[CTRL] Gun Control in Chicago Works...to Boost Homicide Rate
-Caveat Lector- NEWS RELEASEGun Control in Chicago Works...to Boost Homicide Rate, Says Second Amendment FoundationBELLEVUE, WA, - Strict gun control in Chicago has worked...to once again boost the homicide rate, making the Windy City the most murderous city in the nation for the past 12 months, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) said today."Chicago finished off the year with more murders than New York or Los Angeles," said SAF Founder Alan Gottlieb. "During the past 12 months, 599 people were murdered in Chicago, three more than in New York, where 596 people were slain, and about 100 more than in Los Angeles."Isn't it remarkable," he observed, "that Chicago, New York and Los Angeles have some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, yet they still typically lead the nation in the number of homicides?"Gottlieb was particularly critical about Chicago's murders because Mayor Richard Daley has made his anti-gun philosophy a cornerstone of his administration. Gottlieb recalled that one of the city's highest profile crimes was the workplace massacre at Windy City Core Supply in August. In that case, recidivist felon Salvador Tapia used an unregistered handgun that had previously been owned by two now-deceased Chicago police officers."How Tapia got a gun that had been owned by two cops in violation of the very gun laws they were sworn to uphold underscores the hypocrisy and complete failure of Chicago's Draconian anti-gun laws," Gottlieb stated. "Chicago's murder rate will stand as a monument the institutionalized brutality that gun control represents."On the other hand, in Detroit, a city once plagued by runaway murder rates, the number of homicides has reportedly dropped to its lowest level since 1968," Gottlieb noted. "Two years ago, Michigan reformed its concealed carry law, and today, thousands of law-abiding citizens in Michigan are legally armed. Gosh, do you suppose there is any correlation?"Mayor Daley should publicly admit that gun control in his city has been an absolute failure," Gottlieb stated. "It is time for Daley and his anti-gun colleagues to take responsibility for every one of these killings, and to either change the law, or get out of public service."The Second Amendment Foundation is the nation"s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 600,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control. SAF has previously funded successful firearms-related suits against the cities of Los Angeles; New Haven, CT; and San Francisco on behalf of American gun owners, a lawsuit against the cities suing gun makers an amicus brief fund for the Emerson case holding the Second Amendment as an individual right. Second Amendment Foundation can be reached by phone at 425.454.7012, on the internet at www.saf.org or by email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .-END- Please e-mail, distribute, and circulate to friends and family Copyright © 2003 Second Amendment Foundation, All Rights Reserved.Second Amendment FoundationJames Madison Building12500 N.E. Tenth PlaceBellevue, WA 98005 Voice: 425-454-7012Toll Free: 800-426-4302FAX: 425-451-3959email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.ctrl.org DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substanceânot soap-boxingâplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'âwith its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsâis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF=""ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] GUN CONTROL NOW IN MARYLAND
-Caveat Lector- From http://www.rumormillnews.net/cgi-bin/config.pl?read=24231 Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg Rumor Mill News Reading Room Forum DR. BEHIND PORT ARTHUR GUN CONTROL NOW IN MARYLAND Posted By: StewartBeattie Date: Monday, 14 October 2002, 2:41 a.m. Gun-deaths, Control, And The Doctor by Stewart Beattie - author of A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur, 2002 © S. Beattie Oct. 2002 Recent news reports from out of America's East Coast of a sniper shooting unarmed people in Maryland and Virginia caused me to take a second look at part of an article I'd written earlier in 2000, about a star of the gun control network, Doctor Rebecca Peters, who coincidentally went to Baltimore as soon as her task down under was done. In Australia the gun control compact deployed as a network of NGOs, but also they were strategically grafted into our Administration in the Attorney General and Justice Departments. Duncan Kerr (Labour) was the Minister responsible for the Department of Justice who over saw the appointment of one Daryl Smeaton, charged with the drafting of new gun laws, for the States and Territories to enact - as early as November 1995. The National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC) was based in Sydney, but had an important branch in Hobart, Tasmania, headed up there by lawyer Roland Browne, while in Melbourne a sister organisation, the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) was run by John Bruce Crook. Prior to 1996, Crook was involved in a defamation action in Melbourne, and in that trial it was reported that none other than Daryl Smeaton presented the Court with a supportive character reference for Crook. 1 But it was in Sydney where Rebecca Peters rose to prominence, arriving in 1981, 'with a man she met travelling,' and apparently lived in Cairo prior to her arrival. While Peters says she decided to settle Down Under and become an Australian citizen, I'm caused to remember those famous words, 'In politics nothing happens by chance. If it happens, it was meant to happen that way'. Apparently Rebecca was from a young age, bent on saving the world. Born in 1962, Peters grew up as a teenager in Costa Rica, the second of six children in an American family. As her father worked for the American Government there, 'half jokingly,' she suggested in an interview in Australia he probably worked for the CIA. At age 15 years while attending an alternative school in Costa Rica, Peters was educated by itinerant young hippies. It was during this new-age education she became obsessed with changing the world. In Sydney, Peters enrolled in a university in the faculty of Engineering (possibly Macquarie), being just one of only two females in the course, but in 1983 she dropped out. For a time Rebecca took a job as a researcher and reporter with ABC Radio (known locally as the Gay-BC), worked with Andrew Olle, but soon found the nature of journalism, 'too disposable'. In 1991 with a not-so-subtle agenda, Peters returned to university, enrolled as a law student gaining her law degree, at the end of which, she produced a thesis on 'tighter gun control'. This was the centrepiece of an enormous folio of material she collected and wrote for her campaign to remove loop-holes in existing gun laws in Australia. She promoted herself as a 'multilingual middle-class lawyer' who was fanatical about gun control. 2 By `91 Peters was running the NCGC, rising fast to the position of chair, almost as quickly as the death rate climbed with each incident of that new phenomenon to Australasia, the gun massacre. Undoubtedly her success in this new global calling was to the delight of her best friend the feminist activist Eva Cox and Peters' mentor Charles Watson, Professor of Public Health at Wollongong University, who admired her for her 'intellectual thoroughness.' In a remarkably short time she quite brilliantly bull-dozed aside the entire weak, (some treacherous), and fragmented firearm owner, sporting shooters' groups, and almost surely was surprised by her success with the shooting massacres producing a 'win-win sound- bite' for the minds and meek support of the gullible Mums and Dads of Australia. Dunblane massacre occurred on 13 March `96 and Port Arthur followed 46 days later. Then all the pieces fell into place for Federal Attorney General, Daryl Williams, to implement the gun- ban laws prepared and ready in November of 1995 by Daryl Smeaton. Job done, it was off to the Big Apple for Peters. But a point to remember, while Rebecca Peters was down-under, 6 shooting massacres occurred in Australia and New Zealand resulting in 76 deaths and 53 wounded people. In gun control here, Peters was no doubt - numro uno. Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres have ceased! None in the last six years. And private firearms still abound In New York, Rebecca Peters hit the pavement 'running' and is immediately associated with Desmond Riley of the Coalition to Stop Gun
[CTRL] Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under
http://www.haciendapub.com/comm8.html Title: Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under Commentary Gun Control in Australia --- Chaos Down Under Miguel A. Faria, Jr., MD Last August, the rugged Aussie survivalist whose real life exploits inspired the Crocodile Dundee movies died in what then appeared to be a mysterious shootout with Australian police. A police sergeant was also killed in the incident. It was reported that Rodney William Ansell, the 44-year-old, blond haired Aussie, resembled uncannily Paul Hogan the actor who played his part in the movie and the sequel. Although Ansell was no angel and had had previous run-ins with police, he had been named 1988 Australian Northern Territory Man of the Year for inspiring the movie and putting the Australian Outback on the map. What motivated this shooting? In 1996, Australia adopted draconian gun control laws banning certain guns (60 percent of all firearms), requiring registration of all firearms and licensing of all gun owners. Crocodile Dundee believed the police were coming to confiscate his unregistered firearms. In Australia today, police can enter your house and search for guns, copy the hard drive of your computer, seize records, and do it all without a search warrant. It's the law that police can go door to door searching for weapons that have not been surrendered in their much publicized gun buy back program. They have been using previous registration and firearm license lists to check for lapses and confiscate non-surrendered firearms. The problem began with the Port Arthur (a Tasmanian resort) tragedy on April 28, 1996, when a crazed assailant opened fire and shot 35 people. Australians were shocked and the government reacted quickly. Draconian gun legislation was passed in the heat of the moment. There are three major political parties in Australia: the center right (Liberal Party), the socialist camp (Labor Party), and the ultra left (Australian Democratic Party) --- which tilted the balance of power toward stringent gun control at the expense of freedom. As a result of the ban, all semiautomatic firearms (rifles and handguns) are proscribed, including .22 caliber rabbit guns and duck-hunting Remington shotguns. Writing in The Gun Owners (Jan. 31, 2000), the newsletter for Gun Owners of America (GOA), former California State Senator H.L. Richardson writes: They outlawed every semi-auto, even those pretty duck guns, the Browning A5 and the Remington 1100s. They even struck down pump shotguns: the Winchester model 12 and the Remington 870...Do you own a Browning BAR rifle? Banned. How about a Winchester Model 100? Out of luck, all semi-auto hunting rifles were outlawed as well. They didn't miss a one. Be that as it may, at a cost of $500 million, out of an estimated 7 million firearms (of which 2.8 million were prohibited), only 640,000 guns were surrendered to police. What has been the result? Same as in England. Like in Great Britain, crime Down Under has escalated. Twelve months after the law was implemented in 1997, there has been a 44 percent increase in armed robberies; an 8.6 percent increase in aggravated assaults; and, a 3.2 percent increase in homicides. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years after the ban, there have been further increases in crime: armed robberies by 73 percent; unarmed robberies by 28 percent; kidnappings by 38 percent; assaults by 17 percent; manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. And consider the fact that over the previous 25-year period, Australia had shown a steady decrease both in homicide with firearms and armed robbery --- until the ban. Australia, a semi-arid, isolated continent, and a vast nation-state, in many ways parallels the history of the United States. In the 1850s and 1860s, it had gold rushes and pioneering settlers, reminiscent of our own western migration. In World War I and World War II, it fought with the allies. Australia remained a subject of Great Britain until 1986, when the last ties with the British crown were dissolved. With only 19 million people, Australia has an impressive fauna that includes plenty of varmints, marsupials, dingoes (that wreak havoc on livestock), as well as large rats and other rodents. Yet, hunting has become prohibitively difficult for all but a handful of Australians with private lands and the usual connections. Now, the ban on firearms and the disarmament of ordinary Australians has left criminals free to roam the countryside as they please. Bandits, of course, kept their guns. Like in America, only the law-abiding, by definition, obey the law. Yet, the leftist Australian government has responded by passing more laws; in 1998 Bowie knives and other knives and items
[CTRL] Gun Control - What Went Wrong? (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- Food for thought - especially the part about how the gun haters have never depended on mass participation. From: M. Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Friends, Here is a copy of my latest column FYI. It will be up tomorrow on Newsmax.com and Keepandbeararms.com if you care to link to it. As usual, feel free to use it in any publications. Take Care, Mike Dr. Michael S. Brown Vancouver, WA ** Gun Control - What Went Wrong? During the 1990's, the gun control movement seemed unstoppable. Numerous gun laws were passed at all levels of government. With the aid of powerful media allies, gun ownership was tagged as an antisocial act and supporters of gun rights were successfully portrayed as tools of an evil gun lobby. The issue was considered so powerful that a major party included a call for much stricter gun control as an important part of its platform. Since the election of 2000, analysts have been pondering the anti- gun lobby's sudden reversal of fortune. Politicians have deserted the cause like rats leaving a sinking ship. The Million Mom March laid off most of its paid staff and was thrown out of its free office space for alleged improprieties. Their hated opponent, the National Rifle Association, has seen membership surge to an all-time high of 4.3 million. Anti-gun operatives are questioning their strategy and trying to maintain morale among the troops. Cracks are widening between the various organizations who blame each other for tactical errors. What went wrong? Simply put, gun control was over-hyped. Politicians and other opportunists were seduced by an emotional issue that appeared to have no downside. Jumping on a bandwagon that claimed to protect moms and kids seemed a quick and easy route to better approval ratings. With so much excitement in the air, it was easy to ignore the logical flaws in the emotion-based arguments. Underlying the entire movement were two unquestioned assumptions. First, that more gun laws were a surefire way to reduce crime and other forms of firearms abuse. The second was the belief that guns were used far more often for evil than for good. Since these were accepted as fact, the faithful were not concerned by the lack of solid proof. Some followers of the faith realized that they were on shaky ground. Fake studies were funded to show an overwhelming negative effect from civilian gun ownership. Clever, but misleading sound bites were constantly created to reinforce the impression of a terrible and growing epidemic of gun violence. By the time one statement was discredited, another was ready to take its place. Statistics were twisted to make it appear that most victims of gun violence were innocent middle class children, rather than young adult males involved with gangs and drugs. Suicides, accidents, homicides and justifiable shootings by police officers were lumped together to make the numbers more impressive. As many observers have noted, when the facts did not support their beliefs, they simply lied. While the media trumpeted gun control victories and parroted the party line, opponents and neutral scholars were researching the facts. Since so many countries, states and cities have enacted strict gun control laws, it is now relatively easy to find out how effectively they have reduced crime and suicide. The utter failure of new gun laws to create any positive effect whatsoever was devastating to the anti-gun arguments. Even more damning is the data showing that crime often worsens when gun control laws are tightened. Washington, D. C., California, England, and Australia, are just a few of the areas where crime increased embarrassingly after new laws were passed. They also proved the truth of the old saying that registration leads to confiscation. When American gun owners saw video footage showing piles of confiscated guns being destroyed in Australia, they were unlikely to believe claims by the gun control lobby that their goals were strictly limited. Scholarly studies by Professor John Lott showed another interesting effect. In states that enacted laws enabling law abiding citizens to obtain concealed weapon permits, crime dropped. This strikes at the very heart of the gun control movement which claims that the prolif- eration of guns is responsible for crime. Unable to rally enough academic horsepower to refute Lott's results, gun control groups resorted to ugly personal attacks. While gun control arguments were being dismantled by academics, grassroots action by gun owners exploded. Fearing extinction beneath the steamroller of anti-gun hysteria, they bombarded elected officials with messages, formed many new gun rights organizations and began participating in street demonstrations for the first time. The appearance of these normal, sensible people counteracted the attempt to portray gun owners as anti-social rednecks. Changes in media coverage also contributed to the climate
[CTRL] Gun control needed...
-Caveat Lector- ...for the government. INS audit says 61,000 items lost Hundreds of weapons, computers are missing 04/18/2001 Associated Press WASHINGTON The Immigration and Naturalization Service could not account for hundreds of weapons and has not been keeping track of thousands of computers that may contain sensitive information, according to an audit. The weapons, including six guns that were eventually linked to crimes, were among 61,000 items worth nearly $70 million that auditors said were missing, the Justice Department's inspector general reported Tuesday. The investigation dates back to 1998. The report said the immigration agency "did not adequately safeguard property" and "without immediate corrective actions, property will remain at substantial risk." INS spokesman Greg Gagne said the report offered a "snapshot of a lot of our past inadequacies." The INS is now requiring more record-keeping and employee training, he said. "We're in a whole lot better shape than when this snapshot was taken," Mr. Gagne said. "We have tightened the entire process up." The agency, with 32,000 employees, operates under the Justice Department and is in charge of citizenship requests, border patrols and the deportation of illegal immigrants. Mr. Gagne said that INS employees who enforce immigration laws need to carry firearms. The audit included visits to the agency's Washington headquarters and 25 INS offices around the country, the report said. Among items that may have been lost or stolen, according to the inspector general, was a gas-grenade launcher at the San Diego border-patrol office. Thirty-nine automatic rifles or machine guns were missing, more than half from INS headquarters. The report identified 539 missing weapons, many from INS headquarters in Washington and its training facility in Glynco, Ga. The inspector general said a follow-up investigation found that six INS guns had been linked to crimes. Two guns were used in armed robberies, one was confiscated in a drug laboratory raid, two others were confiscated during arrests and one was being held as evidence in a homicide investigation, the report said. Mr. Gagne said bad record-keeping was a major problem. More than 100 of the weapons thought to be missing never existed, he said. The inspector general praised the agency for improving record-keeping over the last three years. Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/national/341879_ins_18nat.ART.html © 2001 DallasNews.com A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Gun Control Movement Changes Approach (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1567-2001Mar27.html Gun Control Movement Changes Approach By Dan Eggen and Juliet Eilperin Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 28, 2001; Page A12 Twenty years after James Brady was shot in the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan, the modern gun control movement spearheaded by him and his wife, Sarah, is in retreat. Amid gloomy developments for advocates of gun restrictions, the Bradys' group, Handgun Control Inc., and its allies have lowered their expectations for Washington. They have turned instead to states and cities considered more receptive to stronger regulation of handguns. They are also scrambling to stop or rescind laws backed by the National Rifle Association and other pro-gun groups at the state and local levels, including those making it easier to carry concealed weapons. The shift comes less than a year after gun control advocates seemed to be gaining momentum with the heralded Million Mom March and a landmark agreement on safety standards with gunmaker Smith Wesson. But Republicans now in command at the White House and in Congress generally oppose new gun control measures. The agreement with Smith Wesson has effectively fallen apart in the face of boycotts by angry gun dealers and customers that have hurt the company. As for the Million Mom March, the organization just laid off 30 of its 35 employees. The group's protests on this Mother's Day will be centered in state capitals instead of on the Mall in Washington. "Everybody knows we're not likely to have big successes at the federal level," said Kristen Rand, legislative director of the Violence Policy Center, commonly viewed as one of the most aggressive anti-gun groups. "The lay of the land today is, if we don't lose anything on the federal level, we're in good shape, and hopefully we'll make some strides in some key states while we're at it.. We have to be realistic." The climate is a marked departure from the Clinton years, which brought a federal ban on assault weapons and enactment of background checks for handgun purchases as part of the long-sought Brady law. This year, however, the NRA and other gun lobbyists say they are confident they can again derail proposals for similar background checks at gun shows. In addition, the groups hope the Bush administration will support a nationwide ban on state and municipal lawsuits against gun manufacturers -- similar to legislation signed by Bush when he was governor of Texas. "Right now, the pendulum might have swung back in our direction," said James Jay Baker, chief lobbyist for the NRA. "The Democratic leadership decided they were going to make this a national issue, and they took it too far. . . . I'm hopeful that we will gain some ground." Sarah Brady, who will preside at a news conference today commemorating her group's victories over the last 20 years, said she hasn't given up on federal legislation. James Brady was critically wounded in the attempt on Reagan's life on March 30, 1981. "Given the leadership in the House and the Senate and the White House, it is not the easiest place right now in Washington," Sarah Brady said yesterday. "Certainly it's going to be an uphill battle. But we've had a lot of uphill battles, and that's generally when we've been able to do our very best." Some of the hottest battles are being waged in the states. New York recently adopted a gun tracking system and background checks at gun shows, and lawmakers in California, Illinois, Iowa, Rhode Island and other states are debating similar new regulations. The NRA is reviving a proposal in Missouri to allow easier access to concealed weapons permits, and gun control advocates are mounting a referendum drive in Michigan to undo a similar law there. The Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, an arm of Brady's group, launched a drive this month to persuade 20 states to follow the lead of the Massachusetts attorney general, who has enacted sweeping new restrictions on firearms under the auspices of the state's consumer protection laws. "There are many opportunities for us in the states," said Donna Dees-Thomases, founder of the Million Mom March. "If they want to throw up their hands in Congress, so be it. We've got other plans as well." The hard times can be traced to the aftermath of the April 1999 killings at Columbine High School, when gun control advocates did not get the federal restrictions they wanted. Conservative Democrats joined with GOP leaders to stop a House bill requiring a three-day background check on gun show sales and trigger locks for handguns. The NRA and several Republican candidates then seized on the issues in rural areas, using them as a way to undercut Democratic hopefuls in states such as Kentucky, Pennsylvania and West Virginia. Now both parties are wary of broaching the topic, according to a senior House Republican, because it can backfire among suburban voters the GOP is
[CTRL] Gun control dead at federal level (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- -- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001 05:51:20 -0500 From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gunsafe members [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Gun control dead at federal level Million Moms lays off 30 of 35 employees http://www.nytimes.com/2001/03/11/weekinreview/11DAO.html March 11, 2001 New Gun Control Politics: A Whimper, Not a Bang By JAMES DAO WASHINGTON -- In the days following shootings at schools in California and Pennsylvania last week, the new reality of gun control politics became starkly clear. Unlike in 1999, when Democrats reacted almost immediately to the massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado with demands for tough new gun restrictions, there were few calls to action. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, one of Washington's most aggressive gun control proponents, simply suggested a voluntary "code of ethics" for gun owners and their families. It was a strikingly muted response from a movement that, less than a year ago, thought it had finally reached the gates of political power. "You are the future now," declared Sarah Brady of Handgun Control, Inc., to the hundreds of thousands at the Million Mom March. "We must either change the minds of lawmakers on these issues or, for God's sake, this November let's change the lawmakers." But the laws didn't change, and neither did many of the lawmakers. Instead, a strongly anti-gun control governor was elected president. The euphoria of last year's march is a distant memory (one of its offshoots, the Million Mom organization, laid off 30 of its 35 employees on Friday) and the gun control movement, despite far-ranging efforts to match the National Rifle Association in raw political power, seems to have fallen farther behind. "I don't think views have changed in the Democratic Party on this issue," said Laura Nichols, spokeswoman for Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri, the minority leader. "But the political reality has changed dramatically." What happened? Obviously, the election of President Bush, a long-time ally of the N.R.A., put a towering obstacle to gun control legislation in the White House. As governor of Texas, he signed laws making it legal to carry concealed weapons and difficult for cities to sue gun manufacturers. But many centrist and conservative Democrats have also concluded that gun control has become their party's albatross, costing it crucial votes among white, male, rural voters in key states across the South and Midwest. And their concerns have touched off a roiling debate within the party over whether to play down or even discard the issue. "Gun control," lamented Steve Cobble, director of Campaign for a Progressive Future, a liberal political action committee, "has become the shorthand for why Democrats don't do well." Even President Clinton, a staunch advocate of gun control, offered what for gun control advocates was surely a dispiriting post-election assessment of the rifle association's strength. "They probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact we didn't win the House this time, and they hurt Al Gore," he said. Not surprisingly, the rifle association has been taking major credit for electing Mr. Bush. "With a new presidential administration in our nation's capital, we'll be actively working to root out gun-hating bureaucrats deep in the heart of the federal government, especially in the Treasury and Justice departments," a recent N.R.A. fundraising letter says. The N.R.A. certainly had its successes, pouring enough money into major races to help prevent Democrats from retaking control of the House. And it claims, and many Democrats agree, that gun control was the factor that put three swing states West Virginia, Arkansas and Tennessee into George W. Bush's column. Yet there is ample evidence that the rifle association was less successful in last year's election than its supporters claim, despite far outspending its opponents. Of the seven Senate races where the N.R.A. spent the most money, five of its candidates lost, including Spencer Abraham in Michigan, John D. Ashcroft in Missouri, Rod Grams in Minnesota, Bill McCollum in Florida and Slade Gorton in Washington, according to a Democratic analysis. All five were N.R.A. allies and all were replaced by advocates of gun control. In Colorado and Oregon, ballot measures to require buyers to undergo a background check before making purchases at gun shows passed overwhelmingly, though the N.R.A. spent $1.7 million trying to kill them. And while the rifle association devoted significant resources including the time of its president, Charlton Heston to beating Mr. Gore in Pennsylvania and Michigan, the vice president won both states. "The N.R.A. definitely has won the perception war," Mr. Cobble asserted. "But they lost the election." Polls show that a majority of Americans continue to support gun control. In January, 59 percent of the respondents in an ABC
[CTRL] Gun Control
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -~-~ eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups Click here for more details http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/1/_/356655/_/981772200/ -_- On Fri, 9 Feb 2001 15:56:56 -0800 (PST), Wyr Twister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear Senator McCain: I was greatly dismayed to see the Roll Call article (2/8/01) which reported on the gun control "compromise" that you and Joe Lieberman are fashioning. I would hope that you would CEASE and DESIST immediately from selling out gun owners' rights. The Second Amendment states that the people have a right to keep and bear arms that "shall not be infringed." What part of "not infringed" don't you understand? All of the proposals you are pushing will chip away at the rights of decent, law-abiding citizens. Should you succeed -- and I will do everything in my power to oppose your efforts -- I want you to know that you will greatly undermine the freedoms that Americans now enjoy. Furthermore, I should inform you that I will never support a candidate who consistently tries to undermine the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Yours for the Second Amendment, Troy Turner __ Do You Yahoo!? Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35 a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ -- CR FFL LIST: http://www.shelfspace.com/~c-r-ffl/ -- Charles L Hamilton Houston, TX email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To join the RELOAD-L list. The URL is: http://www.yahoogroups.com/subscribe.cgi/reload-l === RKBA! Please keep replies trimmed. That includes that annoying advertisement above - chas
Re: [CTRL] gun control
-Caveat Lector- --- Nessie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: up, upstairs. My opposition to victim disarmament is compared to telling you about how great it is to eat babies every now and then. And just WHAT is wrong with that, pray tell?!?!?!?!? snort deluxe ROTFLOL! YOU GO, NESSIE!! __ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos - Share your holiday photos online! http://photos.yahoo.com/ A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] gun control
-Caveat Lector- My latest column on SFBG.com sparked some lively debate over on Indymedia. According to some people, Im acting like a typical white/male/suburban paranoid nut and have something seriously messed up, upstairs. My opposition to victim disarmament is compared to telling you about how great it is to eat babies every now and then. Needless to say, I put them in their place. Check it out. You may get a kick out of it: http://www.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=15983 A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] gun control
-Caveat Lector- Good one Nessie! I completely agree. When well-meaning, law-abiding citizens relinquish gun rights they are not ridding society of the 'evils' of guns, but aiding and abetting the evil guns are capable of, as well as their own increased vulnerability.Statistics available from the Australian government demonstrate the rise in rates of violent crime, burglary and robbery since the populace has been disarmed. Below is a timely article about this very subject. ~ M ~ http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/363/oped/What_we_can_do_after_Wakefield+.shtml What we can do after Wakefield By John R. Lott Jr., 12/28/2000 WITH A GUNMAN'S attack that killed seven people at a Wakefield Internet company on Tuesday, the question is simple: What can be done to stop similar shootings in the future? For many the answer is more government regulation. The creation of gun-free zones, waiting periods, background checks, and safe storage regulations are just a few of the laws typically proposed. Yet, Massachusetts already has these restrictions and many more. Surely the intentions of these laws are noble. The goal of preventing concealed handguns or creating gun-free zones is to protect people. But what might appear to be the most obvious policy may actually cost lives. When gun control laws are passed, it is law-abiding citizens, not would-be criminals, who obey them. Unfortunately, the police cannot be everywhere, so these laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. This point was driven home to me when I received an e-mail from a friend recently, telling me that he had just dropped off his kids at a public school and outside the school was a sign that said ''This is a gun-free zone.'' I couldn't help think, if I put up a sign on my home that said, ''This home is a gun-free zone,'' would it make it more attractive or less attractive to criminals entering my home and attacking myself or my family? While horrible crimes like the one in Wakefield get the attention they deserve, rarely mentioned are the many attacks that are stopped by citizens who are able to defend themselves. About two million times a year people use guns defensively. Few realize that some of the public school shootings were stopped by citizens with guns. For example, in the first public shooting spree at a high school, in Pearl, Miss., in October 1997 that left two dead, an assistant principal retrieved a gun from his car and physically immobilized the shooter for more than five minutes before police arrived. A school-related shooting in Edinboro, Pa., in spring 1998 that left one dead, was stopped after a bystander pointed a shotgun at the shooter when he started to reload his gun. The police did not arrive for another 11 minutes. But anecdotal stories cannot resolve this debate. A study at the University of Chicago by a colleague and myself compiled data on all of the multiple-victim public shootings that occurred in the United States from 1977 to 1999. Included were incidents in which at least two people were killed or injured in a public place; to focus on the type of shooting seen in Wakefield, we excluded gang wars or shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery. The United States averaged more than 20 such shootings annually, with an average of 1.5 people killed and 2.5 wounded in each one. So what can stop these attacks? We have examined a range of different gun laws, such as waiting periods, as well the frequency and level of punishment. However, while arrest and conviction rates, prison sentences, and the death penalty reduce murders generally, they do not consistently deter public shootings. The reason is simple: Those who commit these crimes usually die. They are either killed in the attack or commit suicide. The normal penalties rarely apply. To be effective, policies must deal with what motivates these criminals, which is to kill and injure as many people as possible. Some appear to do it for the publicity, which is itself related to the amount of harm they inflict. The best way to stop these attacks is to enact policies that can limit the carnage. We found only one policy that effectively accomplishes this: the passage of right-to-carry laws. With Michigan's adoption this month, 32 states now give adults the right to carry concealed handguns as long as they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness. When states passed such laws during the 23 years we studied, the number of multiple-victim public shootings declined by a dramatic 67 percent. Deaths and injuries from these shootings fell on average by 78 percent. To the extent that attacks still occur in states after these laws are enacted, they disproportionately occur in areas in which concealed handguns are forbidden. The people who get these permits are extremely law-abiding and rarely lose their permits for any reason.
[CTRL] Gun control by stealth
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! A few days ago, I read about a new ATF weapons ban and I started doing some research. What gave me the information I needed was the phrase "Implementation of the Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, Their Parts and Components, and Ammuntion" I took "Model Regulations for the Control of the International Movement of Firearms, Their Parts and Components, and Ammuntion" + UN + OAS and ran it through a searchbot. BINGO! OAS is the culprit that created it and Clinton is its able abettor. America's ATF policy is now decided by an international organization that favors world government. Just today, I read an article by Tim Kern, "ANN SPECIAL REPORT: HR 4205 Is Real, and Horrible" (http://www.aero-news.net). The article is an absolutely MUST read. However, like most special interests groups, he is missing what I call "The Big Picture". His article is excellent,but doesn't dig deeply enough into the source of the problem. Quoting Mr. Kern regarding HR 4205, "The bill would impact others, too -- WWII collectors, VFW posts, libraries, even Civil War re-enactors -- to render their treasures inoperable. Wing spars would be cut; breechblocks welded; books destroyed, all after the DoD had already " disposed" of the equipment. "The offending sections, Sections 361 and 362, were designed as a bit of "tail-covering" for the DoD, which has, on occasion, sold stuff it shouldn't be selling. The DoD doesn't want to go track the stuff down, and Congress doesn't want to embarrass the DoD, so they did what any fool would do: Congress wants to give the DoD enough authority to cover up all its mistakes -- at your expense, of course. "Authorization for the language of Section 361, that allows the DoD to require demilitarization of things the Department already sold, came from a 1998 law that covered Fiscal Year 1999, Public Law 105-261, Section 1051, that requested the Secretary of Defense to provide "draft legislation that the Secretary considers appropriate to clarify the authority of the Government to recover critical and sensitive defense property that has been inadequately demilitarized." The wording came from the Defense Logistics Agency, and it's comprehensive enough to make sure that the DoD never has to worry about anything its citizens would ever own. PL 105-261 doesn't say the recommendations need to be adopted, either. "It depends on what your definition of "demilitarize," is. "Until recently, these legalistic word games were laughed aside; but we live in a new era, when plain words don't seem to retain their meanings for more than a session or two of the legislature. "Demil" used to mean, "render incapable of being used for an item's offensive military purpose." Not any more, according to the language of Section 361 (and its inbred little brother, Section 2573, which is the "book of lists" so popular with those who don't read the legislation they pass). There, you will see that, not only would the owner of, say, a nuclear warhead [how would the DoD be selling those? --ed] have to return it to the government for destruction, but owners of non-offensive militaria would, as well. The bill includes non-offensive items like clothes and like body armor. The real purpose of the bill becomes clearer as you read that the possessor of even the repair manual on, say, the instruments of a P-38 Lightning would have to subject his manual to "demilling." So would owners of other books and manuals. Collections of maintenance manuals, from everything from a lowly M-1 carbine, to the B-52, could be sent to the DoD book-burners. "Even non-offensive materiel would be banned. Non-offensive materiel and systems, even safety equipment, would be rendered useless. The bill includes "inertial navigation systems," and even some "non-military inertial navigation systems." These last, even though the DoD never owned them, could be recalled for the federal crusher. "Non-aviation historic and practical materiel is included. "A lot of aviators don't give a fig about guns, and that's fine. The rest of us will protect you. On the other hand, if you do cherish your Civil War-era caplock, or your 1903 Springfield (like Sergeant York carried), or your Daddy's WWII pistol, you're out of luck. Destroyed, all. Small arms primers, projectiles, ammunition, shell casings -- all gone. You say you're in the DCM and you like to shoot competitively, and you waited three years to get your M-1 Garand, and you bought it direct from the Pentagon? Sorry. It's bye-bye. Your local library has a complete set of drawings for the B-17, pieced together over thirty years by that little white-haired lady whose name you can't remember any more, but whose son was killed flying one? Burn 'em. "You reload your target ammunition, and you don't have any military manuals? That's OK, because any information in the reloading manuals you have, must be
[CTRL] GUN CONTROL AND BUSING
GUN CONTROL AND BUSING -- BOTH ARE MEANS TO TEACH CHILDREN THAT THEIR PARENTS ARE POWERLESS June 2, 2000 One of the major effects of busing was to show the children that their parents could not protect them. In Louisville, a child would have to show up at the school bus stop at 5 AM, ride for hours, be sent into a hostile environment to school, and spend hours getting home exhausted. And his parents could not do anything. The Powers That Be could do anything to them that they wanted to, and their parents, whom they thought were giants in their world, could do nothing. Lake High informs me that in Britain, burglars just march into private homes and take whey want, with the parents and children right there. In Britain, gun control performs the same function busing did here. In Britain, burglary is much more frequent than in the United States. And the burglars no longer strike when the family is away. Some 43% -- or three in seven -- robberies in Britain occur WHILE THE FAMILY IS AT HOME. Any means of self-defense is absolutely forbidden by British law, so the thugs just march in. In the evil and self-defense-minded US, only six percent of burglaries occur when the family is at home. Can you imagine the effect this has on the children in the United Kingdom? Having their parents at home means absolutely nothing. The thugs just come in and push them out of the way. The big liberal kick right now is to get all guns out of homes with children in them. Naturally, like busing, this is just for the good of the kids. But it also removes the ability of parents to protect their children. Every single judge I know of who ordered busing had grandchildren in PRIVATE SCHOOLS. Likewise, Rosie O'Donnell, the leader in this anti-gun movement, has hired an armed bodyguard for her kid. She and the liberal judges can protect their children. But they fight to prevent the average American from doing it. If you believe that violence is the worst thing that can happen to people, then you have no right to be a free human being. We have to be willing to face violence in extreme cases to protect our freedom AND OUR SELF-RESPECT. But the British are willing to destroy all the faith of their children in them to keep out weapons for self-defense. They think getting rid of weapons by law-abiding people will prevent violence. Obviously, they are wrong. But even if they were right, can you imagine allowing thieves to take over your home, with your children there, for anything in the world? THE COMMONWEALTH OF SOUTH CAROLINA? June 2, 2000 At the University of South Carolina, I was a member of the Euphradian Society, one of two debating societies dating back to 1806. When I joined the Euphradians, there was a single vote at the end of each debate. That vote only decided which side had made the best case. I pushed through an amendment which changed that to two votes, one on the best debaters, and the second on the question itself. In other words, we had one vote to decide which side debated best, and another vote to decide which side of the question we actually favored. Each year the Euphradians held a joint debate with the other debate society, the Clariosophic Society. Once while I was there the debate was on the question: "Resolved, that South Carolina should be become a Commonwealth in the United States." It is true that Virginia calls itself "The Commonwealth of Virginia" and that Louisiana 's official title is "The Commonwealth of Louisiana," but that was not what we had in mind. What we meant was the real, legal commonwealth status only one area of the United States enjoys: the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has all the advantages of statehood with the exception of congressmen and senators. It has only a single non-voting delegate in congress. But in return for giving up its right to help legislate for the rest of the country, Puerto Rico HAS ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY WITHIN ITS OWN BORDERS AND THE RIGHT TO SECEDE. So the question we were debating was this: Would South Carolina be willing to give up its rights to make laws for the rest of the United States in return for complete sovereignty within our own borders? The vote that resulted was very revealing. On the first vote, it was decided that those arguing for continued statehood had made the best points. But on the second vote A SOLID MAJORITY FAVORED COMMONWEALTH STATUS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA! Those of us advocating Southern sovereignty today have the impression that no one has favored it since 1860. This vote proves that that is not so. This vote was not the result of a movement, or of any preparation at all. In the late 1950's, when the question came up, a roomful of pretty representative educated Southerners voted that they would prefer sovereignty over our own affairs to running the affairs of the rest of the country. A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER
[CTRL] Gun Control in Oz (fwd)
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 16:12:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Sunlite [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Gun Control in Oz This was sent to me by a friend. "Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!) In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned guns in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note Americans, before it's too late!" = Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Mike Spitzer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. = A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL/GUN CONTROL
[ request you forward this FAR and WIDE! ] FROM Steven Wallace [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Just a little History In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. >From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. My grandmother lost her husband and four children to the Turks!!! In 1938, Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. In 1935, China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1964, Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1970, Uganda established gun control. >From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1956, Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" With guns, we are citizens!!! Without them, we are subjects!!! Something to think about... Don't let the liberal media control your mind. (If you value your freedom, Please send this on to all of your friends.) Bard
[CTRL] Gun Control Useless/Look at England
http://www.jpfo.org/alert2325.htm March 25, 2000 Beretta Sub Machine Guns -- Only $320! (We Told You So) By Richard W. Stevens, Esq. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership When guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will sell guns. Exactly one year ago this column headlined "The $200 Machine Gun" We predicted that when guns become illegal to own and sell, then the criminal element would rush in to fill the demand. Thieves, smugglers and black market gun makers could supply machine guns for about $200 apiece. About three years ago, the British government all but outlawed private firearms ownership in Britain. Because one vicious killer used a firearm to commit multiple murders in 1996, victim-disarming politicians rushed to ban nearly all private gun ownership and possession nationwide. The result? According to the January 16, 2000 edition of the Sunday Times of London, "up to 3 million illegal guns are in circulation in Britain, leading to a rise in drive-by shootings and gangland-style executions." What are the prices of illegal guns? According to the Sunday Times, "a third of young criminals, [ages 15 to 25 with prior convictions], own or have access to guns ranging from Beretta sub-machineguns to Luger pistols, which can be bought from underworld dealers for as little as £200." ($320 U.S.) How do the guns get into the "gun free" island nation? The Sunday Times reported: "Criminals have maintained a steady flow of smuggled guns from eastern Europe, exhibition weapons reactivated in illegal "factories" run by underworld dealers, and guns stolen from private collections." As predicted, when ownership of all guns becomes illegal, the buyers will shift toward the higher power weapons. "There is a move from the pistol and the shotgun to automatic weapons," British Detective Superintendent Keith Hudson told the Sunday Times. British criminals have all the guns they want. The Sunday Times thus reported: "Detectives say modern weapons are fast becoming fashion accessories among young drug dealers protecting themselves and their territory." Are British people safer? Crime rates are soaring in Britain. The British Home Office, according to the Sunday Times, released figures showing that "overall, armed crime rose 10% in 1998" -- the year after national handgun prohibition began. Usually, when the government passes a law that causes problems for people, the citizens can petition the government to change the law. Gun prohibition, however, does more than just endanger citizens by preventing them from protecting their lives and loved ones. Gun prohibition damages the whole society by creating a huge opportunity for organized crime to prosper. Even if the prohibition law is later repealed, the organized crime elements might be entrenched with enough money and power to get into other legal or illegal businesses. Political corruption, started during the prohibition, likewise will not just disappear when the laws are changed again. The British example shows how the ultimate "gun control" will likely work in America. Criminals will get rich selling illegal weapons to other criminals, and ordinary citizens will suffer a violent crime wave. The national "instant check" system and the "Brady Bill" won#8217;t even matter. Americans must not give up their right to personal self-defense. We must not turn over the firearms industry to thieves and thugs. And we must not let Americans be so gullible as to believe the "dial 911" false promise of police protection, when actually we are legally responsible for protecting ourselves. (Get the facts for all 50 states from Dial 911 and Die -- available from JPFO and Amazon.com.) The facts are here. Do your part by copying this article and sending it to newspapers, public officials, candidates for office, and as many other folks that you can. Download this article from the JPFO website and e-mail it everywhere. Contact JPFO to join or order materials at www.jpfo.org, or call (800) 869-1884. (Annual membership dues: $20 U.S.) News Flash: The Bill of Rights, with basic explanation, is now available in Spanish on the website. Copy and pass it on to all Spanish-speakers! [ JPFO HomeAlertsBeretta Sub Machine Guns -- Only $320! (We Told You So) ] A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to
[CTRL] Gun control equals corpses
WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! Gun control equals corpses Editor: Gun control - Something to think about 1. In 1911 Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 2. In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 3. In 1935 China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 4. In 1938 Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 5. In 1956 Cambodia established gun control. From 1975 to 1977, 1 million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 6. In 1964 Guatemala established gun control. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan I ndians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 7. In 1970 Uganda established gun control. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 8. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million. The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them, "Who do YOU want to round up and exterminate?" 9. Remember - the United States of America were established by armed Minute Men - civilian militia. With guns we are citizens, without them, subjects. And yes - you too can be exterminated. **COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/"www.ctrl.org/A DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substancenot soap-boxingplease! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright fraudsis used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html"Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]/A http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/"ctrl/A To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] GUN CONTROL: what's the reason?
-Caveat Lector- A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/" /A -Cui Bono?- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! A HREF="http://freeamerica.com/National/usa1.html"Gun Control/A http://freeamerica.com/National/usa1.html GUN CONTROL: what's the reason? By Harry V. Martin Copyright FreeAmerica and Harry V. Martin, 1995 "The strongest reason for the people to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson Gun control is one of the hottest topics of the nineties. There has been a series of legislation on both the State and Federal level attempting to control the ownership and sale of guns. There are currently 31 bills in the State Legislature right now that address the gun control issue. The debate over gun control centers on the issue of safety, on one side, and freedom on the other. Public opinion polls show the majority of Americans now favor some form of gun control. But at the same time the Second Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the people the right to bear arms. The increased possession of guns by gangs and criminals has caused great alarm, some mass killings such as the Stockton School Yard shootings and the Yseda McDonald's shootings have increased that alarm. But in the quest for gun control also comes the erosion of rights. This erosion is found in a confidential memorandum concerning a White House brainstorming session over how to control guns over the next five years and also projections into the next 15 years. The plan, outlined on December 29, 1993, states: "What was only a dream ten years ago can be a reality as early as this year. After the meeting, the following ideas were the result of brainstorming session to guide the focus of gun control initiatives over the next five years. These may not be politically feasible ideas for 1994, but we are confident that with continued pressure we can achieve most if not all of these goals within the next five years." That White House session was held on Friday, December 17, 1993. The plan outlines how the media is to receive one press release a day to keep the gun control issue on a high profile with the public. "Many local news organizations have been very active in keeping the gun control issue resolutely in view," the report states. The plan is as follows: 1. National licensing of all handgun purchases. This is the top priority. 2. Licenses fors rifle and shotguns. 3. State licenses for ownership of firearms. The license has to be signed by three public officials. 4. Reduction of the number of guns to require an Arsenal license. Ownership of five guns and 250 rounds of ammunition would be considered a arsenal. An arsenal license fee would be at least $300 annually up to $1000. An arsenal license would not be permitted in counties with populations of more than 200,000. 5. Require a Federally approved storage safe for all guns. 6. Inspection license. Mandatory inspection of all safes with an annual fee. 7. Ban the manufacturing of weapons in counties with a populations of more than 200,000. 8. Banning all military style firearms. 9. Banning any machine gun parts or parts which can be used in a machine gun. 10. Banning the carrying of a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in transit from one to the other. 11. Banning replacement parts except barrel and trigger group. 12. Elimination of the Curio Relic list. 13. Control of ammunition belonging to certain surplus firearms. 14. Eventual ban of handgun possession. A total ban within five years. 15. Banning of any ammo that fits military guns dating back to as far as 1945. 16. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder. 17. Ban on the possession of explosive powders. 18. Banning of high powered ammo or wounding ammo. 19. A national license required for possession of ammunition. 20. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components. 21. National registration of ammunition or ammo buyers. 22. Requirement of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing. 23. Restricting gun ranges to counties with populations of less than 200,000. 24. Special licensing of ranges, which also requires each existing or new shooting range required to get written permission of all property owners within a radius of seven miles. 25. Special Range tax to visitors, requiring the collection of a minimum of $85 per visit per person. 26. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges. 27. Banning gun shows. 28. Banning of historical military reenactments. 29. Making unlawful the assembly of more than four armed individuals who are not peace officers or military. 30. Begin to curb hunting on all public lands. 31. Making gun owners records and photos a matter of public record. 32. Random Police checks for weapons including vehicle stops and checks at all levels and in all types of neighborhoods. The fifteen year plan would call for the following: 1. Banning of all
[CTRL] Gun Control Conflict Brews
-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a prelude to war! Gun Control Conflict Brews In Calif., Davis's Resistance, Upcoming Primary Color Debate By Rene Sanchez Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, January 9, 2000; Page A03 LOS ANGELESâPicking up where they left off last year, California's lawmakers are charging back to work vowing to pass another batch of tough gun control laws. But this time, as a high-stakes election season begins to unfold, it seems they have lost their most important ally, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. The budding conflict on gun control here in the nation's most populous and often most influential state is hardly just another routine squabble in party politics. California has emerged as a national leader in restricting the sale and use of firearms, with its trend-setting legislature firmly controlled by Democrats and showing more willingness than Congress to tackle the issue. The state's pivotal primary for presidential candidates also is only two months away, and gun control figures to be at the forefront of voter concerns. Last summer, with the fervent support of the newly elected Davis, California adopted a groundbreaking set of laws designed to crack down on the proliferation of guns. The package includes what gun control groups call the nation's toughest ban on assault weapons. It limits handgun purchases in the state to one a month and prohibits the manufacture or sale of cheap "Saturday Night Special" handguns that often are used in violent crimes. It also requires all guns made or sold in California to have safety locks on triggers. Now, lawmakers across the Golden State say they want to take another potentially significant step: Imposing more extensive registration and new licensing requirements on prospective gun owners. An array of proposals already is being developed in the legislature, which reconvened last week. Most would force gun owners to take more safety tests, pay higher fees and renew a firearms license every year or few years. Advocates of the ideas say that they would help police track guns used in crimes more easily and conduct background checks of gun owners regularly--not just at the time of a purchase. "We made tremendous strides last year, but we still need to do more," said state Rep. Jack Scott, the chairman of the legislature's select committee on gun violence. "These are common-sense things that the public says it wants." Many lawmakers, including Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa, are urging Davis to keep an open mind about supporting a new slate of gun regulations. After years of political gridlock on the issue, they know they have the votes and the key interest groups on their side to get measures passed. The California Police Chiefs Association has expressed support for licensing and registration of guns, and has yet to complain about the workload the new laws will create. Stopping now, lawmakers contend, also would send the wrong message to an electorate that in many polls is showing growing interest in strict gun control. But Davis sounds worried that the legislature is going too far, too fast. His caution, his aides say, is both practical and political. He wants to give law enforcement officials and the public a chance to adjust to and assess the new gun laws without creating still more rules. He also apparently fears that approving another wave of gun laws could galvanize conservative voters at a time when the looming presidential race in make-or-break California looks quite competitive. Some early polls of hypothetical election matchups show Vice President Gore, whom Davis has endorsed, in a dead heat with Texas Gov. George W. Bush. In his annual address to the legislature on Wednesday, Davis barely mentioned gun control, saying instead that his dominant priority this year will be using the state's projected $3 billion surplus to hire better teachers and improve public schools. He praised the gun measures that lawmakers approved last year as sensible and important, but then said simply, "They need time to work." Garry South, a political adviser to Davis, said the legislature should not doubt the governor's resolve on shelving gun control for the year. "He is being very clear," South said. "We should not be overloading the system with too many new laws at once. We believe the public wants us to take a deep breath and make sure these laws work first. There can be a real backlash to where we're going." Even though they are just taking effect, the new laws are creating seismic changes in California's gun industry. First, the mere prospect of tougher gun regulations is prompting smaller weapons retailers, some with questionable business practices, to close. Larger outlets that gun groups say often work more comfortably with law enforcement agencies are taking control of the market. Second, gun sales in the state have been soaring, especially in the past few months. In December, sales
[CTRL] Gun control does not reduce crime; gun ownership does.
-Caveat Lector- Folks, See my three part article, "Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control." Please spread that Article far and wide. Bard Visit me at: The Center for Exposing Corruption in the Federal Government http://www.xld.com/public/center/center.htm Federal Government defined: a benefit/subsidy protection racket! DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Gun Control: Learn a Lesson from Australia's Mistake (fwd)
-Caveat Lector- Source: TheOrator.com Published: July 7 1999 Author: Steve Stakem Learn a Lesson from Australia's Mistake: Say 'No' to More Gun Control Steve Stakem TheOrator.com With the antigun lobby losers after the US House of Representatives failed to pass any of their own, and the Senate's, suggested gun control measures, now seems like the time to remind people how lucky we are because of that. Surely the Clintons, McCarthys, O'Donnells and Shalalas of this world aren't about to shut their traps after the defeat of the proposals they supported. Alas they will scream and holler right into the 2000 general elections, trying once again to chip away at your individual liberty. They will do it for safety. They will do it for the children. It's at times like this, with the gun issue about to heat up again, to point out a story like Australia's. The most recent of the most civilized countries in the world to pass strict gun laws have yet to see a decrease in gun-related criminal activity. All this despite the claims of the know-better public officials who said, "less guns means less crime." Australia's gun measures have turned out to be a complete failure. Read the rest about Australian crime increases at-- http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3783b391075b.htm = Kaddish, Kaddish, Kaddish, YHVH, TZEVAOT FROM THE DESK OF:[EMAIL PROTECTED] *Mike Spitzer* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends Shalom, A Salaam Aleikum, and to all, A Good Day. = DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Gun Control, Pentagon Style
-Caveat Lector- U.S. Ammunition Sold to Civilians By TOM RAUM .c The Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) - Some 100,000 rounds of armor-piercing ammunition were transferred from the military to the civilian market over the past year, a congressional study found. The transfer was done under a government program set up to help the military dispose of surplus and obsolete ammunition, said the study released Wednesday by the Democratic minority of the House Government Reform Committee. The report said the Pentagon sells surplus .50-caliber shells designed for long-range military sniper weapons for $1 a ton to a West Virginia manufacturing company. Talon Manufacturing dismantled 98 percent of the rounds for scrap, but it refurbished the remaining 2 percent and offered them for sale, including to foreign military and civilian buyers, the report said. ``The sale of armor piercing ammunition in the civilian market poses a threat to public safety,'' said the report, while acknowledging that no laws are being violated. The Colombian and Brazilian military were listed by the report as Talon's foreign military customers, purchasing a total of 203,000 rounds over the past year. The company also refurbished and sold back to the U.S. military 35,000 rounds, the report said. ``We're doing nothing wrong. I'm not sure what the issue is,'' said John Connor, a Talon executive. The company also issued a written statement saying its operations ``are conducted according to contract and or appropriate statutory or regulatory requirements.'' ``Talon does not buy ammunition from the government but is paid by the government to demilitarize ammunition as established by contract,'' the statement said, disputing the report's claim that the government sells the surplus ammunition for $1 a ton. Rep. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., who with Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., commissioned the study, said the program allowing high-powered ammunition to pass from the military into civilian hands may not be illegal - but should be. ``This shows an unhealthy relationship between the Pentagon and gun dealers,'' Blagojevich said. The report was based partly on an undercover investigation by the General Accounting Office, the investigative branch of Congress. It said one unidentified dealer boasted in a tape-recorded conversation that the ammunition would ``go through six inches of steel up to a 45-degree angle at 1,000 yards'' and could easily go through bulletproof glass or an armored limousine. Despite its firepower, .50-caliber ammunition is virtually unregulated, the report said. ``The investigation showed that the U.S. military is indirectly arming civilians with some of the most powerful and destructive ammunition currently available,'' the report said. Talon is permitted to refurbish the ammunition and sell it in the civilian market under the Department of Defense's Conventional Demilitarization Program. Talon has an exclusive agreement with the Pentagon. From the 98 percent of .50-calibre ammunition that it dismantles for scrap the company manufactures an explosive used in road construction, the report said. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Gun Control in Australia
-Caveat Lector- http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/australia.htm A HREF="http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/australia.htm"Australia: Gun Control Increases Violent Crime/A Proof Positive: Gun Control Increases Violent Crime The Latest Data from Australia One year ago gunowners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns. The program cost the government over $500 million. The results are in...a dramatic increase in criminal activity. At the end of 1997, after the first 12 months of being in effect, the data show the following: -Australia-wide: -homicides are up 3.2% -assaults are up 8.6% -armed-robberies are up 44% -unarmed robberies are up 21% -unlawful entries are up 3.9% -motor vehicle thefts are up 6.1% -In the state of Victoria: -the overall murder rate increased by 18 percent -homicides committed with firearms are up 300% (over the previous 25 years, there was a steady decrease in homicides involving firearms. This was dramatically reversed 12 months ago with the imposition of the draconian gun control scheme) -There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly [Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics] DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Gun Control in Australia
-Caveat Lector- Hello Bob, I just wanted to thank you for documentation and statistics. eagle 1 The Eagle 1 Observer http://www.crayon.net/read.cgi?[EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Bob Stokes [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sunday, May 30, 1999 3:29 PM Subject: [CTRL] Gun Control in Australia -Caveat Lector- http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/australia.htm A HREF="http://www.guntruths.com/Resource/australia.htm"Australia: Gun Control Increases Violent Crime/A Proof Positive: Gun Control Increases Violent Crime The Latest Data from Australia One year ago gunowners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms, including semi-automatic .22 rifles and shotguns. The program cost the government over $500 million. The results are in...a dramatic increase in criminal activity. At the end of 1997, after the first 12 months of being in effect, the data show the following: -Australia-wide: -homicides are up 3.2% -assaults are up 8.6% -armed-robberies are up 44% -unarmed robberies are up 21% -unlawful entries are up 3.9% -motor vehicle thefts are up 6.1% -In the state of Victoria: -the overall murder rate increased by 18 percent -homicides committed with firearms are up 300% (over the previous 25 years, there was a steady decrease in homicides involving firearms. This was dramatically reversed 12 months ago with the imposition of the draconian gun control scheme) -There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly [Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics] DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
Re: [CTRL] Gun Control Could Destroy the Constitution
-Caveat Lector- In a message dated 99-03-08 10:38:33 EST, you write: Many of the gun-grabbers' arguments for restrictions and bans center on the word "militia". However, the meaning of the term is straightforward: a military force, especially one comprised of citizens rather than professional soldiers. Some, in a convoluted interpretation of the word, claim that the term refers to state militias (e.g., the National Guard). If the Founders intended to limit gun ownership in this way, no writings exist to support that interpretation. TITLE 10 Subtitle A PART I CHAPTER 13 -HEAD- Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes -STATUTE- (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
[CTRL] Gun Control Could Destroy the Constitution
-Caveat Lector- from: http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/pageone.html A HREF="http://www.zolatimes.com/V3.10/pageone.html"Laissez Faire City Times - Volume 3 Issue 10/A The Laissez Faire City Times March 8, 1999 - Volume 3, Issue 10 Editor Chief: Emile Zola - Gun Control Could Destroy the Constitution by Sunni Maravillosa 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. U.S. Constitution That sentence seems so straightforward, doesnt it? Twenty-seven words. Yet the debate as to what the Founders meant by the Second Amendment to the Constitution continues to rage. As the latest escalation in the war on gunsthe lawsuits against gun manufacturers brought by cities across the countryprogresses, "rage" is an apt sentiment for those who value and strive to uphold the Constitution. While many other political items get attention from the talking heads and politicians, discontent over the increasing energy with which the Second Amendment is being attacked quietly grows. It is a powder keg waiting for a spark. Many of the gun-grabbers' arguments for restrictions and bans center on the word "militia". However, the meaning of the term is straightforward: a military force, especially one comprised of citizens rather than professional soldiers. Some, in a convoluted interpretation of the word, claim that the term refers to state militias (e.g., the National Guard). If the Founders intended to limit gun ownership in this way, no writings exist to support that interpretation. The second part of the amendment is also clear, and more difficult for Newspeak experts to argue away. In those days, "the people" meant literally thatthe citizens of this nation. Indeed, many patriots of that day are on record as supporting the right of the individual to own firearms. Samuel Adams well-known quotation is a good example: "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Others, recognizing the thin ice underlying linguistic arguments such as these, take a different tactic. Its common to hear arguments that the Founders had no idea that weaponry would advance as it has, leading to automatic weapons that can fire hundreds of rounds in seconds, missiles that can strike a target across a continent with deadly accuracy, and even nuclear weapons with their global capacity for death and destruction. While that may be truesomething Im loathe to grant, as Jefferson and others were clearly men of great minds, seeing beyond their time and circumstancesit is irrelevant. No one seriously advances arguments such as, "the Founders didnt foresee the high speeds capable by automobiles, so we must control access to them," or "refrigeration is a powerful tool that the Founders couldnt have predicted would be so important, therefore its use must be highly regulated, with mandatory licenses, training, and permission to refrigerate granted by the state." Others who would trample the Constitution try to appeal to our "self-interest" with their arguments. They point to the violence in our society, and attribute much of it to the presence of firearms. Many also like to emphasize the power of guns, saying that they are "designed to kill." My response to the latter is a simple, "No shit!" Again, these arguments fail to consider all the data, or miss the point entirely. Some who make these arguments dont knowor conveniently overlookthe history of settling the West. There were some violent gunfights, which were popular as movie fodder in years past, but largely Western towns were peaceful places because most citizens were armed, and bad guys knew it. As many satires on gun control point out, people arent calling for "vehicle control," despite the fact that automobile accidents kill far more individuals than firearm accidents. Still, many people think that it's "reasonable" to favor some kinds of gun control. Some buy into the "sporting use" arguments offered by gun-grabbers: "Why does a law-abiding citizen need a weapon powerful enough to shred Bambi into a casserole right there in the forest?" Other arguments generally go something like this: "Handguns, shotguns, and some rifles are okay for people to own, but no one needs a fully-automatic rifle or a machine gun. What would anyone need that kind of weapon for?" However, owning firearms was never about huntingits about "the security of a free state." How secureand freecan we be when all were "allowed" to possess are .22-caliber rifles and 11-round magazines, against the .50-caliber automatic rifles and worse of government forces? "To Disarm the People is the Best and Most Effective Way to Enslave Them" In recent years, and with increasing fervor in the wake of the attempted assassination of President Reagan, gun-grabbers have been calling forand gettingincreases in so-called gun
Re: [CTRL] Gun Control Could Destroy the Constitution
-Caveat Lector- I do not like guns; I have a pit bull, and if need be I will get an army of pit bulls for purely defensive purposes. This is my thought - not that anyone really cares... Look into the history of police departments. People wanted law and order, so they formed a civil service agency called the police - after all, government's primary purpose is to provide services, for which we pay - and dearly I might add. Now the South over a 100 years ago tried to get out of this condominium and failed. A lot of people were afraid and did not want to carry guns; they wanted someone whom they could trust to protect them and defend them; so eventually, came the first police department and the people let the police represent them just as they elect representatives to Congress - who are supposed to represent their best interests Now, if the right of the people is denied, and they cannot carry arms, the right of the civil service police will also be denied, as our police who are civilans eventually will be denied this right, as they are truly the representatives of the people when it comes to providing for the common defense on a domesic local front. The military is to provide for the common defense against foreign attack or invasion. I have friends who have seem some of these old "bunkers", etc. And we are told, well do not worry if there is a nuclear war or bubonic plague is thrust upon us, our leaders will be safe. The hell with our leaders; its every man for himself. These bunkers should be turned into shelters for the homeless or the children - has our government provided for the common defense of its people, or have they ducked the issue and feathered their own nests at our expense. Is that what it is all about. DECLARATION DISCLAIMER == CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
