I received this in an e-mail DuffyO

Subject: Chuck Baldwin's "Food for Thought from The Chuck Wagon" for 09/14/99

Prelude to Plunder

September 14, 1999 A few months ago on my radio talk show I reviewed a report that was released by the Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. It chronicles the relationship between gun restriction and confiscation and the genocide that took place following. Here is the record. It speaks for itself.

*The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. From 1929 to 1953, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Turkey established gun control in 1911. From 1915 to 1917 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1976, 20 million Anti-Communists, Christians, political dissidents and pro-reform groups, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945 13 million Jews, Gypsies, mentally ill people and other "mongrelized peoples," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

*Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977 1 million"educated people," unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and executed.

If you were adding them up, that amounts to more than 55 million innocent people who were slaughtered by their own governments - governments that had first rendered their citizens defenseless by restricting or confiscating their firearms.

Freedom-loving people are at far more risk from their own government than from all the Ted Bundys and Al Capones of the world combined! A free man with a firearm has a fighting chance against any would-be gangster or criminal. On the other hand, an unarmed man has no chance at all against an oppressive, tyrannical government.

Remember this the next time you hear Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bill Bradley and G.W. Bush touting the virtues of more gun control.

NOTE: My editorials are published Tuesdays, Wednesdays & Fridays on Gulf1.com and are sent via email to anyone who requests them.

-- DuffyO (duffyo@mailcity.com), September 20, 1999

Answers

The morning after the church shooting Reno was speaking about the need for a "permanent solution".

Later on C-Span a caller quoted a bunch of stats on how violent crime goes down whenever "concealed carry" laws are passed. He also mentioned a study of the recent mass killings that showed that in all or almost all cases none of the laws on the books or the newly proposed laws would have prevented them. Totally ignoring that the response was that there are just too many guns around. (sorry.. forget who the guest speaker was)

The tone in both cases was leading toward confiscation... seemed to me anyway.

-- Linda (lwmb@psln.com), September 20, 1999.

I appreciate the thought DuffyO, but you're preaching to the choir. 99.9% of the people on this board are dead set in their views on guns.

Personally, I think everyone should be required to own a gun. Sounds extreme, but think of all the shallow genes that would be removed from the pool within the first few years. The only ones left would be responsible law abiding citizens. But seriously, in todays modern world, guns are your only means of defence, and to those who don't get that basic fact....I'll call 911 for you, while you hold in your small intestines with a spatula.

-- CygnusXI (noburnt@toast.net), September 21, 1999.

This list is a good, concise one which each of us on this board can copy and send to our elected representatives, along with our letter of protest against gun control. Let's do it!

-- Elaine Seavey (Gods1sheep@aol.com), September 21, 1999.

"An armed society, is a polite society..." - Heinlein

growlin' at the TV...

The Dog

-- Dog (Desert Dog@-sand.com), September 21, 1999.

Neal Boortz (www.boortz.com) is fond of pointing out two intersting statistics, paraphrased below:

700 times a day, a gun is used to stop a crime as it happens, or deter criminals from even beginning a crime. Most often, no shots are fired, the mere presense of the weapon stops the criminal.

Two states recently authorized "concealed carry" laws: over the past two years, 90,000 people were authorized to carry handguns all the time - to date, NONE of these law-abiding citizens has committed a crime. The conclusion? The threat from weapons is from criminals, who are not deterred by gun laws anyway.

-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Marietta, GA) (cook.r@csaatl.com), September 21, 1999.

My 71 year old dad and I were discussing the gun question on the phone in the last couple weeks. He said in effect that he was not in the least fooled by the amplification of gun control talk by the government and government-mouthpiece media. He thought it was not much of a stretch to consider that govt will soon push for change in the Constitution (a fairly gutted document, IMNHO) re right to bear arms. Then he smoothly added that such an attempt would never be allowed,...but that if it happened it wouldn't matter.

Dad, and I, my partner and other family members have watched/listened to the blaring increased volume of all the things we so-called citizens have to fear. We are not fooled. Bottled ice tea tainted with e coli bacteria as a huge news item? We know that fearful people are easy to rule, and we know the proper target for fear,...it was and is still government.

Take heart, Lovelies. Preparations go a long way toward quieting manufactured fears.

--She in the sheet,

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 21, 1999.

Rather than damning and outlawing gun ownership, a rational approach to these seemingly regularly scheduled incidents would be analyze the perpetrators themselves and not their tools du jour.

Where are all these perpetrators are coming from?

What traits do the perpetrators have in common?

Why are these apparently deranged people not identified as being a threat to both themselves and others well in advance of their actions?

Why do so many commit suicide following their heinous acts?

How many have served in the military, CIA, FBI, etc., and under what circumstance were they discharged?

How many have sought psychiatric treatment?

How many were currently taking prescription drugs, which drugs, and for how long?

Why are many of these questions all but ignored in the media?

Why does the media focus on guns (tools) and body counts (effects) instead of root causes?

-- Nathan (nospam@all.com), September 21, 1999.

>Rather than damning and outlawing gun ownership, a rational approach to these seemingly regularly scheduled incidents would be analyze the perpetrators themselves and not their tools du jour.<

I agree, Nathan, but it presupposes that a)TPTB are rational/wise enough to seek answers to the questions, and solutions to the 'problem'; and b)TPTB really *want* to find those answers. At some point I have to stop and ask, "what benefit is there to TPTB to "not seeing" the obvious? Who benefits? And How? This is in line with the proverbial "the public schools are failing lament", that never gets fixed or gets approached with the same worn out and grievious wrong fixes. Either "those in charge" of implementing solutions are not smart enough to see the obvious and fix it, OR, they don't really want it fixed because there is too much secondary gain to be had by pretending to fix the problem, and leaving it where it is.

Just some thoughts,...

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), September 21, 1999.