 |  |
| |
- Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis and so:  There are others of course, like Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Rep. Louise Slaughter, Rep. Jerold Nadler, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, Sen. Joseph Biden, Sen. Barabara Boxer, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. John Kerry, Sen. Teddy (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy and many more. Why do they want to disarm America? Possibly it is because, as long as Americans are armed, the gun grabbers can't carry out their socialist agenda. They who control the arms, control America. Once the general population is disarmed, only the government and the criminals, who of course will not give up their arms, will jointly control the country. In a recent article, The Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, confirms that reducing gun ownership, by law-abiding citizens, does nothing to reduce violence worldwide. See article HERE. To read the original study GO HERE. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
In 1929, the Soviet Union disarmed their citizens. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. By 1987 that figure had risen to 61,911,000. In 1938, the Nazis confiscated all civilian arms. Then, on November 9, 1938, came the "Kristalnacht" and the world changed forever. From 1938 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. In 1958 Mao initiated his misconceived "Great Leap Forward," which resulted in the deaths of 20-30 million souls. In 1966, to secure his position against rivals, he launced the "Cultural Revolution" that took another 1 million plus lives. In 1975, after banning and confiscating all guns, Pol Pot began his purge of "intellectuals," that lasted from 1976 to 1979, killing between 1 and 2 million people. That is the short list. In the 20th Century, between 200 and 300 million people were simply erased because they had no means of defending themselves. If you would like to see what has historically happened to people who have been forced to give up their guns, go here. George Soros an Hungarian born billionaire, wishes to destroy our Constitution and ban the private ownership of all small arms, not only in America, but world wide. Thereby, placing all unarmed citizen under the thumbs of their armed governments. That is the reality and intended result, of all citizen disarmaments. Diane Feinstein, a hypocrite, who has a concealed carry permit, commented after the 1994 citizen disarmament: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them..." "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in," "I would have done it." Then....the following comments were made by U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) during U.S. Senate hearings on terrorism held in Washington, D.C. on April 27, 1995: "Because less than twenty years ago I was the target of a terrorist group. It was the New World Liberation Front. They blew up power stations and put a bomb at my home when my husband was dying of cancer. And the bomb didn't detonate. ... I was very lucky. But, I thought of what might have happened. Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home." "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." You see, she gets it, but would deny the rest of us the same protection. Don't do as I do, do as I say! Since Nancy Pelosi has been in the Senate she has voted against gun owners and for more citizen disarmament at every opportunity. "Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the McCarthy amendment. Citizen disarmament laws are not the problem. The problem is citizen disarmament loopholes. Let's close the loopholes." Looking ahead to the approaching end of the 1994 Clinton citizen disarmament, which banned guns simply for how they looked, not how they functioned, Charles Schumer, a major player in the citizen disarmament, had this to say: "The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons...." The Schumer quote exhibits a bit of naiveté, if not outright dishonesty, especially for a man who hires armed body guards. Charles Schumer has been exposed as a world class hypocrite who has been working overtime for years to deprive honest, law-abiding Americans the means with which to defend themselves from violent crime," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. "Yet, here is Schumer unmasked, protected by an armed New York police detective, a luxury not available to average working class Americans. If Schumer is convinced that his fellow Americans don't need firearms, why does he feel the need for an armed bodyguard?" Does the Senator think that a Kristalnacht can't happen here? Do you want to trust your life and the lives of your family, to that assumption? Not I! New York Mayor Bloomberg and his "Mayors Against Guns" and his so-called "Congressional Task Force on Illegal Guns" want all confidential BATF information on gun owners made available to them. This information is available exclusively to federal, state and local law enforcement agencies for good reason. If the data is made available to Bloomberg's groups they would then have access to who owns what and where it is located, a prerequisite to confiscation. This data has nothing to do with his so-called war on "illegal" guns and MUST remain confidential. Most people who favor citizen disarmament are either misinformed and/or deluded individuals who know absolutely nothing about guns and think they are doing the right thing. They see law abiding gun owners in the same light as criminals, because they focus on the gun, an inanimate object, rather than the person behind the gun. I can only advise these people to watch out for unintended consequences.  Image, in part, from http://www.a-human-right.com/ The elitist, anti-gun socialists, who lead the fight to take away our guns are neither misinformed, nor deluded. They know, that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, reduces crime. Where gun ownership is highest, crime rates are lowest. They know that guns are used more often to stop crime, than in the commission of a crime. It is therefore, in times like this, that owning a gun is the patriotic and socially responsible thing to do. The anti-gun socialists such as George Soros, Sen. Charles Schumer, Sarah Brady, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Sen. Diane Feinstein, Sen. Frank Lautenberg and all the other self righteous, anti-gun, hypocrites, would deprive us of our natural, God given right to self defense. We should all be asking why these people, who know that guns are beneficial to a free society, who hire their own private bodyguards, or personally carry a gun, want to strip them away from us. Obviously they have an unspoken agenda. I wonder what it is? Perhaps they simply consider us inferior to themselves. (UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE) Lindisfarne Priory, 793 A.D…. An early “Weapon Free Zone”. Lets ask a monk how well it worked? Oh, we can’t! (They were all massacred by armed attackers!) The statistics used here are all available on the internet and are from official sources. Crime statistics for England and Wales can be found here. and those of the U.S.A. here. Statistics used are from 2005 and/or 2006 depending on last recorded updates. Also, what gets recorded as a "violent" crime varies from country to country, but not enough to alter the numbers by much. NOTE: "Gun" homicides are lower in the U.K, but this doesn't reflect total gun crime. Violent crime, homicide, attempted homicide, assaults, rape etc. in the U.K. are up dramatically, guns or no guns.  A comparison between the U.S. and the U.K.: The population of the United Kingdom just passed 60 million. However the crime statistics reported are for England and Wales only so I will use the population figure of 53 million. The population of the United States is 300 million. Therefore, the population of England and Wales is only 17.7% that of the U.S.A., but they have more than 4.2 times (they admit two times) as many violent crimes per capita. England and Wales experienced 1,059,931 violent crimes "against the person" reported 2005-2006. The U.S. experienced 1,390,695 reported in 2005 for a rate of 469 violent crimes per 100k population and the U.K. is 1,999.9 (2005-06) per 100k population and that, as noted, only includes reported crime in England and Wales which was under reported by an additional 2 million plus violent crimes, making the actual violent crimes over 3 million, or three times the reported total. In the four years from 1998-99 to 2002-03, the overall violent crime rate in the U.K. was up 118% (300% plus with adjusted totals), the result of unintended consequences. These are facts, which the government of the U.K. attempts to keep from their people, who are prohibited from owning guns. Despite government efforts to hide the problem, some in the U.K. get it. In their desperation, the U.K. has banned air guns and toy guns, including Star Trek phasers, believe it or not. Next on the list for banning must be knives, Cricket bats, sticks and rocks, but even that will not change anything, because the problem lies within society itself, not the tools it uses. 
The same problem plagues Australia, for the same reason. As a matter of fact, recent research published in the British Journal of Criminology finds that Australia's mandated gun turn-in program—which netted 640,000 guns at a cost of some $500 million—failed to make the country safer. After the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in which a lone psychopath killed 53 people, Australia banned semiautomatic long guns and began a 12-month amnesty period for gun owners to turn in their property and receive compensation. The rate of all violent crime in Australia is up 32% since 1996 and armed robbery is up 74%. The violent crime rate is 873 per 100k population, the result of unintended consequences. Even our neighbor to the north, Canada, after tightening their gun laws, finds that in the past 20 years, their violent crime rate is up 52% with a rate of 940 violent crimes per 100k population, twice that of the United States, the result of unintended consequences. "The Crime Control Act of 1990" was viewed by most as unimportant anti-crime legislation, but the "unintended consequences" have been tragic. It was the "The Crime Control Act of 1990" that established "gun free school zones." Between the first school killings and the second, 195 years went by without incident. See the list below. Between the Poe Elementary attack and the Stockton School shootings, the "reason" for "gun free school zones," another 30 years went by, with six intervening incidents. In the 225 years between and including the Enoch Brown school massacre and the Stockton shootings there were a total of nine incidents. You remember Pres. George H.W. Bush, the man who gave us the "New World Order," right? Well, it was he who signed the 1990 crime bill into law, establishing "gun free school zones." Since "gun free school zones" were established seventeen years ago, there have been an additional sixty-seven incidents. That is more than seven times as many, in the past 17 years, as in the preceding 225 years. Those sixty-seven incidents account for an additional 135 dead and 182 wounded. Apparently psychotics prefer killing zones where no one is likely to shoot back. It is time to do away with "gun free school zones." It was the Stockton shootings by Patrick Purdey that prompted the gun free zone legislation. Five children were killed and 31 were injured by Purdey, who used a legally purchased AK-47, to commit the deed. California law at the time required a 15 day waiting period and a background check to make the purchase and Purdey passed without a problem, but he shouldn't have. Although Purdey pulled the trigger, the entire California criminal justice system was also complicit in the massacre. It was only because prosecutors and judges allowed Purdy to plea down his crimes, that he was never convicted of a felony and therefore was able to legally purchase that AK-47. In 1979 Purdey was arrested for extortion and the possession of dangerous weapons. The following year, 1980, he was arrested for sex crimes. In 1982 he was arrested for possession of drugs. In 1983 he was arrested twice, for dangerous weapons and receiving stolen property. In 1984 he was arrested for attempted robbery and conspiracy. And in 1987 he was arrested on weapons charges and resisting arrest. The probation report noted that he was a danger to himself and others. Seven times Purdey faced serious criminal charges and seven times the courts dropped or plea bargained away the felony charges. Unfortunately, this goes on in our court systems on a daily basis. Judges who allow felons to go free, who then commit a capital crime, should be held responsible as an accomplice to that crime. Perhaps then, judges who allow these people to go free to commit further crimes, might think twice before doing so. Most of the following are the "unintended consequences" of gun free school zone legislation. This list is probably incomplete. The use of "School Unknown" in the list below means that the article, or data base, the information was drawn from did not provide the name of the school in question. I didn't include the Kent State shootings because that was a completely different set of circumstances. While a tragedy, it doesn't qualify for this list. In the U.S., forty states now have concealed carry laws on the books. In a comperhensive study of all public, multiple shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, John Lott and Bill Landes found that concealed carry laws were the only laws that had any beneficial effect. Think about that! And the effect was significant. States with concealed carry laws on the books, reduced multiple shooting attacks by 60% and reduced death and injury from these attacks by 80%. "As ye sow, so shall ye reap." When you sow the seeds of citizen disarmament, the crop can only be, vastly increased violent crime, or even worse, tyranny and genocide. Beware of U.N. treaties banning small arms ownership. Socialists in this country and the world over, are twitching with anticipation at the prospect of such a treaty.  Updated by Publius on 04/22/07. | Send Comments to ThePatriotExchange.com |
