OT: Don Bradley's article on Gun Control and Y2Kgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
The Conspiracy to Disarm the People of the World
"For the first time in history, a nation has true gun control and its citizens are disarmed."
Adolph Hitler, 1936
Anyone who has ever seen the corpse of another human being shot to pieces doesnt have to be told that there is something fundamentally wrong with a world that has weaponsany kind of weapons. One wonders what other life forms must think when they view our world from theirs. Certainly any civilization that uses war and war making as its primary source of a sound economic system is flawed from the start. Once such a machine gets started, the corporate addiction to war dollars is awfully hard to turn off.
Aside from these fundamental facts, human beings embarking upon 21st century life must come to grips with the facts of life regarding weapons. Hand wringing and moaning about weapons and armies wont erase the fact that we live in a world of armaments. They are
All nations have armies. Standing and organized bodies of men and women whose soul purpose is the art of war.
Behind these armies stand schools and colleges that train our young people in the art of war making. Tens of thousands attend military academies each year start people off, right in the first gradeuniforms, rank, salutes, drills, formations, and ideology. They also train them with weapons (M1As), especially ROTC units in High Schools.
Coupled with the above are the numerous materiel-providing industries that make the planes, tanks, guns, ammunition, clothing, and sundry other equipment armies need to kill other human beings with precision and efficiency.
America has a long tradition, especially outside the coastal urban centers, with firearms and until the last few years, the ability of Americans to purchase weapons has been a right guaranteed by the Constitution that they have enjoyed since the days of the American Revolution.
It would take several books just to briefly deal with the reason-d-etre of weapons and war. We will make the above givens and as painful as it may be for many, these are simply the facts of life for our world. We live on a planet and with others of our species that is bent upon destroying itself with bigger and better bombs, bullets, and missiles. Our problem has become not so much one of hand-wringing about the conditions of a world that would allow itself to become so well-armed as to have enough firepower to destroy itself several times over, but one of how to survive such living conditions.
This then becomes the main thesis of this chapter. Think about its titleThe Conspiracy to Disarm the People of the World. Sounds like a good idea, right? Sure it does. Imagine all the weapons of the world being melted into several grand statues and figurines, then adorning the parks and playgrounds all over the world. Beginning to feel good inside?
The simple truth is that the only people who are going to be disarmed are those people who tend to get slaughtered when armies and internal police agencies have guns, but the citizens dont. Right now, May 1999, there is a civil war going on in Kosovo in which the Albanians are being hunted down and killed by the Serbs. The Serbs have guns; the Albanians dont. Guess who is winning? Guess who wishes they had their weapons? The Albanians are cursing gun control right now to anyone who will listen, but the second someone decries disarmament of the people, the news crews overseas turn off their cameras.
Why hide the feelings and valid perceptions of a people that are experiencing first hand the horrors of gun control that obviously didnt work out for them? How many thousands of crying mothers and dead children do we have to watch on CNN before we realize that as long as there are Tyrants ruling heartless armies, there has to be some way of preventing such activities.
There is only one thing that terrifies monsters, political tyrants, and soulless killers: Defensive weaponsin the hands of the general population determined that no harm will come to those they love dearly. This is the key to the argument of gun control, over and over again. The data clearly provides for the foundation that weapons in the hands of the law abiding generally make for a safer world, especially a world gone mad.
Many will ignorantly say at this point that if a country is up to no good, the United Nations and NATO will go in and save them. That is simply not true. Never has happened. There are dozens of civil wars raging on this planet at any given time and these two bodies are doing nothing to stop one segment of a country from cleansing its borders of the other segmenta segment, by the way, that cannot defend itself. Even in Kosovo, the attempts by NATO to stop the Serbs have proved totally fruitless and a complete failure. As of this writing, the United States and NATO is about to send 150,000 ground troops into that region with results that can be predicted minutely. Thousands of dead boys (and girls now, too) and more crying mothers.
In all these cases, it is almost ALWAYS THE GOVERNMENT of a given country that turns on its own citizens and starts the killing fields. Vietnamsame thing then as now. The United States pulled out in 1975 and the Vietnamese went about disarming its own rebels (Vietcong) and citizensthen it proceeded to inter about 700,000 in camps and butcher another 500,000 men, women, and children it disagreed with politically. Vietnam has gun control.
The only country that has just the opposite of gun control and disarmament is Switzerland, which requires every house to have weapons and keep them maintained and with a good supply of ammunition. No one, not even Hitler, dared attack a country in which every family could defend itself against invaders, foreign or domestic. Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world, save for Nepal. The reason is simple. Even a large army of say, five hundred thousand men (which is immense in size) is no match for 27 million civilians with rifles who have learned to enjoy their freedom for centuries.
The Founding Fathers of America understood this. The 2nd amendment was established for the express purpose of preventing just those kinds of holocausts that have plagued the 20th century. Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Chile, South Africa, Armenia, all have living witnesses to the testimony of what happens when the people of a country suddenly find they are disarmed. There has been no instance of countrywide disarmament in any nation in the last 150 years that didnt end up with a horrible genocide being committed against its own people. Not one. The only exceptions are Australia and Great Britain, which only recently passed complete gun disarmament (1997/1998.) Time will very shortly tell whether or not these countries will do to their citizens, what every other country on this Earth has done since gun control laws started to emerge on the books.
In fact, Australias crime rate has skyrocketed in the two years since it completely disarmed all Aussies; they didnt, I noticed, disarm their military or their police. These two aspects of their government have actually tripled their arms purchases in the last two years. Why? The whole point of the Australian propaganda regarding the elimination of firearms was that the country could then reduce and ultimately eliminate all its guns, especially with law enforcement, thereby lowering taxes (their taxes went up instead and the internal security police of Australia is still growing.) Instead, just the opposite has occurred. Now the government down there is arming its civil service branches, much like the American government is doing with IRS agents, all parks personnel, and tens of thousands of other "clerks." If the criminals and problems associated with private firearm ownership have been solved by disarming the public, why all the massive arming of thousands of state and federal employees.
Why do IRS agents need guns?
Why do Parks and Recreation people need guns?
Why are postal employees now being given weapons and that on the increase in 1998/99?
Why has the government hired 120,000 new agents since 1996, especially since the United States overall crime has dropped in recent years?
Why are many civil service occupations arming, especially when overall crime in America has steadily been declining for the last several years?
In Great Britainsince theyve disarmed their citizensthe crime rate has shot up! Rapes are up, murders, burglaries, etc., are epidemic now. They too, are heavily arming their police and military; why do they need to that if none of their citizens has guns? Clearly, it seems a contradiction to disarm the ones constituency but then increase your police and military. In every case, these governments assured their citizens that they were "saving the children" and "disarming criminals." Yet, in every case, the crime rates in all of these countries soared.
Once a thinking person looks at the facts involving firearms and governments, it becomes clear that the news we receive about gun control from the media and what is actually factual are two different things. To understand this conundrum, please read the chapter in this book on The Media.
In America, those states with the lowest crime rates have the least gun control laws on its books and coincidentally, these same states also allow its citizens to have concealed weapons on their persons. As long as there are men and women who steal, rape, and murder to suit their own purposes, gentle, fine, and decent people need protection. It has been well established that the police and government cant do the job or disarmament would have worked in all those countries (like Kalifornia) that now have total gun control. The only possible solution otherwise is a POLICE STATE, like they had under Hitler, and no oneno one in their right mind should even consider that idea. Once a police state, with permanent martial law, is established, the living conditions under such a system become the stuff of nightmares.
What becomes interesting, is that all governments know this. Thats right. These countries all know better than you and I that gun control has nothing to do with "saving the children" or "stopping crime." The question that matters now is WHY?
Why preach a program of gun control when such an agenda does nothing but increase pain and suffering? The issue of our time isnt whether we like guns or not, the issue is how do make sure that crime and genocide come to an end once and for all. Clearly, until governments themselves start a sincere program of disarmament of their secret and terrorist internal police agencies, the only chance for the average man, woman, or child is a defensive posture that guarantees their personal safety and liberty. And that is something now very difficult to do in America. The laws and rules for training and owning a personal weapon are so convoluted and terrifying that anyone owning a gun today is treated like a criminal in the eyes of the police, the media, the public, and your government.
The intelligence propaganda agents in charge of this operation have convinced average Americans that law-abiding citizens with weapons are the problem, not the government. The reason Americans have been fooled is because they have been fed one lie after another via the media. A criminal can assault you, rape you, and steal your belongings and according to the law, unless you CAN PROVE IN COURT your life was in danger, you cant lift anything more than a finger to stop them. There are thousands of honest men and women rotting in prisons today who are there for no other reason than that they used armed force to defend their families against criminal gangsters intent upon a murdering rampage on public streets. If the victim of a crime ends up being the one before the magistrate for defending themselves against aggression, then imagine how they are treated when the aggressor also happens to be the police?
The above becomes alarmingly apparent when we realize that since the mid 1980s, Americas security police have dealt with its own citizens after exactly the same fashion that the SS and the Gestapo did with Europeans in the 1930s and 1940s. Ask the Jews, Slavs, and dozens of other ethnic types of Poland, Romania, Greece, Italy, Germany, Belgium, France, and many other countries what happened to them once the Nazis implemented gun control. Better yet, take a trip to Auschweiz, that infamous concentration camp, and learn firsthand what happens to a continent when a fascist government disarms its occupants.
One would rightly argue that America is NOT Nazi Germany. On the surface, given a life of ignorance regarding our governments activities in the last twenty years, this statement is valid. Once we look at the acts by our own police agencieshorrific crimes that include bombings, shootings, assassinations, and mind controlwe then find that yes, America isnt like Nazi Germanyits leapt far ahead of it in evil enterprises, propaganda, and horrible programs of population cleansing already under way.
The only thing preventing these programs from going full bore is that Americans are still armed. But not for long if the ruling powers have their way. It looks like they are going to have it, too.
Handgun Control Inc., a creation of the Central Intelligence Agency
Our purpose, as stated earlier, is to understand the why behind disarmament. Weve established that gun control is no solution to the problems of our era as long as the real criminals in our world have guns and use them with the blessing of the courts and government. To truly make sense of Americas plan to disarm its citizens, we need to look at those elements in our society that are pushing the hardest for gun elimination. The average citizen may not realize it, but there has been one organization that can be foundboth behind the scenes and in publicworking the moms and dads, politicians and celebrities, and, of course, the media. That assemblage is known to gun-rights advocates as HCI or Handgun Control Inc. Remember that alphabet signature: HCI. Like the FBI, CIA, ATF, and others with vicious track records, HCI has a wholesome appearance, but a dark and cloudy inner side.
As with many things presented to the public, a group of dedicated men and women working to get the guns off the street sounds like an admirable plan. It would be, providing that the darker agendas behind disarmament werent known to those researchers who have taken the time to look at such things. Again, the idea of removing all guns for all time appeals to this writer. BUT IT HAS TO BE FOR EVERYONE!
Anyone who takes the time to look at the sordid history of that intelligence agency known as the CIA (see chapter on the CIA) knows instantly that these men and women seek to rule the world for their Wall Street masters. THAT IS A KNOWN FACT, well established by several CIA agents who have come forward over the last thirty years.
Looking at the original creation of HCI, we find that its charter board members were/are high-ranking members of the CIA. This excerpt, taken from Neal Knoxs excellent book, reveals a great deal about the establishment of HCI.
"Chairman Nelson Shields' book, ex-CIA agent Welles was the first chairman of the National Council to Control Handguns (later renamed HCI). Further, according to Rev. Jack Corbett, who founded the National Coalition to Ban Handguns under the auspices of the United Methodist Church, Welles was a "guiding light" to NCBH an ostensibly competing organization.
During 1974 (the year both groups were formed) I had several telephone conversations/debates with Dr. Corbett. Once when he was stymied by my recitation of facts that refuted his anti-gun arguments, Corbett handed the phone to Welles -- to my utter astonishment.
What particularly puzzled me about that conversation is that ex-CIA Agent Welles didn't seem the sort of zealot that would help form not one but two anti-gun organizations. Years later I learned, through a mutual acquaintance, that at the time he started HCI and helped form NCBH he owned two handguns (which he supposedly buried in his back yard) and a Sharps-Borchardt rifle.
What brought this puzzle to mind, was a fundraiser for NCBH hosted at his Georgetown home last September by the man President Nixon appointed as CIA Director, William Colby.
The "Liberals" love the NCBH about as much as they hate the CIA, so the linkage of the two caused some puzzlement around Washington. Colby told a "Washington Post" gossip columnist that he had been "quietly working with NCBH for the past several years," and that he had "learned of the dangers of handguns during his years at the CIA" From September 4, 1973 to January 30, 1976."
Interesting, isnt it? HCI created by no less than a Director of the CIA? As well, board members (many others) who are also with the agency? Director Colbys claims about wanting to get rid of the guns is a blatant falsehood when we consider that this statement was made by the same man who
ordered the deaths of hundreds of thousand of Vietnamese Nationals (Operation Phoenix)
Sent hundreds of thousands of small arms to South America and armed terrorists worldwide.
Increased the covert weapons capability of all spy agencies while a deputy director.
William Colby, a long-time CIA official, has had his hand practically every dark enterprise that has been spawned from Langley headquarters and now we are to take him at his word that he is doing it for the good of the people? Are you finished laughing yet?
Gun Control = Despotism
"It has become very obvious that a vast majority of this country's citizens are totally ignorant of the hidden agenda and objective of those who have created and continue to direct the anti-firearm movement. The hidden agenda of this collective and conspiring group of politicians, bureaucrats, intelligentsia, and the fourth estate is the total disarmament of the law abiding citizens of this country so that this oligarchy can achieve their hidden political objective of establishing, without armed rebellion, a totalitarian socialistic state. Promoters of all gun control measures have repeatedly used a massive smoke screen of emotional and illogical fiction and falsehoods to hid their true agenda and political objective from the people."
"This potential act of despotism, alone, is the primary reason our Nation's founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. They saw the need to ensure that the PEOPLE (and not government) had the right and the empowerment to provide the final "check and balance" on government so as to prevent the usurpation of the liberties, rights, and freedoms of the PEOPLE by any abusive government, foreign or domestic."
"The secondary reason our founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment is that they saw the need to ensure that the PEOPLE had the right and the empowerment to provide for the self-defense of their life and property."
"Our founding fathers knew that they could not guarantee to the PEOPLE that the military, the militia, or the police would be everywhere, at all times, to protect every individual from violent criminal acts."
"Only those who have committed violent crimes be they private citizens, police officers, or military personnel, should lose their basic civil right to keep and bear arms. Disarming the law abiding private citizens, while the government remains armed to the teeth, strikes at the very foundation of our Republic."
"Any politician that sponsors, votes for, or signs into law a bill that restricts the right of law abiding private citizens to keep and bear arms has committed another grave injustice upon the truths that our Nation's founding fathers believed as self-evident."
"The formation of our Nation would not have happened if the "gun grabbers" of 1768-1776 had been successful. In 1775, the British began a de-facto policy of disarming the colonists and the Revolutionary War was sparked on April 19, 1775 when militiamen, exercising at Lexington, Massachusetts, refused to give up their arms. British General Thomas Gage proclaimed martial law June 12, 1775 and set about to seize the guns, pistols, muskets, and swords of the individual free citizens of Boston; thus sending a message to all the colonists that the right to keep and bear arms was in peril. The British resorted to every possible tactic to disarm the colonists --- entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, direct seizure, arrest, and finally shooting persons bearing arms."
This country's Declaration of Independence says it best
"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and provide new Guards for their future Security."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Armed to the Teeth and Free
The Wall Street Journal Europe
June 4, 1999
By Stephen P. Halbrook
In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."
For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)
Touristsespecially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the policethink its a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.
According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, Englands 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.
The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns nd has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned. Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."
Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however. Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado. Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under Englands strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.
But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure "Zurich News" recommends Septembers Knabenschiessen (boys shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition . . . consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.
While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime. Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.
By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.
In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family.
Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing.
With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.
Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his sons head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."
This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty. Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."
The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europes despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists. John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.
The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.
However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents.
In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.
There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home. For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify. European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.
By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?
Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.
The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, Americas lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.
Gun Control and Police Powers: a self-fulfilling prophecy at work
According to those sources that can still be trusted to anti up with research and documentation that doesnt have the taint of government and media spin control, weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are the one clear fact and obstacle to any criminal enterprise. Guns saved hundreds of thousands of
Women from being raped (or worse)
Children from being molested and kidnapped
Houses and families from being assaulted by bandits while asleep in their homes
As well as hundreds of other heinous crimes from ever becoming more than another bad idea about to express itself in the mind of a criminal.
It then happens that we must now confront the issue of why. Why erase those defenses, which are working, time and again, for centuries? The armed and honest citizen
Spends more time doing volunteer community service,
Is often college educated (though the media would have you believe that gun owners are idiot hicks from Deliverance,)
Usually has no criminal record,
Is very supportive of the freedom and civil rights of the individual, as all human beings should be,
Votes in greater frequency than a non gun owner!
Obviously, the above short list reveals to us that weapons are not only important for survival in the 21st century, but that gun owners are a blessing to their community and to their country. They can be counted upon to help police should such a dreadful need ever occur. Witness the 1997 North Hollywood, CA bank robbery that resulted in over a dozen casualties for civilians and law enforcement. Who saved the day? A private citizen who owned a gun store, loaning the police the weapons they needed to defeat the bad guys. Imagine how much more badly things would have turned out had Kalifornias senator Diane Feinstein (alleged CIA contract agent) had her wish of total disarmament that tragic day?
Saving the children
It is an established fact that those children who grow up with guns at home and are taught its safety and use, are fifty times less likely than any other child their age to use a weapon for crime, now or later. These same children, according to hundreds of studies never mentioned on the evening news, often generally never get into trouble nor are they malcontents. A wise family, versed in firearms, definitely impart a sense of responsibility upon their offspring. FACT. Why is this information being kept from the average American?
The Media: the sword of propaganda to disarm a free people
-- Rickster (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 02, 1999
There was a post to this forum earlier today that offered reasonably convincing evidence that rickvester is a.k.a. DON BRADLEY...based upon the Don Scott/Bradley Sherman tag team on csy2k.
Not pointing fingers, just making the observation.
-- Irving (email@example.com), December 02, 1999.
Great article! It seems to be part of a book. What's the title?
I lived most of my life under very, very stringent gun controls (Argentina) which couldn't stop both terrorists and counter- terrorists from murdering tens of thousands of innocent (and defenseless) people during what has been called "The Dirty War". Even now there are horrible crime reports in the Bs.As. newspapers every day describing how lawless individuals terrify and exploit honest citizens.
I moved to the US hoping to find the land of the free and the brave. I believed that here I could exercise my God-given right to defend my life and my loved ones. Unfortunately, I am seeing a progressive degeneration of the ethos that, IMO, made this country the greatest nation and a lighthouse of liberty. I confess I am a bit sad and scared. If things continue devolving, I might be better off returning to Argentina. At least the bureaucrats there are a lot less efficient than here!
Thanks for the post.
-- El Argie (el argie firstname.lastname@example.org), December 02, 1999.
There is so much disinformation in thie article its hard to believe the there are people that will believe it if on faith and blindly accept it as gospel.
-- y2k dave (email@example.com), December 02, 1999.
"'For the first time in history, a nation has true gun control and its citizens are disarmed.'
"Adolph Hitler, 1936"
That is just about the *most* completely debunked piece of bogus fabrication ever foisted on anyone.
The fact that you post it confirms a few things to me.
But the fact that you are flooding the forum with multiple *massive* posts, many sent under a variety of sock puppet names, confirms *this* to me:
You're here to disrupt, you're here to make people think of woowoo fringefries when they hear the words "Y2", and "Ed Yourdon", and you're no better than the *other* disruptive trolls who've rolled in and done what they could to screw with the forum.
What I *don't* understand is *why* you're doing what you're doing.
I've sorta narrowed it down in my mind to either "love" or "money".
-- Ron Schwarz (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 02, 1999.
who's this guy Ron???? geeeez .... what a nut
-- lou (email@example.com), December 02, 1999.
Is that a hand in your sock, or are you just glad to see me?
-- Ron Schwarz (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 02, 1999.
It might do you good to research history.The Swiss are indeed excellent marksmen and that fact as well as an armed populace prevented Hitler's invasion.In essense the risk wasn't worth the reward.Considering your sirname,you should know this.If not I'm sure your ancestors do.
-- History (email@example.com), December 02, 1999.
Considering your spelling, I think I recognize the hand in that sock.
-- Ron Schwarz (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 02, 1999.
Don??? Bradley??? Sheesh. What a dork.
-- Liz Pavek (email@example.com), December 02, 1999.
Ron, once again, you demonstrate your lack of basic intelligence. Do you have an unqualified opinion on everything? Do you really believe any of us care? Do you think it necessary to debunk everything? You seem to - and furthermore, you seem to know precious little about history. Lastly, you seem to be deliberately fomenting distrust yourself of this forum and it's posters. I really, really wish you would go away, or at least add something worthwhile to the discussion. Debunking everything and everyone you see must be very tiring. Let the rest of us think for ourselves without your mindless claptrap and endless prattle. Either shut up or contribute something worthwile.
-- Schwarz the Dork (Dork@on.deck), December 02, 1999.
I understand perfectly what he's doing. Its related to the groups that believe the Holocaust never took place.
-- a (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 02, 1999.
"Do you really believe any of us care?"
What you mean "us", Kimosabe?
You talkin' about the mouse in your pocket, or your hand in the other sock?
You're pathetic. How sad.
-- Ron Schwarz (email@example.com), December 03, 1999.
Schwarz ist idiot. Nya-nya.
-- A (A@AisA.com), December 03, 1999.
Ron or whatever he is, looks like an agent for the Feds - looks, smells, and acts like one.
They debunk anything that puts their NWO Masters in a bad light. They are paid to do so.
The govt is n't the only making lists, I hear.
-- Rickster (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 03, 1999.
Gee, tRickster, I was wondering how long it would be before you descended to making threats against me for exposing you as a pathetic liar.
Thanks for settling the matter, list-boy.
-- Ron Schwarz (email@example.com), December 03, 1999.
Not I, but the militia/patriot people is tracking Feds like you. I just sent them every post I could find on you, plus your IP. They were most interested in your labors.
Study much American History, do you? Remember the revolution? Spanks like you were a real prize for the rebels.
-- Ric (RCY@watching. RS), December 03, 1999.
Now any regular here knows that I am quite against gun control so do not constue this as an antigun argument.However,Hitler never made the above quote,it's been debunked many times.The argument for the right to keep and bear arms is strong enough that we do not need to use eroneous quotations,it actualy detracts from the cause as anti-gun types will use it to discredit the pro-freedom movement.
-- zzoobie (firstname.lastname@example.org), December 04, 1999.