GUN CONTROL & POLITICAL FREEDOM
The vilification of gun ownership in the United States has been a hot topic for many years, with politicians, lobbyists and the mainstream media all hell-bent on convincing Americans of the pressing need to surrender their Second Amendment constitutional rights to “keep and bear arms”.
No expense has been spared in this regard, with false flag events, crisis actors and the media machine churning out propaganda in order to sell to the public the disarmament narrative.
Former New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern became the darling of these disarmament propagandists in the United States in 2019, after the New Zealand government announced the prohibition of most semi-automatic and high-powered firearms in the days after the Christchurch mosque tragedy.
Under the government’s gun buy-back scheme, lawful gun owners were given a grace period in which to surrender specific caliber firearms. Those found to still be in possession of these prohibited firearms after the scheme would face penalties of up to five years imprisonment.
The budget for this scheme was initially tabled in the realm of $110 million and nearly 50,000 firearms were surrendered on time, although critics of the scheme have suggested that many firearms, including those used by gangs, still remain unaccounted for.
As has become increasingly apparent in recent years, however, the motivations for disarming the population has less to do with improving public safety and more to do with neutralising resistance to the sustained assault on our sovereignty, rights and freedom in general.
In this regard, Jacinda Ardern’s heavy-handed, socialist-style approach to compliance with government edicts, regardless of public opinion – whether it be on the issues of gun ownership, lockdowns or vaccination mandates, was routinely held up by the establishment as a model for the rest of the world to follow.
Indeed, while commenting on the issue of gun ownership in America during an interview with CNN, Jacinda Ardern stated that:
“Australia experienced a massacre and changed its laws. New Zealand has had its experience and changed its laws. To be honest with you, I don’t understand the United States.”
Unlike Australia or New Zealand, however, the United States enjoys constitutional protections which are not so easily done away with as they have been elsewhere in the world.
The United States was founded in the context of self-government and rebellion against tyranny, and in order to protect the longevity of their nation, the Founding Fathers enshrined in the Second Amendment the constitutional declaration that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.
In fact, it is this very statement from the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which upholds all other liberties and which is the greatest obstacle to the globalists and their ambitions for a one-world, totalitarian government. After all, as Mao Zedong, who lead the Chinese Communist Party to power during the Chinese Cultural Revolution, commented in ‘Problems of War and Strategy’:
“Every Communist must grasp the truth, “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.”
In other words, when arming factions with firearms advances the interests of global communism, it is sanctioned, as has been the case with various insurrections and red revolutions throughout history. Those firearms that might be used by counter-revolutionaries, however, are not to be tolerated. It was this very principle that was implemented by Comrade Ardern in 2019, on the eve of her failed coup against the New Zealand people.
In this regard, American historian Caroll Quigley has commented on the status quo that exists between governments and their citizens in his book ‘Tragedy & Hope’. In particular, Quigley has noted that proportionate access to and the ability to use arms, has a direct influence on the people’s ability to assert their political interests.
As Quigley writes:
“In a period of specialist weapons, the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government.”
“But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, a majority can compel a minority to yield, and a majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise.”
It was for this very reason that Fidel Castro began confiscating firearms several years after coming to power in Cuba, despite having previously proclaimed during a rally in Havana in 1960 that:
“This is how democracy works: it gives rifles to farmers, to students, to women, … to the poor, and to every citizen who is ready to defend a just cause.”
In China, gun confiscation by the communists began as provincial regions were brought under control of the Chinese Communist Party. After the regime gained full political control in China, the prohibition on firearms was implemented nationwide. After disarmament, an estimated 45 million Chinese people were killed during Mao’s communist regime.
This theme of genocide is one that has followed closely in tune with civilian disarmament throughout history. Worldwide, an estimated 160 million – 200 million people have been genocided by governments in recent centuries, many of whom were first subjected to disarmament.
Of particular note is that during the Turkish Armenian genocide, in which some 1.5 million Christians were genocided by the Ottoman Empire, a firearms registry was first established, which preceded the confiscation of guns, which in turn preceded genocide. Those who refused to comply with firearms registration or confiscation at least stood a fighting chance, while others did not.
Given that history seldom repeats but often rhymes, it should come as no surprise that the vaccination genocide, like so many other atrocities before it, was foreshadowed by restrictions on gun ownership, freedom of speech and other liberties that empower the people, in order to tip the balance of power in favour of tyrannical government.
In reality, no legitimate government has any lawful right to deny the people the privilege of bearing arms and enjoying the full and unrestricted benefits, as well as the responsibilities associated with freedom. The only so-called authority that desires to restrict the power of self-determination of the people is one that does not serve the interests of the people.
During the birth of the United States as a nation, Switzerland was a significant inspiration for the Founding Fathers. The Swiss model of a militia of ordinary citizens who were trained and armed to defend their country, rather than a standing army, served as inspiration for the “well regulated Militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Today, the Swiss enjoy a healthy culture of participation in gun ownership, competitive and community-oriented sport-shooting, as well as bearing the responsibilities of defending the nation if required. Interestingly, Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of gun crime in the world, despite the proliferation of firearms. And it goes without saying, that a well-armed population also enjoys many political privileges, such as principles associated with direct democracy.
At many times throughout history, various peoples have lived in freedom, while bearing the burden of self-government and self-defence upon their own shoulders. So long as the spectre of totalitarianism continues to linger in the world, however, the issue of reestablishing the status quo in favour of the people by reducing gun control, will continue to be vilified by those who want to suppress our freedom.
For more original content from our team of NZ writers, click here:
Please pass all Counterspin articles on to those you think would appreciate them but will not come to them without your assistance. We are creating the new world, and it begins with honest human interaction and the sharing of ideas.