A Historical argument about gun control : Part 1
by: Dr. Samori Swygert
This first installment of a two-part blog will address the historical concerns and implications of guns and what gun legislators routinely dodge.
The gun control debate is a persistent item on the American socio-political agenda. Politicians, activists, lobbyists, and American communities have very legitimate arguments for gun control. Time after time we hear about neighborhoods plagued by gang violence, drug wars, and mass shootings in schools and other social establishments. However, anti-gun advocates tend to miss, overlook, or intentionally disregard alternative perspectives on the issue.
Current proposals
A myriad of gun control proposals are currently being examined. Some want an all-out gun ban. Some want a ban on automatic rifles. Several states want reduced gun magazine capacity. Some advocates push for extensive background checks, and others want mental health screenings. Some states have proposed extended waiting periods before firearm purchases are granted. Some states limit the amount of guns that can be purchased within a certain period of time. Future technologic advances propose biometric activation of firearms in order to fire a gun.
Historically Speaking
Historically speaking, guns have always been the deciding factor in the establishment of history since it was invented. The gun is one of many Pandora boxes on Earth. Since its’ inception, it allowed civilizations to manipulate the course of history by exerting dominance over others by instant deadly force. The following are just a few examples:
How successful would Hitler have been if all Jewish families had equivalent or superior weaponry to his regime, or guns at all? The Jewish and other European groups were systematically disarmed, and left defenseless against Hitler’s tyrannical authoritarian regime.
How successful would the system of slavery in America have been if each African brought to the North American continent was equipped with the same or better firepower of the slave traders and plantation owners?
Let’s even examine the Civil War because we are constantly bombarded with unprovable statements that American citizens have nothing to fear from the government: Within our own country, we had war between the North and South. Cousins were literally fighting their own cousins and family in battle. Why? Let’s make it simple without getting bogged down in historical facts — there was a difference in belief between citizens, and both sides were committed to their ideology and prepared to fight for it. The ability to arm and defend themselves prevented one from easily overpowering the other.
However, the contrast to the Civil War is that the American military utilized the threat of firepower to usurp the land of Native Americans. In 1829, President Andrew Jackson called for the INDIAN REMOVAL ACT. This resulted in the forced, militarized mass exodus of Native Americans off their land, LITERALLY AT GUNPOINT. Yes, lack of adequate, equivalent firepower makes a difference between life and death, slave or free.
We also saw how Cecil Rhodes ( yes the Rhodes scholarship is named after him), went into Africa with the MAXIM GUN THAT FIRES 600 ROUNDS PER MINUTE, and this led to the slaughter of thousands of Africans in the Matabele War of Rhodesia (yes named after him for colonizing). Thanks to Cecil Rhodes and the MAXIM GUN, the exploitation of diamonds occurred and Cecil Rhodes formed Debeer’s Diamonds. Rhodesia is now known as Zimbabwe.
We can also see how the gun was used by King Leopold II of Belgium to take control of the Congo, and exploit the land for its ivory, rubber, diamonds, and other precious resources. It is estimated that 10 million African NATIVES were slaughtered during his invasion and reign.
Stay tuned for part 2
