Conventional Excuse for Gun Confiscation: The Taliban Will Protect You

Terrorist iStock-1222645991
Disarming the populace and telling them that the government will protect them. Where have we heard that line before? IMG iStock-1222645991

U.S.A.-(AmmoLand.com)- The classic case for confiscation of weapons in Western Civilization in the last hundred years, is the government will defend you. You do not need weapons to defend yourself.  The Taliban is reported to have emulated this Western propaganda in Kabul, after taking over in August of 2021.

From Reuters.com:

KABUL, Aug 16 (Reuters) – Taliban fighters in the Afghan capital, Kabul, started collecting weapons from civilians on Monday because people no longer need them for personal protection, a Taliban official said.

“We understand people kept weapons for personal safety. They can now feel safe. We are not here to harm innocent civilians,” the official told Reuters.

The Taliban are following a long tradition of disarming individuals under the pretext individuals do not need weapons because the government will protect them. The Taliban feels the need to add a caveat:

“We are not here to harm innocent civilians.”

As governments became more sophisticated in their need to dissimulate, they often claim the government will protect people, so they do not need weapons.

It is a claim made in the English experience with gun control. Joyce Lee Malcolm documents this in her scholarly book “Guns and Violence: The English Experience”.  On page 176, she documents a significant expansion of the law against the carry of weapons in 1953. Sir Lionel Heald, the Attorney General, is promoting the bill. He says: It is the duty of society to protect them, and they should not have to do that… The argument of self-defense is one to which, perhaps, we should not attach too much weight.

Self-defense was specifically eliminated as a reason to have a firearm in English, Canadian, and later, Australian law.

Gun control laws, and the number of legal, or even illegal firearms, have not shown any correlation to violent crime.

They show an unwillingness of governments to trust their people with weapons.

Most European gun control laws were created after World War I and before World War II, for political purposes, not crime control. Murder rates were essentially unchanged, although, as expected, there was a spike during World War II.

In India, the British instituted weapons control after the Mutiny/uprising in 1857. It was clear the purpose was to prevent uprisings. Most gun control laws were the result of conquest and war.

Misleading the people who are governed in order to disarm them has a long and unpleasant history. Niccoló Machiavelli, known as the father of modern political science, states deception when disarming people is a necessary thing.

“For it is enough to ask a man to give up his arms, without telling him that you intend killing him with them; after you have the arms in hand, then you can do your will with them.”  The Discourses, end of chapter XLIV

In the Koran, it is permissible to lie and deceive in order to gain an advantage to advance the cause of Islam.

Most people realize people who wish them to be disarmed do so because they wish to do things that would be difficult to accomplish if the people were armed.

The Afghan revolt against the Soviet-installed regime started with the puppet government’s attempt to disarm Afghans.

This is not an auspicious start for a new Taliban government. Afghans love their weapons.  Afghanistan is a land of warring tribes.  A man is expected to be able to defend himself and his tribe.


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten

Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ruger264
ruger264
20 days ago

In the Koran, it is permissible to lie and deceive in order to gain an advantage to advance the cause of Islam.Commie biden demoncrats also lie. Its acceptable when your a communist to advance the cause of communism.

Last edited 20 days ago by ruger264
Cruiser
Cruiser
20 days ago

The government is dangerous to your health.

MS-Steve
MS-Steve
20 days ago

Admit it: YOU SUCK DICK…….. for a living. Don’t you??

tetejaun
tetejaun
21 days ago

In ONE generation we have gone from “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall”, to “Mr. Taliban, please don’t hurt us”.
The communist democrats are actively enacting a communist Amerika.
Communist ‘antifa’ and ‘BLM’ terrorists rape, loot, kill, burn and terrorize.
Fauci and the CCP are trying to get rid of 75% of the American people.
The United States is being flooded by illegal alien invaders from all over the world and not ONE is being vetted or checked for disease.

Meanwhile, the American people sit quietly.

Arny
Arny
20 days ago
Reply to  tetejaun

They are being checked & allowed passage into the USA knowing they tested positive. I’m sure it’s the same scenario with the Taliban they are bringing here. https://headlineusa.com/100-illegal-covid-positive-2-weeks/
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/after-border-patrol-release-asylum-seekers-test-positive-covid-brownsville-n1259282

swmft
swmft
20 days ago
Reply to  tetejaun

this is what putting kids in time out gets ,a generation that is too stupid to understand the world works on laws of jungle if you are not the biggest baddest you are food for the others

buzzsaw
buzzsaw
21 days ago

In the US, our courts have repeatedly ruled that the government is under no obligation to protect any particular person from crime. All it can do is provide a legal system that can serve as a general deterrent to criminals. It can do nothing specific until a crime has been committed.

Even if the government could specifically protect us from criminals, would we want to live under such a regime? I would rather be adequately armed and take my chances with criminals and terrorists than depend on a government that was anywhere and everywhere at all times.

hippybiker
hippybiker
20 days ago
Reply to  buzzsaw

That decision was confirmed by the second circuit court of appeals in 1981 in the case Warren vs The DC Metro Police. The court found that the P9lice are under no obligation to protec5 anyone, Period!

Patriot Solutions
Patriot Solutions
21 days ago

Looooool……………

John Hickenlooper said exactly the same thing when he was governor that the people don’t need their guns that his communist police would administer our self defense that us rubes in the rural badlands are bitter clingers. Local Sheriff says if you need protection use a shotgun.

Jonesy
Jonesy
20 days ago

How nice of FruitLooper to say that.