For your co-workers who think you are paranoid about the "gun grabbers". Bold italics mine.
http://www.etherzone.com/
NO MORE GUNS? ERASING THE OPPOSITION
By: Bob Baecht
The left-wing liberals would have you believe that the only reason for people to keep and bear arms is for hunting and target shooting. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While they claim that they do not want to make it illegal to own guns, that is exactly what they are striving for.
Anti-gun lawyer Dennis Henigan is quoted as saying: “The gun violence problem is more than a problem of guns in the hands of bad people. It is also a problem of guns in the hands of good people.”
Joseph Story, justice of the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845 had a little different slant on the purpose of the Second Amendment and shows how obvious it once was that possession of guns was put into the Bill of Rights for an entirely different reason.
He is quoted as follows: “One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish theirpurpose without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms . . .” And: “The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.” He continues: “The importance of this article will be scarcely doubted by any persons, who have duly refelected on the subject.” And: “There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.”
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton all understood this very well. Here are some of the things they had to say on the subject: Washington stated that “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s teeth and keystone under independence.” Jefferson had similar thoughts stating: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms . . .” Hamilton said: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government.”
James Madison in Federalist No. 46 predicted that encroachments by the federal government would provoke “plans of resistance” and an “appeal to the trial of force.”
These wise men knew from personal experience that governments can, and usually do, become tyrannical and the Second Amendment was an attempt to keep the government in check.
They were not advocating another revolution but providing the people the means of discouraging government from becoming too dictatorial, by the possible threat of insurrection, thinking that the right to keep and bear arms would be a determent and cause the leaders to behave.
If the left-wing promoters of gun control have any brains they certainly realize the implications of taking away our guns and the only motive one can attribute to them is the desire to make our democratic socialist state even more dictatorial and to prevent any serious challenge on the part of the citizens of the nation.
Taking away the guns is always the first step in the creation of a dictatorship as with Adolph Hitler and other dictators.
If you think that these people on the left do not understand the implications of their push for gun control and eventual confiscation listen to what Columnist Charles Krauthammer said in a column titled “Disarm The Citizenry” in the Washington Post on April 16, 1996:
“Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily.
It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It may be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Actually Al Gore, in reality, concurs with Krauthammer. He understands the philosophy of gradualism and this is one very good reason that we cannot allow him to become our next president.
When Gore was on the Larry King show on Sept. 16, 1999 (not so long ago), he expressed himself as follows: “I think that we should ban so-called junk guns. I think we should ban assault weapons used here, yes. I think that the kinds of weapons that have no legitimate use for hunting or the kind of weapon that a homeowner would use, I think they should be banned, yes, those kind of weapons . . . These semi-automatic handguns . . . they really have no place in our society.”
Of course Al is rather incoherent as usual but his meaning is clear. It seems obvious that his real aim is to ban all guns. In that little response he was referring to the 9mm and .380 caliber handguns which are the most popular in the country.
If any of you have the mistaken notion that these anti-gun folks are not working toward complete disarmament of the people, pay a bit of attention to their own words.
As Benjamin Franklin said long ago, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” Don’t be fooled by those who pretend to want to decrease crime by firearms regulation. Their real aim is to disarm us, with the intent of promoting their agenda of a socialist dictatorship and making sure there is no effective opposition.
Bob Baecht is a freelance political writer and regular contributor to Ether Zone.
Bob can be reached at bbaecht@bitterroot.net
Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
http://www.etherzone.com/
NO MORE GUNS? ERASING THE OPPOSITION
By: Bob Baecht
The left-wing liberals would have you believe that the only reason for people to keep and bear arms is for hunting and target shooting. Nothing could be farther from the truth. While they claim that they do not want to make it illegal to own guns, that is exactly what they are striving for.
Anti-gun lawyer Dennis Henigan is quoted as saying: “The gun violence problem is more than a problem of guns in the hands of bad people. It is also a problem of guns in the hands of good people.”
Joseph Story, justice of the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845 had a little different slant on the purpose of the Second Amendment and shows how obvious it once was that possession of guns was put into the Bill of Rights for an entirely different reason.
He is quoted as follows: “One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish theirpurpose without resistance, is, by disarming the people, and making it an offense to keep arms . . .” And: “The friends of a free government cannot be too watchful to overcome the dangerous tendency of the public mind to sacrifice, for the sake of mere private convenience, this powerful check upon the designs of ambitious men.” He continues: “The importance of this article will be scarcely doubted by any persons, who have duly refelected on the subject.” And: “There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.”
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton all understood this very well. Here are some of the things they had to say on the subject: Washington stated that “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s teeth and keystone under independence.” Jefferson had similar thoughts stating: “And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms . . .” Hamilton said: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of the original right of self-defense which is paramount to all forms of positive government.”
James Madison in Federalist No. 46 predicted that encroachments by the federal government would provoke “plans of resistance” and an “appeal to the trial of force.”
These wise men knew from personal experience that governments can, and usually do, become tyrannical and the Second Amendment was an attempt to keep the government in check.
They were not advocating another revolution but providing the people the means of discouraging government from becoming too dictatorial, by the possible threat of insurrection, thinking that the right to keep and bear arms would be a determent and cause the leaders to behave.
If the left-wing promoters of gun control have any brains they certainly realize the implications of taking away our guns and the only motive one can attribute to them is the desire to make our democratic socialist state even more dictatorial and to prevent any serious challenge on the part of the citizens of the nation.
Taking away the guns is always the first step in the creation of a dictatorship as with Adolph Hitler and other dictators.
If you think that these people on the left do not understand the implications of their push for gun control and eventual confiscation listen to what Columnist Charles Krauthammer said in a column titled “Disarm The Citizenry” in the Washington Post on April 16, 1996:
“Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily.
It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It may be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.
Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic - purely symbolic - move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.”
Actually Al Gore, in reality, concurs with Krauthammer. He understands the philosophy of gradualism and this is one very good reason that we cannot allow him to become our next president.
When Gore was on the Larry King show on Sept. 16, 1999 (not so long ago), he expressed himself as follows: “I think that we should ban so-called junk guns. I think we should ban assault weapons used here, yes. I think that the kinds of weapons that have no legitimate use for hunting or the kind of weapon that a homeowner would use, I think they should be banned, yes, those kind of weapons . . . These semi-automatic handguns . . . they really have no place in our society.”
Of course Al is rather incoherent as usual but his meaning is clear. It seems obvious that his real aim is to ban all guns. In that little response he was referring to the 9mm and .380 caliber handguns which are the most popular in the country.
If any of you have the mistaken notion that these anti-gun folks are not working toward complete disarmament of the people, pay a bit of attention to their own words.
As Benjamin Franklin said long ago, “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety.” Don’t be fooled by those who pretend to want to decrease crime by firearms regulation. Their real aim is to disarm us, with the intent of promoting their agenda of a socialist dictatorship and making sure there is no effective opposition.
Bob Baecht is a freelance political writer and regular contributor to Ether Zone.
Bob can be reached at bbaecht@bitterroot.net
Copyright © 2000 Ether Zone
------------------
The New World Order has a Third Reich odor.
