(Eng. summary below)
十六歲香港學生劉康去年十二月因涉嫌管有仿製火器（氣槍／玩具槍）而被捕，地點近乎抗議修改立法會規則的示威，目前正在東區裁判法院受審。 該罪行的最高刑罰乃係兩年監禁。 舊年十一月，香港特別行政區行政長官林鄭月娥訪問劉康的學校，拍大合照時，劉康展示了香港獨立標誌。香港異見兒童可因藏有玩具槍而被監禁廿四個月，但美國左翼就身在福中不知福，一直積極爭取禁槍，亦即廢除美國憲法第二修正案，該修正案確保國民藏有及攜帶武器的權利，以自衛及反抗暴政。 美國左膠既然經常抱怨美國警方濫用權力，何解要剝奪平民保護自己，免受當局侵害的手段？
法律學者和歷史學家Robert Cottrol道：「一千一百萬的歐洲平民如果全副武裝，負荷過重的納粹戰爭機器能否輕易殺之，同時對抗蘇聯和英美軍隊？三百萬柬埔寨平民如果有槍，幾萬赤柬游激隊成員能否輕易屠之？ 今年二月，美國共和黨眾議員唐揚提問：多少猶太人因為無武裝而被人推入毒氣室？」
美國左翼人士禁槍理由係校園槍擊事件經常發生。 但為何要從良民手中搶走有效的自衛武器呢？ 支持墮胎的左膠話，無論是否合法，想要墮胎的人都會墮胎。言則，壞人或精神病患者無論藏槍是否違法，都會有辦法取得槍械。（Fox News的Tucker Carlson和Tomi Lahren以及Infowars的Owen Shroyer都提出過這些觀點。）
另一個例子是Cliven Bundy邦迪先生的農場保護戰。參議員Harry Reid一直想發展內華達州農民Bundy農場周圍的地，引進中資太陽能發電廠。但邦迪拒絕合作。警方隨後沒收了他的牛並毆打他兒。邦迪仍然不肯投降。聯邦當局一四年於是派了九架直升機和二百多名警察來清場。然而，邦迪的武裝牛仔鄰居組成民兵隊伍，為自由愛自由，勇武嚇退大軍。最終，奧巴馬總統不得不下令取消對邦迪農場的行動。如果內華達州的牛仔既無槍亦無彈，那麼他們將不得不去華盛頓上訪、抗議、靜坐、陳情，永無止境，而一無所得。
A 16-year-old Hong Kong student-boy, Lau Hong, was arrested in December last year for alleged possession of air gun (some sort of legal toy gun) near protest over legislature rule changes and is now being tried in Eastern Magistracy. The maximum penalty for the offense is two years in jail. During the HK Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s visit to his school in November last year, Lau displayed a Hong Kong independence sign, which was shown in a picture taken of Carrie Lam and students of the school. While a HK teenage dissident could be imprisoned for 24 months for possession of a toy gun, the US leftists have been vigorously campaigning for banning firearms, which in effect amounts to abolition of Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment enshrines the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The US leftists often complaining about the US police’s abuse of power, how come they want to deprive civilians of the means to protect themselves from the authorities?
All totalitarian regimes want to disarm their subjects so that they can be easily exploited, manipulated and even exterminated. Thus two thousand years ago, Chun Chi Wong秦始皇, The First Emperor of China, who was a brutal dictator, confiscated all the weapons of the civilians, gathered them in the capital, melt them and molded 12 bronze statures out of them, in order to prevent the people from revolting. Nazi Germany also took away all firearms from the Jews, Poles, gays and lesbians, and other dissidents before they could easily be killed or put in concentration camps. Moreover, if unarmed, Nevada farmer, Cliven Bundy’s neighbors could not have formed a militia to frighten away those in power, who wanted to build a Chinese venture capital solar energy plant on his farmland. Contrastively, the unarmed, peaceful, non-violent protests of the Tsoi Yuen villagers and their leftard supporters in 2010 all came to nothing when the HK Government wanted to bulldoze their homes and make way for an expensive but useless high-speed railway to China. Also, on the night of the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre, Liu Xiaobo destroyed all the guns of the students and civilians for the sake of his own non-violent principle.
Legal scholar and historian Robert Cottrol wrote: “Could the overstretched Nazi war machine have murdered 11 million armed and resisting Europeans while also taking on the Soviet and Anglo-American armies? Could 50,000-70,000 Khmer Rouge have butchered 2-3 million armed Cambodians?” A 2011 open letter from Dovid Bendory, who was the rabbinic director of JPFO, to then New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, asked: “Are you aware that the Nazis disarmed Jews prior to Kristallnacht and that those same Nazi gun laws are the foundation of the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968?” In October 2015, U.S. Republican Presidential Primaries candidate Ben Carson said that Hitler’s mass murder of Jews “would have been greatly diminished” if Germans had not been disarmed by the Nazis. In February 2018, U.S. Republican Representative Don Young, proposed the question “How many Jews were put in the ovens because they were unarmed?”
The US leftists base their demand of firearm ban on recurrent incidents of campus shooting. But why should they want to take away effective means of self-defense from the otherwise helpless good guys? The pro-choice leftists say that those who want abortion will do it anyway, whether it is legal or not. By the same token, won’t the bad guys or psychos also get firearms anyway whether it is against the law or not? (Tucker Carlson and Tomi Lahren from Fox News, and Owen Shroyer from Infowars have all raised these points.)
Another example is Mr. Cliven Bundy’s farm protection battle. Senator Harry Reid had long wanted to develop the land around Nevada farmer Cliven Bundy’s farm and introduce there a China capital solar energy plant. But Bundy refused to co-operate. The police then confiscated his cows and beat up his son. Still Bundy would not give in. Consequently, in 2014, the Federal authorities maneuvered nine helicopters and more than 200 police officers to clear up the farm. They were, however, deterred by a militia troop formed by armed cowboy-neighbors of Bundy who said that they came to fight for freedom. Eventually, President Obama had to order the action against Bundy’s farm be cancelled. If the Nevada cowboys had had neither guns nor ammunitions, they would have had to resort to protests, sit-ins, petitions in Washington for ever to no avail.
This reminds us of Tsoi Yuen Village in Hong Kong. Between 2009 and early 2010, the HK authorities wanted to chase the villagers away from their homes in order to make way for a exorbitantly priced but ineffective high-speed railway to Guangzhou, China. The villagers and their leftard supporters, insisted on taking a peaceful, rational and non-violent resistance approach. Unarmed, they staged peaceful protests and sit-ins in front of the Legislative Council, and even performed a salt march there, but the authorities never took them seriously. They also formed a defense squad, basically unarmed, to patrol the village. At the end of the day, not surprisingly, they were all carried away by the police.