I have sat in a cafe eating and listened
to people talk and say some of the most stupid things because they don't
know any better.
Not long ago I heard a conversation about the govern
ment killing its citizens. One fellow mentioned that he had heard that
such was the case concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing. The other man said:
"You don't really believe that Right-Wing crap, our government would never
kill its own citizens."
Well this man was either totally ignorant or
he does not know anything about the history of the United States; because
the federal government has been killing its citizens ever since this coutry
was formed.
I suppose the first ones would be those in
the whisky rebelliion; because they didn't want to pay taxes. So the government
sent an army to make them pay. This was within 10 years of when our forefathers
had fought against England and gained our independence, partly BECAUSE
OUR FOREFATHERS DIDN'T WANT TO PAY TAXES.
I could name many other cases but I will just
present the following which happened after World War I, when the government
killed the brave men who had fought a world war, (sic) supposedly to keep
us free. And the reward they got was being killed and beaten to death by
the federal government with other army personel, lead by General Douglas
McArthur.
I believe this was a blot on his otherwise
great record. For there is no doubt that he was a very great military leader.
Along with George S. Patton. However Eisenhower gained his repretation
and position as a five star general because he was screwing Roosevelts
daughter.
At any rate if you think the government will not
turn the military on you when the time comes, and that many of the soldiers
will shoot you then read and weep because so many will die in the coming
years.
You have read my posts and know that I cut
no slack about anyone whom I perceive to be traitors to our God, our Redeemer,
Savior, and King, and country. And many times I have related how the Jews
have betrayed our country, and so they have, 95 percent of all the traitors
ever caught and convicted of treason were Jews. But the truth must be told,
some of them were caught because other jews turned them in and helped convict
them sometimes at the cost of their own lives.
This just proves that the elite jews care noting
about the so-called lesser jews, and will sacrifice them in a heart beat,
to gain more power and money. The same is true of the so-called HoloHoax,
there were no 6 million jews murdered in the camps run by the Germans.
Many jews were murdered by jewish camp guards but you never hear them tell
that part. That is why so many people dispise them so much. Because they
will protect these elite, like the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, Warburgs
and others of their ilk and stupidly priaise them because they killed many
times more White People.
In the war to come, they will be destroyed by their
own elite, and what is left will be destroyed by the victorious armies,
because their hatred will be so incensed in them that they will spare none.
You say it can't happen here! Well it has already
happened in America. The following article written by Neal Knox and published
in Guns & Ammo Magazine, September 1989 issue, p. 32: "It was clear
that all the government had to do was wait. The multitudes of demonstrators
in the immense government square had shrunk to a few thousand, and more
were drifting away every day. But the hardliners were determined that the
demonstrators shouldn't escape unscathed; such protests could lead to open
rebellion and violent revolution-like the one that had created the present
government. With the heads of government divided and wavering, the Army
decided to act. Obeying the orders of the president, the commanding general
of the army lined up his forces facing the demonstrators and ordered them
to disperse. The demonstrators didn't think the Army would attack. It did.
Tanks rolled into and across the demonstrators' ramshackle huts. Marching
soldiers with fixed bayonets and assault rifles and tear gas followed the
tanks, clubbing, bayoneting and shooting those assembled.
The Army later said the demonstrators rioted;
the general claimed armed soldiers were attacked. Many of the demonstrators
were wounded; the number who died will never be known - the government
claimed it was only one. The commanding general declared that the demonstrators
were driven by 'the essence of revolution,' and that it was 'beyond the
shadow of a doubt' that the demonstrators had been about to seize control
of the government.
The commander was Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
The place was Washington, D.C., not Beijing.
The date was 1932, not 1989.
The 'assault rifles' were bolt-action Springfield
Model 1903s, not AK-47s. The peaceful demonstrators weren't students in
Tiananmen Square demanding the equivalent of our First Amendment rights
of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the
government for grievances. The demonstrators on the Washington mall and
nearby Anacostia already had those rights; their problem was that they
used them. They were Americans - World War I veterans, thrown out of work
by the Great Depression (created by the Federal Reserve), lobbying for
government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.
No, the attack on the Bonus Marchers, bad as
it was, wasn't the brutal mass murder unleashed upon the students in Beijing.
The American people wouldn't have tolerated it - and had the means to stop
it. What happened at Tiananmen Square was the kind of ruthless tyranny
that has occurred in other lands throughout history, and is precisely what
the Founding Fathers feared might be done by the powerful central government
they were creating under the United States Constitution. That's why the
people refused to ratify that Constitution until it was amended to guarantee
certain individual freedoms known today as the Bill of Rights. That's why
the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly and petitioning the
government were backed up by the Second Amendment guarantee that the right
of the people to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. And when,
during debate on the amendment, some senators attempted to limit the right
to apply only to 'the common defense' which is what some people today say
it is, the Senate rejected it. That piece of 'legislative history' clearly
shows that the Second Amendment was intended to be an individual right;
not merely a 'collective right' of states to have militia.
Most of the world's constitutions, even the Constitution of Soviet
Russia, contain beautiful words promising freedoms that only U.S. citizens
enjoy. The reason, as unintentionally acknowledged by the anti-gun crowd,
is that only in the United States do individual citizens have such relatively
free and unfettered access to firearms. But instead of glorying in that
unique freedom, and the freedoms it guarantees, some in the Establishment
are attempting to eliminate it -- with too much success.
The nation existed for 150 years without any federal gun laws.
The National Firearms Act, attempting to tax out of existence machine guns
and short-barrelled shotguns (the bill originally included handguns) was
enacted in 1934. Don't kid yourself that the reason was Thompson-toting
hoodlums like Pretty Boy Floyd, John Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde. The
real reason was the fear put into the Establishment by those Bonus Marchers,
and the March 7, 1932 march on the Ford plant in Dearborn, Michigan, where
police killed four and wounded 50.
The government's fear was summed up by one
of the co-sponsors of a bill to ban private possession of 'military weapons
whose only purpose to kill people.' During the hearings he blurted it out:
'What scares me is the thought of those veterans going against the police;
Vietnam veterans know how to use those guns.' The legislator was testifying
in Maryland hearings earlier this year (1989) on a California-type bill
banning the possession of AK-47s rifles and other military-style semi-automatics...New
Jersey State Police Col. Clinton Pagano, a determined advocate for prohibitive
gun laws, has said many times that 'gun control is people control.' He
is exactly correct. That objective never changes, only the excesses used
to promote it. The first major gun control push in this country wasn't
'to control crime,' it was to control freed slaves. The first Supreme Court
decision on the Second Amendment, U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), so proudly
cited by anti-gun 'liberals,' held that the 'right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed' meant only that it could not be infringed
by the Congress, that the Second Amendment did not prohibit the Ku Klux
Klan from conspiring with local officials to prevent freed slaves from
possessing guns and attending political meetings.
The next major wave of 'gun control' was supposedly
to deny guns to 'anarchists' -- which was a code name for immigrants; during
the waves of immigration around the turn of the century. For the first
time the criminal element began actively using and promoting 'gun control'
as a means of disarming potential victims.
Immigrant shopkeepers, accustomed to being
bullied by thugs, corrupt police and government in Europe, had willingly
paid 'protection money' to the thugs who helped support New York's corrupt
Tammany Hall political machine. But their American sons began to arm themselves
and began to fight back with guns, which inspired Tammany politician 'Big
Tim' Sullivan to push through the 1911 law which bears his name, requiring
police permission to possess a handgun. Immigrants, like blacks in southern
states which enacted purchase permit laws, needn't apply. The U.S. didn't
have a patent on people control through 'gun control;' according to recently
released government papers researched by retired West Yorkshire Constabulary
Inspector Colin Greenwood, the British government deliberately exaggerated
reports of armed crime to justify their 1919 law requiring firearms licenses.
The real intent wasn't to control armed crime (which was much lower then
than now), but an effort to check the Irish Republican Army. During the
late 1930's, firearms registration laws were enacted in most of the European
countries that didn't already have them. They were legislated in the guise
of 'crime control,' but proved to be of great 'people control' benefit
to the invading German Army, and subsequently to the invading U.S. and
Russian armies. In the U.S. in 1938, the national government required gun
dealers to be licensed, and required records to be kept on handgun buyers.
But more restrictive 'gun control' was promoted under a novel excuse: 'keeping
guns out of the hands of Fifth Columnists.'
Incredibly, in the spring of 1941, a year after
gun owner lists were known to have been used by the Nazis to disarm occupied
nations, gun registration laws were pending in 40 U.S. state legislatures.
World War II put a stop to U.S. 'gun control'
efforts, as did returning GI's who had seen how such laws had been used
to enslave occupied nations - and decimate the Jews. But the debate began
again in the 1960's. This time the excuse was to keep 'Saturday Night Specials'
out of the hands of 'juvenile delinquents' who were supposedly buying guns
by mail order. A new law eventually passed after the assassinations of
President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Robert Kennedy -- but
most observers agree it was not those murders, but the race riots that
gutted and burned cities from coast to coast which provided the final votes
for the Gun Control Act. It wasn't really crime control, for the firearms
crime rates have more than doubled since its passage; it was people control.
Throughout the 1970's, the major efforts were
to ban 'Saturday Night Specials,' which were at times defined to include
two-thirds of the handguns made. But most of the laws that were passed
only eliminated the unsafe junk, which had the predicted effect of upgrading
the crooks' armament to equal or better that of the police -- for which
the anti-gunners have avoided taking credit, but which they are using to
pass even more laws.
In this decade, we've seen the Supreme Court
decline to consider the clearly unconstitutional outright ban on handguns
in Morton Grove, Illinois. We've seen Congress ban armor-piercing so-called
'cop-killer' bullets which had never killed a copy, and we've seen non-existent
'plastic guns' banned. In each case the technique was the same: to solve
a non-existent problem with a broadly defined bill that banned much, much
more than the guns or ammo which created the supposed 'problem.' The latest
such assault is the attack upon semi-autos, which follows the same pattern.
While waving around the AKs, they attempt to ban your M-1 Carbine, Remington
742 and Winchester 100. Because that expanded definition ploy has become
so obvious, the sponsors pulled back to 'only' ban about 50 models under
the new California law, while giving the anti-gun attorney general the
power to easily ban more by going to the courts. In Congress, Sen. Howard
Metzenbaum's (D-OH.) bill would ban three dozen, Sen. Dennis DeConcini's
(D-AZ.) would ban a dozen -- but the actual number in the initial list
isn't important, for once the dam is cracked, it is relatively easy to
pour more through. Not even the most dedicated gun-banner truly believes
that semi-auto bans such as California's new law, or the ones pending in
Congress, will affect the flow of drugs. Nor is it true that 'assault weapons'
are suddenly 'the guns of choice' of criminals. Since a semi-auto ban can't
prevent isolated acts of insanity; since large- capacity magazines are
important only when someone is shooting back; since criminals do not prefer
'assault rifles,' then why the ban?
We know why Mexico prohibits private ownership, even temporary
importation by hunters, of all firearms chambered for military cartridges.
They make no secret of their fear of revolution. We know why Poland had
a registration and licensing law on all firearms -- so when the government
declared martial law on December 14, 1981 they could immediately suspend
all gun permits and call in all guns. We know why Soviet Georgia required
all rifles and shotguns to be registered -- so when their troops killed
dozens of protestors with poison gas in Tbilisi earlier this year (1989)
the government could seize some 66,0000 guns in only a few hours.
We know why the Chinese government won't allow their people to
have any form of the AK-47, but why won't the government of California
allow Californians to have them, unless registered to allow easy confiscation?
Why do President Bush and Sen. Metzenbaum want to deny them to Americans?
Do they, or any other official of the U.S. government, believe that they
have something to fear from an armed citizenry? If they do fear the people,
perhaps it is with reason. And many of us would like to know what that
reason is. Those who wrote the Bill of Rights gave us the Second Amendment
as an insurance policy to make certain that a Tiananmen Square massacre
could never occur in America. In recent weeks, in watching the powerful
television scenes from Beijing, we have witnessed what can happen when
the people have no freedom insurance. I'm not truly worried that U.S. Army
troops and tanks are about to be unleashed upon Americans. But don't tell
me it can't happen here -- because it has already happened here!"
"We must realize that our party's most powerful
weapon is racial tension. By propounding into the consciousness of the
dark races that for centuries they have been oppressed by the whites, we
can mould them to the program of the Communist Party. In America we will
aim for subtle victory. While inflaming the Negro minority against the
whites, we will endeavor to install in the whites a guilt complex for their
exploitation of the Negroes. We will aid the Negroes to rise in prominence
in every walk of life, in the professions and in the world of sports and
entertainment. With this prestige, the Negro will be able to intermarry
with the whites and begin a process which will deliver America to our cause."
(Israel Cohen, A Racial Program For The 20th Century (1912) quoted by Congressman
Abernathy, Congressional Record (1957), p. 8559)
