The video titled "Demand a Real Plan--Disarmament Leads to Democide" was posted to YouTube on January 3, 2013 by YouTube user TheHealthRanger
. The video makes the alarming claim that:
"DEMOCIDE = mass murder committed by governments, usually after disarming the People. 290,000,000 people have been killed by governments, and U.S. Senators like Dianne Feinstein now want to make that number even higher by disarming, criminalizing and then killing U.S. citizens."
The video reels out frightening statistics of "mass murder" of citizens in the period of the major global upheavals of the early to mid-twentieth century and argues
that people advocating gun control "fail to understand that disarming the citizens leads directly to a concentration of power in the hands of evil government officials who, sooner or later, use that power to exterminate millions of innocent people in the name of 'love' or whatever concept they wish to invoke."
According to NaturalNews
, the scenario applies especially to "rogue governments" such as President Obama's, that seek to use such laws as the NDAA
to strip citizens of their right.
Mike Adams (aka TheHealtRanger
), whose website NaturalNews.com
, promotes the video, displays a chart by a "University of Hawaii researcher,"
that shows deaths in millions in countries such as China, Germany, Korea and Vietnam during the twentieth century.
accuses Americans of naivete and argues: "Nearly every case of mass murder by government has been preceded by gun control (citizen disarmament). Obama, Feinstein, Schumer and others are putting America on a direct course for repeating this dark chapter of human history: Once guns are stripped from the hands of American citizens, mass murder will soon follow."
The website alleges that "Most Americans don’t yet believe what’s really happening because they are naive. They've grown up in a 'polite' society and they actually believe government is trying to help people. While that’s true at low levels of government and local government, high-level government operatives are ACTORS who are only playing the role of saviors while they plot mass murder."
Social media responses to the argument presented in the video, and on the NaturalNews
website which promotes the video have been mixed. A reader Deb Drew
, supports the argument with the comment:
"This article is SO right. Removing firearms from citizens and having exclusive ownership in the hands of government (ie. army and police) is a recipe for future oppression even within a (for now!) democratic system. Think Hitlers Germany. Think China."
Most other comments appear to either doubt the thesis of the video or reject it outright:
"Tell me this, what good is a gun if the government uses biological toxins or some form of ionizing radiation against its population? Anyone who thinks that a gun is going to protect them from their government is seriously deluded IMHO."
agrees with Soltan, saying:
"Agree, Phillip. So far we're just killing average citizens with all these guns. Delusion is part of the matrix. People walking around with their guns thinking they're going to protect themselves from gov't."
Another reader, Ian James Gordon
, thinks the entire argument is laughable. He writes:
"LOL. You should write for The Onion. I agree the US government is not all sweetness and light, but are you really comparing the US under Obama to the USSR under Stalin, China under Mao and Cambodia under Pol Pot? If you want to see real US government duplicity and nastiness you should read The Trial of Henry Kissinger by Christopher Hitchens, or Hitchen's excoriating denunciation of Clinton. You'd be on firmer ground there."
Many readers note that the video relies on fear mongering tactics to evoke anti-government paranoia in susceptible citizens. NaturalNews
, for instance, engenders morbid fear in its readers by suggesting that "high-level government operatives are ACTORS who are only playing the role of saviors while they plot mass murder."
Quite a few social comments point out that the video skips explaining that the emergence of democratic governance in the late twentieth century was with the aim of preventing large scale tragedies of the twentieth century under dictatorships. Critics also point out that it fails to explain why citizens should be in urgent need of arms to defend themselves against a government they freely elected to power and how being armed with AR-15-style weapons will protect citizens against drones and other hi-tech weapons of the 21st century.
Should following the pro-gun interpretation of the language of the 2nd Amendment to its logical conclusion not lead to the suggestion that US citizens form a " a well-regulated people's militia" with land forces, naval and air forces armed with the latest lethal weapons of warfare (including nuclear bombs) in competition with the official US Army?
Wouldn't that be a recipe for chaos?