Gun Control and Genocide
by Gary North <mailto:gary@kbot.com>
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north367.html
Why some Armenian organization has not bought a copy of Adobe Acrobat Pro 7 and scanned in the full volume, with the documents, remains a mystery to me. The book is in the public domain: pre-1923. But Toynbee's summary is online <http://shurl.org/armgenguns> . This section, which appears in Part VI, "The Deportations of 1915: Procedure," is enlightening. Read it carefully. It is the crucial aspect of the entire genocide. The government confiscated their guns.
A decree went forth that all Armenians should be disarmed The Armenians in the Army were drafted out of the fighting ranks, re-formed into special labour battalions, and set to work at throwing up fortifications and constructing roads. The disarming of the civil population was left to the local authorities, and in every administrative centre a reign of terror began. The authorities demanded the production of a definite number of arms. Those who could not produce them were tortured, often in fiendish ways; those who procured them for surrender, by purchase from their Moslem neighbours or by other means, were imprisoned for conspiracy against the Government. Few of these were young men, for most of the young had been called up to serve; they were elderly men, men of substance and leaders of the Armenian community, and it became apparent that the inquisition for arms was being used as a cloak to deprive the community of its natural heads. Similar measures had preceded the mass!
acres of 1895-6, and a sense of foreboding spread through the Armenian people. "One night in winter" writes a foreign witness of these events," the Government sent officers round the city to all Armenian houses, knocking up the families and demanding that all weapons should be given up. This action was the death-knell to many hearts."
________________________________
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of Jack
Sent: Thu 12/27/2007 10:03 PM
To: David Opderbeck; John Walley
Cc: Janice Matchett; asA
Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine
Have you ever seen "Hotel Rwanda"? If not watch it and then tell me if you think the right to bear arms should morally apply to individuals or not. Not what you think the constitution says, but whether you think that is something that individuals morally should be allowed to do. If you have seen it then please tell me what individuals are supposed to do to protect themselves from an evil government.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Opderbeck <mailto:dopderbeck@gmail.com>
To: John Walley <mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>
Cc: drsyme@cablespeed.com ; Janice Matchett <mailto:janmatch@earthlink.net> ; asA <mailto:asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine
Without getting into too many details, I think this clause relates to official state militias, and I don't think such government entitites in themselves violate any teaching of Jesus or scripture. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this issue this term, as there is a case on this very question (of whether the right to bear arms if individual or relates to government militias).
On Dec 27, 2007 5:27 PM, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
David,
The example of an intruder with intent to do violence to your family is a red herring. As a lawyer, you know that clause refers to a "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ".
To use a "turn the other cheek" argument to debunk the right to keep and bear arms, you have to establish that Jesus no longer intended national governments, national defenses and the concept of righteous governments, which I don't think you rationally can do.
Thanks
John
-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu> ] On Behalf Of David Opderbeck
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:46 PM
To: drsyme@cablespeed.com
Cc: Janice Matchett; asA
Subject: Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine
Well now I think your paraphrase is inaccurate Jack. Sure, if the intruder is in the act of murdering the family and there's no other alternative, violence against the intruder might be justified. And yes, it's easy to Monday morning quarterback, and the exigency of any situation has to be part of an ethical determination. But I think my original point stands -- it simply is not the case that this principle offers moral support to a private right to bear arms. The case in which "the most effective means available" to prevent violence against one's family requires the private use of weapons is exceedingly rare.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:39 PM, <drsyme@cablespeed.com> wrote:
Ok thanks for the reference. But again your paraphrase was inacurrate. It was Geisler, not Moreland. And you changed the quote: "Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most effective means available to him
fails them morally."
I think Geislers point is simply to say that if you watch someone murder your family, and you choose to do nothing about it (assuming there is something that you could do about it,) is immoral.
On Thu Dec 27 14:11 , Janice Matchett sent:
At 01:44 PM 12/27/2007, drsyme@cablespeed.com wrote:
Interestingly enough Janice was paraphrasing not JP Moreland but Ron Rhodes who misquoted Moreland: "Theologians J. P. Moreland and Norman Geisler say that "to permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails them morally." He gives no reference. http://home.earthlink.net/~ronrhodes/qselfdefense.html ~ Jack
@ Not so.
I just did a search and found the page from where I originally saw the quote - it was on the "Karate for Christ" page :) I just forgot that Geisler was involved with writing that book, also: http://www.karateforchrist.ca/EssEades.pdf
Geisler wrote:
"To permit murder when one could have prevented it is morally wrong. To allow a rape when one could have hindered it is an evil. To watch an act of cruelty to children without trying to intervene is morally inexcusable. In brief, not resisting evil is an omission, and an evil of omission can be just as evil as an evil of commission. Any man who refuses to protect his wife and children against a violent intruder fails http://www.amazon.com/Life-Death-Debate-Moral-Issues/dp/027593702X
~ Janice
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 27 22:30:14 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 27 2007 - 22:30:14 EST