried to outlaw alcoholic beverages (remember Amendment XVIII ?) and look what happened to that stupid notion. Then they outlawed cocaine, heroin, meth, etc., and look what happened with that dumb idea.
Under your nonsensical concept of a little “regulation” we would only deny weapons to those our gummit decides are not worthy to own guns. Do you mean “a little regulation” like we see in this not-so-far-out video?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWucDHAphQ8
And BTW: I’ll bet that ten years ago you would’ve said that the UK government couldn’t take common liberties and privacy away from it’s citizens. Well, look what’s happened there now:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2272166/Big-brother-log-drinking-habits-waist-size.html#axzz2JhXYhdJ3
For your convenience, here’s the headline:
“Big brother to log your drinking habits and waist size as GPs are forced to hand over confidential records” — “Big brother” means the UK’s National Health Service and the general population has no way to push back.
In your vision for a little “regulation” in the USA, the White House just issued a catalog of forbidden foods that cannot be served at schools or allowed on campus. So while you talk about how safe we are from our own government, that government is in the process to incrementally taking control of our eating choices. Remember the little “regulation” that control freak Bloomberg just implemented in NYC: limits on the size of soda pop containers so the government can control waist sizes.
I could go on and on but arguing about liberty with an autocrat reminds me of the quote I just added to my sidebar: “Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him — better take a closer look at the American Indian. — Henry Ford”
February 5th, 2013 at 12:38 am
Thank you making clear the extent of your concern for logic and the preservation of human lives, – those of children in particular. Goodbye
February 6th, 2013 at 7:14 am
“Extremism In The Defense Of Liberty Is No Vice.
And Moderation In The Pursuit Of Justice Is No Virtue” . . . .US Senator, Barry Goldwater
February 10th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
A specious statement. Pure oratory Accuracy is what matters. Extremism is always wrong and moderation can be adjusted. The references to vice and virtue serve only to excuse errors.