Anyone Remember this Mass Shooting???

[KDM]

I HATE cut and paste and I make no guarantees about the accuracy of the numbers, but this is part of the history of govt. gun control in this nation. What will prevent this from being repeated?? Being armed and able to defend myself and my family jumps to mind. Promises that "For your own safety and protection we demand you surrender your guns as we will take care of you" don't quite fill me with confidence.

The Wounded Knee Massacre occurred on December 29, 1890,[SUP][5][/SUP] near Wounded Knee Creek (Lakota: Čhaŋkpé Ópi Wakpála) on the Lakota Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in the U.S. state of South Dakota.
The previous day, a detachment of the U.S. 7th Cavalry Regiment commanded by Major Samuel M. Whitside intercepted Spotted Elk's band of Miniconjou Lakota and 38 Hunkpapa Lakota near Porcupine Butte and escorted them 5 miles (8.0 km) westward to Wounded Knee Creek, where they made camp. The remainder of the 7th Cavalry Regiment, led by Colonel James W. Forsyth, arrived and surrounded the encampment. The regiment was supported by a battery of four Hotchkiss mountain guns.[SUP][6][/SUP]
On the morning of December 29, the troops went into the camp to disarm the Lakota. One version of events claims that during the process of disarming the Lakota, a deaf tribesman named Black Coyote was reluctant to give up his rifle, claiming he had paid a lot for it.[SUP][7][/SUP] A scuffle over the rifle escalated, and a shot was fired which resulted in the 7th Cavalry opening fire indiscriminately from all sides, killing men, women, and children, as well as some of their fellow soldiers. The Lakota warriors who still had weapons began shooting back at the attacking soldiers, who quickly suppressed the Lakota fire. The surviving Lakota fled, but cavalrymen pursued and killed many who were unarmed.
By the time it was over, more than 150 men, women, and children of the Lakota had been killed and 51 were wounded (4 men and 47 women and children, some of whom died later); some estimates placed the number of dead at 300.[SUP][8][/SUP] Twenty-five soldiers also died, and 39 were wounded (6 of the wounded later died).[SUP][9][/SUP] At least twenty soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.[SUP][10][/SUP] In 2001, the National Congress of American Indians passed two resolutions condemning the awards and called on the U.S. government to rescind them.[SUP][11][/SUP] The site of the battlefield has been designated a National Historic Landmark.[SUP][5]

Keep in mind this action was a federally backed operation with the expressed purpose of disarming these people.[/SUP]

 

[Zogman]

Yup, it happened. And now the BLM is being armed. Why???

 

[Sum1]

Because Obamas enemy is the white Christian. Its not longer Bush's fault its white peoples fault.

 

[Enslow]

except drones will come instead of people.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

I am familiar with Wounded Knee but did not know 20 soldiers were awarded the Medal of Honor.

The old cliche rings true........to the victors go the spoils. The winners get to write the history.

 

[lunkerslayer]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution because during that time in history it was illegal for colonists to possess firearms. The Indians who were killed at wounded knee would be considered terrorists who harassed homesteaders who were traveling to lands that was purchased by the US. The woman, children, and old people protected and supported Indian war parties which led to the slaughter of Custer and the 7 th calvary at little big horn. You don't kill a civil war hero and think the government is going to play nice which led to the tragic outcome at wounded knee.KDM I see were you were going with your analogy but under these circumstances the Indians would have been treated as people who would be harboring terrorist against the US. The real comparison would be closer to the American Revolution were we fought to gain out independence from a country on the other side of the world. The only true and correct way is to vote for congressman and speak out against those who want to infringe on our right protected by the Constitution.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

Lunk,

Sometimes you surprise the heck out of me. That was a very spot on post.

Trump is in the news again. He said someone in that Orlando night club should have had a gun concealed on their hip or their ankle and then shot that son-of-a-bitch. He made a finger hand gun gesture and said boom and then pointed it between his own eyes and again said boom right between the eyes. And said that would have been a beautiful thing.

...I don't know...there are so many ways this could have been said. Like saying....commonsense concealed carry persons stop or curtail violence everyday. It's unfortunate someone didn't have a gun to stop this terrorist.

Trump has an in your face approach to issues. We'll see how that approach plays out come November. Maybe the people want that in a President?

 

[Enslow]

The other choice is hillary and that is a bad choice. Hillary would strip all of our guns and hunting priveleges and make hunting dogs illegal also. She is a gold plated thundercunt.

 

[gst]

The 2nd amendment was added to the Constitution because during that time in history it was illegal for colonists to possess firearms. The Indians who were killed at wounded knee would be considered terrorists who harassed homesteaders who were traveling to lands that was purchased by the US. The woman, children, and old people protected and supported Indian war parties which led to the slaughter of Custer and the 7 th calvary at little big horn. You don't kill a civil war hero and think the government is going to play nice which led to the tragic outcome at wounded knee.KDM I see were you were going with your analogy but under these circumstances the Indians would have been treated as people who would be harboring terrorist against the US. The real comparison would be closer to the American Revolution were we fought to gain out independence from a country on the other side of the world. The only true and correct way is to vote for congressman and speak out against those who want to infringe on our right protected by the Constitution.

The point I think that is being missed is not in any "comparison" but pointing out the fact of what the govt is capable of reiterating the need for the 2nd amendment.

If we want to paint the Indians as "domestic terrorists" , you could make that argument if you wished to over look the fact a govt wanted lands they were on and they were simply defending what they believed was theirs.

But the fact remains, the govt slaughtered both women and children and elders at Wounded Knee and justified their actions.

We have an example fresh in history of a group of Americans that were labeled "domestic terrorists" because they were defending what they believed was theirs. Should that grant the govt the right to kill the women and children and elders of their families? (and we have a thread to rehash that yet again so no need to do so here)

Should the govt have the power to simply label someone or put someone on a list to determine their right to own a fire arm or be slaughtered?

Look to what happened to the Weinmer Republic in Germany just prior to Hitler taking power and what those actions ultimately led to.

This govt is becoming what we fought a revolution to become free from.

 

[KDM]

You're correct Lunk. The point of my post was NOT to identify with one group or another. My point was to show the process our govt. has historically taken when dealing with people that don't agree with their plans and goals. These people, who disagreed with the govt., were labeled, persecuted, marked and followed, rounded up, disarmed, and then killed. Seems to be the same pattern trying to be followed by our current govt. with law abiding gun owners. First gun owners need to be labeled, then they need to be persecuted and made out to be crazy, dangerous, and less deserving of rights. Sound familiar?? I believe I am following the true and correct path of speaking out against those that want to infringe, take, or simply ignore my rights and that post was part of it.

 

[lunkerslayer]

Jews were 0.75% of the German population when Hitler became chancellor in 1933 (about the same share as Buddhists are in America today) and more than half fled the country before the war began in 1939. Any armed resistance in the run-up the war was met with overwhelming force and exploited by the regime to institute further persecution. Hitler’s propagandists justified Kristallnacht, the deadly anti-Jewish riots encouraged by the Nazis, as a response to the assassination of a German diplomat by a Jewish gunman.
“Basically if you are part of a minority that is being excluded and you do use a gun, this will be presented as an example of your people’s general criminality,” Yale professor Timothy Snyder, who has meticulously chronicled Hitler’s wartime atrocities, said in an e-mail. “The thing to be stopped is the exclusion.”

If Carson’s claim is that enough ordinary Germans would have joined Jews in armed uprising to stop Hitler’s march to war and genocide if they only had the guns, then he’s buying into a dangerous myth that Hitler lacked public support and only maintained power by violently imposing his will on a citizenry that yearned to overthrow him.
This was not the case – Hitler’s widespread popularity among Germans after crushing initial resistance and the German public’s complicity in the Holocaust are among the most chilling aspects of World War II, one that historians have spent decades trying to unravel.

Even putting aside the idea Germans could have somehow thwarted Hitler’s agenda if they were armed, the vast majority of Jews lost to the Nazi’s genocidal regime were not killed in Germany at all, but in Eastern Europe, where Hitler’s prewar gun laws were irrelevant. More than two-thirds of Jews killed in the Holocaust were citizens of Poland (where an estimated 3 million were murdered) or the Soviet Union (1.1 million).

“97% of the victims of the Holocaust were Jews beyond Germany,” Snyder said.

The notion that small arms resistance might have deterred Hitler from carrying out his genocidal agenda is also blatantly at odds with his decision to invade Europe knowing he would face millions of trained soldiers equipped with machine guns, planes, tanks, and artillery.

As the ADL noted in its statement, there were heroic examples of armed Jewish partisans during the war, but they were vastly outnumbered and outgunned by the invading Nazi forces. Ultimately, it was the Soviet Red Army that delivered the fatal blow to Hitler’s forces in the East at the cost of millions of lives.

“When they had weapons, Jews could symbolically resist, as they did in the 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and elsewhere, but they could not stop the Nazi genocide machine,” Greenblatt said. “In short, gun control did not cause the Holocaust; Nazism and anti-Semitism did."

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ben-carson-holocaust-theory-prompts-outcry-jewish-groups

 

[svnmag]

Lunk,

Do you agree with what you just posted?

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWfwBvYqnS8

 

[lunkerslayer]

I do believe it is time for the Jews to stop blaming everyone for allowing the Holocaust. Dr. Carson is right in saying that IF the Jews would of resisted Hitler’s tyranny history could of been different. Who knows for sure what might have been but I do believe that if the US government tries to take my guns I wont be seen as a victim when history is written about that day.

 

[svnmag]

10: I believe
9: They were told to believe that way
8: I believe
7: I believe
6: I don't buy it: Too small a prize
5: I believe
4: I don't know
3: First fixed wing
2: I don't know
1: I don't like the tone. We rescued Europe. The bloodiest battles are always under a Democrat.

- - - Updated - - -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2-Wp7D7BVk

 

[gst]

lunk. you have to understand it takes a populace WILLING to use firearms to strand up against a tyrannt to defeat them.

Indeed Hitler gained popularity and support in the populace by first blaming gypsies for crime and then Jews for the economic problems Germans were experiencing.

He then blamed the socialists and then the communists.

He then used events to expand his power and once gained it took away the possibility of those that saw the mistake to correct it by confiscating all firearms.

Jews as a whole are not blaming other peoples for "allowing" the Holocaust. And your two posts contradict each other. In the first you claim .75% of the population that would have been ineffective in resistance calling it a "myth", and then in your second you claim if they had only stood up it would not have happened.

The simple fact is that gun "control" as in confiscation along with the conditioning of a populace with populous rhetoric and acts allowed a tyrannt to gain control of a govt that was patterned after our own constitutional republic.

You may loudly proclaim on an internet site you will not be a "victim" when the govt comes to take your fire arms, but who here will pull the trigger when the person standing at your door has kids in the same grade same school yours are?

Who here will face being sent to federal prison for having 30 round magazines for their AR?

Who here will stand up to tyranny in ANY matter that will end with them in Federal prison?

The govt is taking private properties and those that finally said enough is enough and did nothing more than state they would exercise their 2nd amendment rights are now in Federal prison and will likely stay there a long time.

People on this site excused the govts actions and branded them "domestic terrorists".

And just as in the days of our Founders, those that were willing to stand up were painted as "domestic terrorists by the govt and a willing populace just as the "rebels" were then and just as those Indians at Wounded knee were as well.

It is easy to talk large on an internet site, it is different to actually chamber a round and make that level of commitment. I would just as soon regain control of our govt before I have to make that choice.

And now the govt is monitoring the internet and trying to take control of it. They know it is the last source of information that can be rapidly spread they do not control.

We in this nation are getting close to the same percentages that existed in Germany to stand up.

Who here in the world will come to our aid?

 

[svnmag]

First step is not turning in material.

 

[Long Range Hunter]

What about the 74 people including women and children slautered in Waco texas