From the Western Rifle Shooters Association website.
Bracken: Democide
Spread this latest work by Matt Bracken and friends far and wide, especially the video:
Democide: Socialism, Tyranny, Guns and Freedom
Democide is the elimination of a despised group by a government. It includes genocide, politicide, and other forms of state-sponsored mass murder. The hated minority headed for extermination may be defined by religious, racial, political, class, cultural or other attributes. Between 200 and 260 million people were the victims of democide in the 20th century, several times more than were killed in international wars during that period.
The first widely studied modern democide occurred in Turkey between 1915 and 1923, when the Turkish government decided to eliminate the country’s Christian minority, primarily ethnic Armenians and Greeks who had Turkish roots extending back to before the Islamic conquest. Two million Christians were murdered on forced marches into deserts without water or food. This democide occurred in view of Western reporters, who took photographs and posted contemporary wire reports. The fact that the democide was known outside Turkey did not deter the Turkish leaders.
The Armenian Genocide, as it has become known, was also widely known inside Turkey, where the majority Muslim population either supported or at least passively tolerated the democide. It was impossible to miss the sight of thousands of Christians at a time being rounded up and force-marched through towns and into the burning deserts on one-way trips.
Stalin and Hitler both noticed the lack of world reaction to the democide of Turkish Christians and planned accordingly. In the Soviet Union, Stalin’s henchmen purged millions of “kulaks” (farmers deemed to have too much wealth), intellectuals, businessmen, and anyone who had ever traveled outside the USSR or even had had contact with foreigners.
In Germany and Nazi-occupied Europe, Hitler proceeded with his own “final solution to the Jewish problem.” Where the German national socialists simply eliminated Jews as quickly as possible in mass graves and gas chambers, Stalin’s international socialists deported their “class enemies” to Siberia, where they were put to work in Gulag slave-labor camps, with years of torture through cold, malnutrition and brutal working conditions preceding the release of eventual death.
Stalin also devised another means of democide when he ordered the forced starvation of the Ukrainians, and five million more innocent victims were added to his totals. In Communist China seventy million people were the victims of democide, murdered by overwork in slave-labor camps, by direct execution, and by regional forced starvation. Millions more were victims of democide in Pakistan, Cambodia, Rwanda, North Korea, and many other countries.
Democide, as the name implies, does not happen in the dark of night without any awareness of it in the country where it occurs. The Turks knew the Christians were being mass murdered. Average Germans were fully aware of what was happening to the Jews between 1938 and 1945, and a large majority either actively supported or at least tolerated it. (I strongly recommend reading Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, by Daniel Goldhagen, to fully appreciate the wholehearted German support for the Jewish democide.)
Today, we sometimes hear that the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness, that it is a relic of our barbaric past and is no longer needed in the modern era. Horrific mass shootings by deranged individuals are cited as the primary reason for Americans to surrender their most effective firearms and rely solely on a state monopoly of force for their protection. This government-dependent attitude is shortsighted, historically ignorant, and extremely dangerous.
In each of the cases cited above, a necessary preliminary step on the road to democide was the confiscation of privately owned firearms. In Turkey, “reasonable” gun control laws enacted in 1911 permitted the democide of two million Turkish Christians a few years later. In Germany, the “commonsense” 1928 gun control laws of the Weimar Republic preceded Hitler’s Holocaust by a decade.
The Weimar politicians did not intend for their gun control laws to lead to the slaughter of millions of people, but it is an historical fact that those gun control laws permitted the Nazis to carry out their Holocaust. How? By making it economically and militarily feasible to round up and mass murder entire towns without any significant resistance.
In fact, the Nazis quickly learned that they needed only a hundred ordinary military policemen to exterminate towns of a thousand Polish Jews in a single day. Contrast that fact with the Warsaw Ghetto uprising. If the Jews had not first been disarmed, using previous gun registration lists as a map for confiscation, the Holocaust would not have been possible.
Likewise in the Soviet Union and in every other case, democide was preceded by “reasonable and commonsense” firearms registration, followed eventually by gun confiscation and then by the extermination of a despised minority population.
During the past two centuries, while America has avoided tyranny, Turkey, Germany, Russia and the other nations mentioned above have spasmodically lurched between monarchs, democratically elected leaders, and often quite popular dictators, allowing them frequent opportunities to commit democide against their unwanted minorities.
The situation is fundamentally different in America, because we have a centuries-old tradition of private firearms ownership guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The Second Amendment does not “grant” us this right; it puts into writing our God-given natural right to effective self-defense, including armed defense against tyranny.
“Pure democracy” has been described as two wolves and a sheep voting on their dinner plans. The two wolves might see this election as an expression of their highest democratic values, but for the outnumbered sheep, pure democracy is highly problematic. On the other hand, a republic has been described as two wolves and a well-armed sheep voting on dinner plans. The well-armed sheep can veto the outcome of the dinner election simply by brandishing its firearm. The sheep has inherent rights as a sovereign individual, including the right to self-defense, a right that cannot be stripped away by a simple majority vote.
So, when a democratically elected American president speaks of “fundamentally transforming” his country, and of his need to act outside the constitutional framework, the population should be on guard. When that leader begins to push for strict new “commonsense and reasonable” gun control laws, including national firearms registration in the name of “public safety,” the citizenry should be on high alert.
Can any glib politician, pundit or ivory tower academic give us an ironclad guarantee that tyranny will never arise in the United States? Not even a popular tyranny, like those of Ataturk, Stalin, Hitler or Mao? Can anyone assure us that today’s “commonsense” gun registration lists will not be used for future gun confiscation? Of course not.
The future may be unknowable, but history is well understood, and American gun owners know and understand the history of democide in the 20th century. That is why they will never accede to what is currently portrayed in the predominantly left-wing mainstream media as “commonsense and reasonable” new gun control laws.
While American gun owners lament and regret the inescapable fact that deranged individuals in a free country may on rare occasions murder a dozen or a score of unarmed victims, they also understand that government democide murders by the million. And in every case, tyrants can conduct these democides only after disarming their unwanted minorities, rendering them helpless to resist murderous government pogroms.
American gun owners will never permit this historical pattern to be repeated in their country, because they understand that the government’s heavy hand will be kept in check only as long as they are armed. Ask yourself: Were the Armenians, the Jews or the kulaks treated better, or worse, after they were disarmed and rendered helpless by their oppressors, who thereafter held an absolute government monopoly on armed violence? The answer is too obvious to require elaboration.
Naive utopians and other “low-information voters” might not understand the historical pattern, and we don’t expect them to bother to learn it. Cynical and dishonest “progressives” who do understand the historical pattern cannot yet reveal their ultimate goal of creating a disarmed and helpless American citizenry. Nevertheless, millions of Americans understand their hidden aim with crystal clarity, seeing through the false sincerity of power-hungry leftist politicians who are actually Marxist wolves dressed in Democrat sheep’s clothing—for now.
But unless and until these secret Stalinists and sundry other “progressives” can figure out a way to disarm Americans, they cannot execute their historically standard final solution to the “reactionaries-standing-in-the-way-of-utopia” problem. And this is a thorny problem for them, because tens of millions of Americans, disbelieving their deceitful bromides, will stick to their guns no matter what.
Unlike the Armenians, Jews, kulaks and other exterminated peoples, Americans who support the Second Amendment will never be disarmed quietly by government edict prior to meekly boarding a train to a socialist “reeducation” camp. They will not be taken at government gunpoint on a one-way forced march into a desert or a Zyklon-B “delousing shower,” simply because they foolishly agreed to be disarmed by their future oppressors in the dubious name of “public safety.”
If American “progressives” truly intend to disarm the American people, they will have to do it the hard way, by taking their bullets first, one at a time. As the 300 Spartans announced to the vastly larger Persian army at Thermopylae, “Molon Labe!”
You want our guns? Then come and take them!
No registration—no confiscation—no extermination!
Freedom now, freedom forever!
Please see the YouTube video of the
beast rudolpho says:
obama is one vote from matt bracken’s scenario. . . .read this for some insight
from globalsecurity.org ->
A Well Regulated Militia
“A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined;
to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite:
And their safety and interest require that they should
promote such manufactories, as tend to render them
independent on others, for essential,
particularly for military supplies.”
—George Washington
First Annual Message to Congress (January 8, 1790)
The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded in 1630. Over 5,000 men, women, and children made the two-month voyage to the New World, leaving the relative comfort and safety of England behind in an effort to break free of religious intolerance, and to manage their communities the way they saw fit. In doing so, their actions tread new ground in the country that would become the United States of America. On13 December 13, 1636, the Massachusetts General Court in Salem, for the first time in the history of the North American continent, established that all able-bodied men between the ages of 16 and 60 were required to join the militia. The North, South, and East Regiments were established with this order. The decree excluded ministers and judges. Simply stated, citizen-soldiers who mustered for military training could be and would be called upon to fight when needed.
Self-sufficiency proved instrumental. In a new land, hiring mercenary fighters in the European tradition to ward off Indian attacks would be impossible. For one thing, the colonists had no money. Other foreign interests in the New World such as the French or Spanish, even if they were available for defensive purposes, did not share English views on religion and political matters. They would have seriously undermined the stability of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Governing and policing the settlement would have to be left to the colonists themselves. Therefore, the militia system of self-defense brought from England had the best chance of succeeding for the colonists. Soon after the establishment of the militia in Massachusetts, the entire New England region defended itself against the aggression of the Pequot nation. Other colonies such as Connecticut and Rhode Island mustered militia units to fight the Indian tribe, and succeeded in forcing the Pequots to capitulate in 1638. Ultimately, the militia enlisted from the many small villages proved a strong component in building confidence for the settlement as a whole.
During the Revolution the Continental Congress recognized the importance of having a body of men to reinforce the Continental, or Regular, Army and on July 18, 1775, recommended “that all able-bodied, effective men, between 16 and 50 years of age be formed into companies of militia.” They could be called out only with the consent of the State legislatures.
The Constitutional Convention open on 25 May 1787, at a time when informed opinion identified three threats to national security: civil insurrections like the one that had occurred in western Massachusetts during the previous year, Indian attacks aided and abetted by the British on the frontier, and, more remotely, invasion by European powers. The delegates in Philadelphia set about providing the new national government with means to face these three possible threats. The delegates had to consider two different approaches to the development of military forces. One, reflecting the experiences of the Continental Army, held that the nation needed a trained, full-time military force capable of defeating an organized enemy on the battlefield; the other emphasized the traditional role of the citizen-soldier militiaman defending his home and region during short-lived emergencies. Seeking as broad a consensus as possible, the Convention chose to employ elements of both. Even Elbridge Gerry, probably the most extreme anticentralist in attendance, did not object to the premise that the central government could establish a small peacetime military force. On 18 August 1787 the discussion shifted to the “Militia Clause” a much more emotional issue. In its totality, the Convention arrived at a very important set of decisions concerning military matters with relatively little disagreement. While the national government might employ the militia for the common defense, that authority was checked by the states, which retained authority to appoint their militia officers and to supervise the peacetime training of citizen-soldiers.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution contains a series of “militia clauses,” vesting distinct authority and responsibilities in the federal government and the state governments. Article I, Section 8; Clause 15 provides that the Congress has three constitutional grounds for calling up the militia — “to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasions.” All three standards appear to be applicable only to the Territory of the United States. Article I, Section 8; Clause 16 gives Congress the power “to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.” That same clause specifically reserves to the States the authority to establish a state-based militia, to appoint the officers and to train the militia according to the discipline prescribed by the Congress. As written, the clause seeks to limit federal power over State militias during peacetime.
A majority decided on 28 September 1787 to forward it to the states for ratification. The opponents, who came to be called the Antifederalists, tended to be inherently suspicious of any concentration of power. They feared a stronger national government because it was further removed from the people than the state governments and because of the potential they saw for abuse of power. Following the same logic, the Antifederalists also opposed the creation of a peacetime army and sought to limit the nation’s military to the existing state-controlled militias. Their arguments were couched in terms used a century earlier in England against the Stuarts and in the American Revolutionary era against Parliament. The last two states to ratify followed much later. North Carolina approved on 21 November 1789 after the First Congress had already introduced a bill of rights. Rhode Island, finally accepted the federal system on 29 May 1790.
Article I, Section 10 provides that no state, without the consent of the Congress, shall keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, or engage in war unless actually invaded. Be sure to see the Second Amendment for more about this. The first 10 Amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment qualified Article I, Section 10 by ensuring that the federal government could not disarm the state militias. One part of the Bill of Rights, insisted on by the anti-federalists, states, “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Second Amendment reference was quite specific: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Eighteenth-century Americans understood the precise meaning of those few words and tied them directly to the basic militia clause in Article I of the Constitution. Creating a “well regulated” militia – that is, one with adequate organization, weapons, and training, uniform across the nation – ensured that, when mobilized, the militiamen could effectively carry out combat functions. This point had been fully articulated during the drafting of Article I. Mason and other advocates of the Second Amendment knew that during the last years of the Revolution many militia units had virtually disintegrated because they lacked sufficient arms. The amendment reinforced the original militia clause by stating this fact explicitly.
The Militia Act of 08 May 1792 expanded federal policy and clarified the role of the militia. It required all able bodied men aged 18 to 45 to serve, to be armed, to be equipped at their own expense and to participate in annual musters. The 1792 act established the idea of organizing these militia forces into standard divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions and companies, as directed by the State legislatures. In those earlier days reliance for national defense was placed on the citizen soldier but without adequate provision being made for his training or equipment.
The Militia Act of 1792 attempted to give additional clarification to the requirements and expectations of the militia: “to enroll …every freeable-bodied white male citizen … and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service,except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appearwithout a knapsack…”
Elbridge Gerry’s fear of militia neglect came to fruition within a generation at the outset of the War of 1812 when the various state militias performed in a manner ranging from ill-disciplined and near mutinous to well organized and heroic. Andrew Jackson’s victory over the British at New Orleans on January 8, 1815 confirmed what Americans wanted to believe, namely, that the nation could draw together a fighting force at the moment of need, not before, without elaborate and expensive pre-planning of a regular army and dependant upon the citizen soldier.
For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. Concern over the militia’s new domestic role also led the States to reexamine their need for a well-equipped and trained militia, and between 1881 and 1892, every state revised the military code to provide for an organized force. Most changed the name of their militias to the National Guard, following New York’s example. The Dick Act of 1903 replaced the 1792 Militia Act and affirmed the National Guard as the Army’s primary organized reserve. The Dick Act, 1903 affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force. Between 1903 and the 1920′s, legislation was enacted that strengthened the Army National Guard as a component of the national defense force.
The US Supreme Court decided [5 to 4] June 26, 2008 in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms … The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people inorder to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standingarmy or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congresspower to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved…”
Heller was wrongly decided. Writing in dissent, Justice Stevens said that “The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution…
“In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act,the first major federal firearms law. Sustaining an indictment under the Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller — that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons — is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption.
No new evidence has surfaced …. supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to curtail the power of Congress to regulate civilian use or misuse of weapons. Indeed, a review of the drafting history of the Amendment demonstrates that its Framers rejected proposals that would have broadened its coverage to include such uses.”
b.r.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
21st February 2013 at 9:25 am
Hollow man says:
All the writing, talking and attempts to garner support ware well and fine. But, i think, you and I know that the writing is on the wall. We have corupt finical system, leadership, and people in general. One retirement from the supremes ends gun ownership. The leaders select the the freedom robbing judge while buying off the populace should end gun ownership and what little freedom we have left. As the system continues to collapse a group will be selected and demonized to the point of imprisionment and death. That focus will givethe usefull idiots something to do as they themselves are lined up aginst the wall to be shot. We are headed down a road traveled buy other countries now it is our turn. I am thankfull that I did get to see and do the things a hard working fairly free and moral society can accomplish. Now it is time to pay the piper for being lazy and self centered amoral society.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
15 
2
21st February 2013 at 9:53 am
BUCKHED says:
Although many will rebuke populations that passively watch as fellow citizens are slaughtered…it is hard to stop the genocide when you are unarmed .
This quote is what I will always remember when TSHTF .
“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”
― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
1
21st February 2013 at 12:23 pm
Nomad says:
I can see them coming, they took my great grandpas flag and their using it as their own
They took away my daddy’s guns and left me throwing stones.
There’s men that say I owe them something but for what I can not tell
They say my folks took it all and gave my sole to sell
I think those men are lying, one more step and i’ll send them straight to hell.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
21st February 2013 at 1:03 pm
Hope@ZeroKelvin says:
I have tried to pass this along to everybody I know as soon as this came out as well as one of Bracken’s earlier essays.
90% of people even here in Texas just cannot believe that their fed.gov would EVER act in this way. No matter what they might think about gun registration.
Yet this is a fed.gov that has: Committed genocide against the Native Americans, interned and confiscated the property of Japanese Americans in WW2, murdered US CITIZENS at Waco & Ruby Ridge, smuggled arms inIran/Contra, loss of habeous corpus/due process in NDACC, kileed 120 children in Obama’s Drone Wars, killed hundreds of dead Mexicans and 1 US Border Agent in Fast & Furious,……..yada yada yada yada.
I just get a “deer in the headlights” look, the same look that Jews had when they were being loaded into the cattle cars I’m sure…….
Normalcy Bias is the strongest force in the universe. We. Are. Doomed.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
7 
0
21st February 2013 at 3:53 pm
BiggTmofo says:
In lead we trust. Two very good points raised about the view of the second amendment and the situation in other countries. As I recall in history that here in the USA the crimes against the Japanese, Indians and others here and abroad were in the news. Anyhow there is no debate that the second amendment puts the teeth in the the bill of rights. Also most state constitutions especially 39 out of fifty have a clause to have firearms for self defence.
Here is a link from OKCU law school discussing states and firearms. A littler long but worth a read. It’s over thirty years old but it basically state that Justice Stephens is incorrect. We have the right to self defence.
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowrkba.html
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
21st February 2013 at 8:08 pm
AWD says:
“killed hundreds of dead Mexicans”
That’s a pretty amazing feet, even for dumbshit government thugs.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
21st February 2013 at 8:15 pm