This lecture by Dave Emory takes a look at a phenomenon that has taken place around the world, and here at home as well in the U.S. and in Canada. The whole issue about gun control appears to be a gimmick conceived by pro-fascist elements of the intelligence community in order to suscitate a reaction against gun control itself, thus creating a tension in the population between partisans of gun control and people who oppose it. If it eventually passes into a law, it has the advantage of disarming the people, rendering them susceptible to surrender to a coup d’état of some kind. In the event of such coup d’état, bunch of thugs belonging to the extreme-right type, such as neo-nazis, would be deputized, i.e. transformed into agents of law and order, such as the Freikorps or Brownshirts were in pre-war nazi Germany. Nazi Germany passed a gun control legislation in 1938, just before the war, so Jews, liberals and dissidents couldn’t defend themselves against these thugs who were sent to round them up. Also, it appears that the gun control legislation that was passed in the U.S. in 1968 copy-pasted to a large extent the German law of 1938.
An argument that is made pretty often to justify gun control is that guns kill people, so by reducing the number of guns and their accessibility, a society then reduces statistics on murders. Well, if you think about it carefully, that’s stupid. A gun by itself has never killed anyone. It is humans who kill. Nothing will ever happen until a human being takes the gun and shoots. Dave Emory brings (at the time of the lecture, in the ’90s) a very important statistic concerning Switzerland. Although the country had a very high proportion of citizens who possessed a weapon, the crime and murder rates were among the lowest in the world. You see? That’s the opposite of what the propaganda says. A disarmed population has a much higher chance of being subject to crime and agression if they can’t defend themselves. Emory goes on to say that everyone in Switzerland had to do some time in the army…and that they brought their weapon with them when they got out of it, with full rounds of amunitions. The concept that is being defended here is that every citizen in Switzerland is considered to be a member of the army and as such, is susceptible to be called to defend the country in case of a coup or agression. According to you, what would happen to bunches of Brownshirts who would try to round up these citizens? They would receive a bullet between the eyes. That’s why everybody keep quiet in that country. In the end, what is important to remember, is the fact that an armed population favor the decrease of the crime rate, not the other way around. I am particularly glad that the Conservative government here in Canada is willing to abolish the long-gun registry. In case of a coup d’état, the population needs to be able to defend themselves.
And in Norway, people there should not let themselves be disturbed, distracted and influenced by the mass-killings that have happened recently. What is important is the well-being of the community in the long run. Being aware that Breivik is probably an agent of these same pro-fascist elements of the intelligence community that Emory describes in this lecture, the population has to keep the focus on what is good for them and not let themselves be carried away by their emotions. Judgement and discernement are always essential.