The Move Against Gun Ownership

Disarming citizens means to end their right to self defense.

Alex Jones has it right when it comes to the current move against guns after the Connecticut tragedy.  It really does appear orchestrated and ready to go while they were just waiting for an event to happen that would give them the pretext for doing what they want to to, which is to ban guns.

Two Problems Related to Personal Disarmament
On the face of it it might make some reasonable argument to stop violence by removing guns from society.  There are two big problems here.  One is that it can't be done simply on the basis of our long history of gun ownership and incredible amount of them already in circulation.  The black market wouldn't submit to a ban, but instead would simply raise the cost.

 The other insoluble problem relates to government.   

The War Dead in WW2  are testimony to a disarmed populace.

 In countries where the populace cannot be armed there is often governmental abuse of citizens.  To say you save lives by removing gun ownership seems to ignore the mass exterminations done to citizens of countries like Germany that were seemingly civilized and advanced, but once unable to do anything but submit to tyranny and dictatorial power.  As a result of WW2 the Germans lost close to 10% of their population and the Soviets lost 13%.  Many other countries suffered as well.  It could be said that had the German population been privately armed the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler might not have been able to reach beyond Germany.  50 million dead as a result makes a strong case for self reliant and an armed citizenry such as those in Switzerland.  They suffered approximately 100 dead from the war, meaning 0%.  Guns saved Switzerland.