Friday, January 16, 2009

Gun Control and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Amendment II to the US Constitution
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. (1791)

NRA's latest gun control scheme HR 2640. They are now traitors to America
June 02, 2009 By: Freedom Fighter Category
If you support the 2nd Amendment you must pull your membership out of the NRA as they have betrayed American Gun Owners on more than one occasion, the Veterans Disarmament Bill of 2007 and their support for the extension of the assault weapon ban.
HB 2853, a bill to force Oregon into compliance with the Brady Campaign/NRA sponsored gun control bill, HR 2640, passed out of the House Rules Committee today.
Only one member of the committee,Bill Garrard, voted no.
Although several members of the committee expressed concerns about the possible effects of the bill, with the exception of Garrard they all voted to send it to the House floor with a subsequent referral to the Ways and Means Committee.
The NRA’s Oregon consultant, who had previously expressed opposition to the bill, changed his position and declared the NRA neutral on the bill.
We now move one step closer to the complete big brother, centrally located, Federal database of people who will be denied gun purchases.
Because of your efforts, the language in the bill has change considerably, but the outcome will be the same. Sensitive and possibly incorrect information will be forwarded to the Obama controlled FBI. Should your information be incorrect and you either move out of state or attempt an out-of-state purchase, you will then be required to seek relief from an onerous and complicated Federal system. You better have plenty of time on your hands.
We have no reason to believe that any member of the House Rules Committee has actually read the Federal law they agreed to comply with. Regardless, it is important to note that a major component to this bill comes down to money.
If Oregon agrees to capitulate and comply with the NRA’s latest gun control scheme, the Feds have promised to send us money. In these difficult times, money, it seems, really does talk.
That is unfortunate. The Federal law was passed in response to the Virginia Tech murders. But everyone agrees that neither the Federal law, nor this Oregon bill, had they been in effect at the time of VT, would have made the slightest difference.
Furthermore, this bill seeks to identify people who are a “danger to themselves or others.” It’s impossible to avoid asking the obvious question. If someone is a danger to himself or others, why are they walking the streets, where, even if they are magically denied firearms (a fairy tale of course) they still can acquire knives, baseball bats, gasoline and automobiles?
The bill now moves to the full House. It is then scheduled to go to the Ways and Means Committee. From there it could go to another Senate Committee and then to the full Senate. So as you can see, now would not be the time to give up on killing this expansion of a failed gun control scheme.
The next stop is the full House. Please contact your own House Rep and tell them the promise of Federal money should not be the motivation for passing a bill with so many unknown ramifications. You can find your House Rep here. Your Oregon House Rep will be the LAST person listed. Their contact info will be listed as well.
Obama Positioning for Back Door Gun ControlBy Chuck Baldwin, April 24, 2009,
On his recent trip to Central America, President Barack Obama did more than cozy up to Marxist dictators; he also signed onto an international treaty that could, in effect, be used as backdoor gun control. It appears that Obama wants to use international treaties to do what congressional legislation is not able to do: further restrict the right of the American people to keep and bear arms.
Obama is using the oft-disproved contention that "90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States" as the stated basis of his support for the international treaty he is promoting. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA) treaty. The Bill Clinton administration signed the treaty back in 1997, but the U.S. Senate has never ratified the treaty. Obama intends to change that.
To date, 33 nations in the western hemisphere have signed the treaty. The U.S. is one of four nations that have yet to ratify it. According to one senior Obama administration official, passing the treaty is a "high priority" for the President.
If ratified, the treaty would require the United States to adopt "strict licensing requirements, mark firearms when they are made and imported to make them easier to trace, and establish a process for sharing information between national law enforcement agencies investigating [gun] smuggling."
Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee promises to "work for its [the CIFTA treaty's] approval by the Senate."
Should the Senate ratify CIFTA, Americans who reload ammunition would be required to get a license from the government, and factory guns and ammunition would be priced almost out of existence due to governmental requirements to "mark" each one manufactured. Even the simple act of adding an after-market piece of equipment to a firearm, such as a scope or bipod, or reassembling a gun after cleaning it could fall into the category of "illicit manufacturing" of firearms and require government license and oversight.
In addition, CIFTA would authorize the U.S. federal government (and open the door to international entities) to supervise and regulate virtually the entire American firearms industry. Making matters worse is the fact that, as a treaty, this Act does not have to be passed by both houses of Congress, nor is it subject to judicial oversight. All Obama needs to do in order to enact this unconstitutional and egregious form of gun control is convince a Democratic-controlled Senate to pass it.
Obviously, the United Nations, from its very inception, has been one of the world's most ardent gun control proponents. As anyone who has ever driven by the U.N. building in New York City knows, a huge statue of an American-made revolver with its barrel twisted in the shape of a pretzel greets every visitor. The CIFTA treaty is one of the U.N.'s pet projects in order to achieve this long-held ambition.
Of course, Obama is a longtime liberal radical when it comes to the Second Amendment. As a senator, he voted against the Second Amendment at every opportunity. He has never seen a piece of gun control legislation that he did not support. And as I have said before in this column, gun control is high on the list of priorities for the newly elected President Barack Obama.
For Obama to intimate that 90% of the firearms used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States reveals either a truly dishonest and deceptive mind or a totally misinformed and naïve one. Many studies have thoroughly debunked the 90% myth, including one by William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott in a recent Fox News report. According to these researchers, the real number is closer to 17%.
According to La Jeunesse and Lott, Mexican drug cartels, which control billions of dollars, obtain the overwhelming majority of their guns from the Black Market, Russian crime syndicates, South America, China, Guatemala, and even from the Mexican army.
In fact, Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar: AK-47s from China; fragmentation grenades from South Korea; shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc dealers; assault weapons from China; and explosives from Korea--just to name a few sources.
In addition, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo, more than 150,000 Mexican soldiers have deserted in just the last six years. The vast majority of them took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
And please do not forget that corruption within the Mexican government is rampant. Many news sources have covered stories of how drug cartels bribe Mexican officials. An article in the New York Times last year reported, "One of Mexico's most notorious drug cartels made huge cash payments to officials in the Mexican attorney general's office in exchange for confidential information on anti-drug operations . . . the cartel might have had an informant inside the American embassy."
The Mexican drug cartels control a multi-billion dollar enterprise that has more than enough resources to obtain planeloads of weapons from all over the world. For Obama to assert that 90% of the Mexican drug cartels' firearms come from the United States is a bald-faced lie! Again, either Obama is stupid and naïve or he is deliberately lying to the American people in order to "sell" the CIFTA treaty to the U.S. Senate. I think we all know that Mr. Obama is anything but stupid and naïve.
Read more about the CIFTA treaty here.
In addition to the CIFTA treaty, liberal Chicago Democrat Congressman Bobby Rush has introduced H.R. 45 in the House of Representatives. This bill is anything but subtle. It is an in-your-face gun control bill that would make "Mr. Gun Control," the late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, shout Hallelujah.
H.R. 45 would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including the ones you already possess. It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at a police station and sign a certificate that the gun will not be kept in a place where it could be used for the defense of the gun owner's family.
Read more about H.R. 45 here.
In all likelihood, H.R. 45 is probably a long shot at passing both houses of Congress, albeit gun owners should never take any proposed gun control bill for granted. The CIFTA treaty, however, is much more dangerous due to its subtlety and subterfuge, the less cumbersome process of passage, and the fact that it makes U.S. gun owners subject to international gun control laws.
All in all, freedom in America is on the Obama White House chopping block. And this much is certain: if the American people do not retain the right to keep and bear arms, every other freedom we hold dear will quickly disappear as well. Moreover, if we do retain the right to keep and bear arms, it will only be because enough of us--and our state and federal legislators--resist the tyrannical gun control machinations of Barack Obama. And that means defeating the CIFTA treaty and H.R. 45.
President Obama Continues Assault on the Second AmendmentBy John Velleco
April 19, 2009,
President Obama is determined to eradicate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.
In recent meetings with Mexican President Felipe Calderón, the American President promised to urge the U.S. Senate to pass an international arms control treaty.
The treaty, cumbersomely titled the "Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials" (known by the acronym CIFTA), was signed by President Bill Clinton, but never ratified by the Senate.
President Obama is hoping to capitalize on an increased Democrat majority and push its quick ratification. The U.S. is one of four nations that have not ratified the treaty.
If ratified and the U.S. is found not to be in compliance with any provisions of the treaty -- such as a provision that would outlaw reloading ammunition without a government license -- President Obama would be empowered to implement regulations without Congressional approval.
Supporters of CIFTA claim the treaty is not a threat to the Second Amendment, but only a "symbolic" gesture. But symbolic of what? That America really is to blame for problems of violence and drug gangs in a foreign country? That the American government can be pressed by a foreign country to alter the Second Amendment?
If the kind of "change" that Obama wants is for the United States to take its marching orders from third world countries regarding our gun rights, we're in big trouble!
The fact is, this treaty will do NOTHING to combat the violence in Mexico, but it will go a LONG WAY toward eroding our ability to protect the right to keep and bear arms through our electedofficials.
Even if America BANNED ALL GUNS, the violence in Mexico would not go away. After all, the cartels are funded -- to the tune of billions of dollars -- by products (illegal drugs) that are already completely banned. How much more evidence is needed that a "prohibition" will not work?
Actually, gun control proposals such as reinstating the ban on semi-automatic firearms will make Americans less safe, especially if violence spills over to this side of the border.
As Wyoming Senator John Barasso pointed out in a recent trip to El Paso, Texas: "Why would you disarm someone when they potentially could get caught in the crossfire?... The United States will not surrender our second-amendment rights for Mexico's border problem."
President Obama disagrees and he continues to spread the myth about how many guns recovered in Mexico come from the U.S. "More than 90% of the guns found in Mexico are not bought, but in the United States," he said.
William La Jeunesse and Maxim Lott set the record straight and debunked "the 90% number" in a report: "It's just not true," they said. According to their report, the real number is closer to 17%.
In other words, the Obama administration is pushing to disarm law-abiding Americans based on a massive misinformation campaign.
So how are the cartels armed if firearms are not pouring across the U.S. border? Keeping in mind that the cartels control BILLIONS of dollars, La Jeunesse and Lott shed some light on how they obtain the overwhelming majority of their guns:
-- The Black Market. Mexico is a virtual arms bazaar, with fragmentation grenades from South Korea, AK-47s from China, and shoulder-fired rocket launchers from Spain, Israel and former Soviet bloc manufacturers.
-- Russian crime organizations. Interpol says Russian Mafia groups such as Poldolskaya and Moscow-based Solntsevskaya are actively trafficking drugs and arms in Mexico.
-- South America. During the late 1990s, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) established a clandestine arms smuggling and drug trafficking partnership with the Tijuana cartel, according to the Federal Research Division report from the Library of Congress.
-- Asia. According to a 2006 Amnesty International Report, China has provided arms to countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Chinese assault weapons and Korean explosives have been recovered in Mexico.
-- The Mexican Army. More than 150,000 soldiers deserted in the last six years, according to Mexican Congressman Robert Badillo. Many took their weapons with them, including the standard issue M-16 assault rifle made in Belgium.
-- Guatemala. U.S. intelligence agencies say traffickers move immigrants, stolen cars, guns and drugs, including most of America's cocaine, along the porous Mexican-Guatemalan border. On March 27, La Hora, a Guatemalan newspaper, reported that police seized 500 grenades and a load of AK-47s on the border. Police say the cache was transported by a Mexican drug cartel operating out of Ixcan, a border town.
In addition, despite efforts to clean up the system, corruption in the Mexican government is rampant. An article in the New York Times late last year noted that, "One of Mexico's most notorious drug cartels made huge cash payments to officials in the Mexican attorney general's office in exchange for confidential information on anti-drug operations… the cartel might have had an informant inside the American embassy."
The bribes ranged from $150,000 to $450,000 each. Clearly, these gangs have the resources not only to buy firearms by the planeload, but they can buy the planes, too! Politicians on both sides of the border seem to ignore that they're dealing with multi-billion dollar criminal organizations that will always be able to get firearms.
One would think that Mexico President Felipe Calderón and Attorney General Eduardo Medina Mora would have their hands full cleaning up a huge mess in their own country, but they're not too busy to meddle in U.S. affairs.
As the Times noted in an article that coincided with Obama's Mexico trip, "Mexican officials have repeatedly called on the United States to clamp down on the flow of weapons and are likely to bring it up again with President Obama on Thursday."
Mr. Mora even lectured that "The Second Amendment was never meant to arm foreign criminal groups."
American office holders should be more concerned about upholding their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution than kowtowing to "blame America first" foreign politicians.
Obama Gunning for the Second Amendment
Reduce the supply and raise the cost of ammunition
By Selwyn Duke
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
This will seem like a strange way to open a piece of commentary, but the gun owners who voted for Barack Obama believing he respected Second Amendment rights remind me of the bumbling Inspector Clouseau.
Specifically, I think of the scene from “The Return of the Pink Panther” in which Clouseau was getting a real dressing down from his superior, Chief Inspector Dreyfus. The issue was that Clouseau had naively stood by talking to a “blind” organ grinder outside a bank while the institution was being robbed. After Dreyfus pointed out that the organ grinder was the lookout for the thieves and Clouseau said that such a thing was impossible because the beggar was blind, Dreyfus asked how Clouseau knew this. Clouseau replied, “He told me so."

Quite frankly, this wasn’t nearly as stupid as believing that a member of Chicago’s socialist New Party, who was weaned in a black power church, was a gun caesar and not a gun seizer. And now Obama is in fact striking a blow against the Second Amendment. He isn’t doing anything obvious such as advocating a ban on semi-automatic rifles, however (not yet); rather, in typical Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals” style, he is attacking where his adversaries least expect. So what is the latest change you can believe in? Gordon Hutchinson reports at a blog called “The Shootist” that Obama has just disallowed the Department of Defense (DOD) from selling spent brass shell casings to manufacturers of ammunition for the civilian market. This means that these companies will now have to by new brass and produce their own shell casings, a much more expensive — and wasteful — proposition.
Obviously, this will raise the cost of ammo and, some say, reduce the supply. Not only that, this is just the first of two steps (that I’m aware of) designed to remove ammo from the hands of Americans. And a gun without ammo is like a president without virtue: Totally useless for its intended purpose. But before I discuss the second step (I’ll keep you in suspense), I’ll present a letter on the policy change from the DOD. It was sent to Georgia Arms, the fifth largest producer of centerfire pistol and rifle ammo in the country, and was printed at The Shootist.
Here it is:
March 12, 2009 

Larry Haynie
 Georgia Arms 
PO Box 238
 Villa Rica, GA 30180

Re: Event 7084-6200: 

 Dear Larry Haynie,

Effective immediately DOD Surplus, LLC, will be implementing new requirements for mutilation of fired shell casings. The new DRMS requirement calls for DOD Surplus personnel to witness the mutilation of the property and sign the Certificate of Destruction.
Mutilation of the property can be done at the DRMO, if permitted by the Government, or it may be mutilated at a site chosen by the buyer. Mutilation means that the property will be destroyed to the extent prevents its reuse or reconstruction. DOD Surplus personnel will determine when property has been sufficiently mutilated to meet the requirements of the Government.

If you do not agree with the new conditions of your spot sale, please sign the appropriate box provided below stating that you do not agree to the new terms and would like to cancel your purchase effective immediately. If you do agree to the new terms please sign in the appropriate box provided below to acknowledge your understanding and agreement with the new requirements relating to your purchase. Fax the signed document back to (480) 367-1450, emailed responses are not acceptable.

Please respond to this request no later than close of business Monday, March 16th, 2009.

Sincerely, Government Liquidation
This DOD directive will also have dire economic consequences. Writes Hutchinson, “He [Larry Haynie] also told me with the cancellation of his contract to purchase this brass, and the ending of his ability to purchase any more expended military ammunition, he will have to severely curtail his operation—laying off approximately half his 60-person work force."
To make matters worse, this valuable taxpayer-purchased brass will have to be shredded and sold for lower prices as scrap metal and will probably end up in China. Great thing to do in a listing economy, huh? But I’m sure the Reds in China “much appreciate."
Now let’s get to step two. The government is also talking about requiring ammunition manufacturers to “code” ammo. This means that a code would have to be stamped on each bullet so that it could be traced back to whoever bought it if it was recovered at a crime scene (this will really help with criminals who steal ammo). This would also raise ammo’s cost a bit, but that’s not what is so sinister about the proposal. It also includes a provision stating that uncoded ammo — meaning, everything people own currently — would have to be disposed of by 2011.
Now, let me spell this out. The coding measure will force people to get rid of their old ammo. And with the new DOD shell-casing directive, Obama has ensured that higher prices and possibly lower supply will make it harder to buy new ammo. In other words, he’s robbing people of their stockpiles while ensuring that they won’t be able to replenish them.
Oh, are you wondering why some people may stockpile ammo? It’s very simple: It’s like insurance. If there is a disaster causing social breakdown, such as the L.A. riots, Hurricane Katrina or something worse, it will be too late to run to the store and pick up 500 rounds. The shelves will be empty. And then you’ll be left defenseless against rampaging gangs, who, mind you, don’t worry much about running afoul of gun laws. But, then again, let not your heart be troubled. I’m sure Obama and his security force will be there to protect you when the time comes.
Obama's Plan for Gun ControlBy NWV News writer Jim Kouri
March 2, 2009, © participated in a press teleconference regarding President Obama's plans for gun control.
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama deliberately and repeatedly lied to America's 90 million gun owners across the country when he insisted that he would not try to take away anyone's firearms, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said during a press teleconference on Friday.
CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, reacting to Thursday's remarks by Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder that the president will seek to reinstate the ban on semi-automatic firearms, said Obama "knew he was lying to the nation because his own web site touted his plan to revive the gun ban and make it permanent."
"We warned America that Obama's 'support' for the Second Amendment was empty rhetoric," he stated, "and now Holder's disclosure has confirmed it. Obama was lying, and now gun rights may be dying."
Several times on the campaign trail, Obama told voters "I'm not going to take your guns away." He said it at rallies in Duryea, Pennsylvania and in Boise, Idaho. He also told a news conference that "Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear... I think people can take me at my word."
"Right now," said Gottlieb, "I wouldn't take Obama's word if he said it rains a lot in Seattle. Apparently, law-abiding gun owners have nothing to fear unless they own sport-utility rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, handguns and any other firearm that Obama and his anti-gun attorney general don't like."
"Thanks to Eric Holder, who has been far more honest than his boss about his anti-gun philosophy, it is now clear that the new president doesn't support the Second Amendment at all," he observed. "American gun owners should remind Democrats in Congress that the Second Amendment means what it says, especially when the president doesn't."
The gun-rights protectors aren't the only ones sounding the Obama -Holder alarm. The National Legal and Policy Center, an organization that achieved success as a plaintiff in the 1993 lawsuit to open the meetings and records of Hillary Rodham Clinton's health care task force, criticized President-Elect Barack Obama for selecting Eric Holder as his Attorney General. NLPC promotes ethics in public life, and sponsors the Government Integrity Project.
According to NLPC President Peter Flaherty, "Holder is not ethically qualified to serve as Attorney General. His track record is not one of independence or objectivity. Instead, he has been guided by politics and self-interest."
On December 21, 1994, federal Judge Royce Lamberth, who presided over the litigation to open the health care task force, asked Holder, who at the time was the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, to investigate Ira Magaziner for possible perjury and criminal contempt of court. He also suggested that Attorney General Janet Reno should appoint an independent counsel to investigate.
Reno announced on March 3, 1995 that she would not appoint an independent prosecutor. On August 3, 1995 Eric Holder announced that he, too, would not prosecute Magaziner.
Magaziner, who headed up the task force, asserted to plaintiffs in a March 3, 1993 statement that no outsiders, or non-government employees, were taking part in the task force. When task force documents were later produced, it was obvious that dozens of outsiders had taken part. It was not a small point. The presence of outsiders would trigger the Federal Advisory Committee Act, requiring that task force meetings be opened to the public. Magaziner's claim stood for several months. Magaziner and other participants in the task force took no action to expose it or to correct the record.
An example of an outsider was Lois Quam, a vice-president of United Health Care Corporation, a for-profit managed care provider. United Health Care stood to financially benefit from the decisions of the task force, not to mention the reams of inside information to which she would become privy.
Quam's participation also helped fuel a controversy directly involving Hillary. The Clintons were investors in a closely held limited partnership called ValuePartners 1, which held a block of United Health Care stock. The partnership shorted a number of health-related stocks including United Health Care. At the time of his death, Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster was in the process of putting the Clinton's health care stocks into a blind trust, a task not completed until July 26, 1994.
At the time, NLPC accused the Clinton administration of a cover-up. Both Reno and Holder were appointed by Clinton, and Reno owed her job to Hillary. Additionally, the Washington Post reported in January of 1995 that Holder was under consideration by Clinton for appointment to a federal judgeship.
Flaherty concluded, "When Reno said she would not appoint a special prosecutor, it was even more appropriate for the case to be handled by the U.S. Attorney with jurisdiction. That was Holder and he should have acted. Holder's failure to pursue Magaziner made a mockery of the law."
After earning notoriety as a student activist and business consultant, Magaziner became the senior advisor for policy development for President Clinton, especially as chief healthcare policy advisor. He now serves as chairman of the William J. Clinton Foundation's international development initiatives, which are at the forefront of non-governmental organizations in addressing Global Health and Environmental issues.
During his college years at Brown University, Magaziner was one of the two architects of the "New Curriculum," a liberal academic approach which includes no core requirements aside from the concentration the student pursues. Magaziner excelled academically at Brown and in 1969 was named valedictorian of his class.
"This is the type of people being appointed to positions of power in the Obama Administration," warns political strategist Mike Baker. "Is there any wonder that gun control would be a major policy issue? These people know they must disarm Americans."
In addition to his failure to prosecute Magaziner, Holder also refused to prosecute anyone involved in the Branch Davidian Massacre in Waco, Texas, an operation given the greenlight by his boss Janet Reno.
"While Holder had no problem having many Americans murdered by federal law enforcement, his heart bleeds for terrorists and enemies who have been captured on the battlefield," said Baker.
"The only thing he learned from the brutality in Waco is that it would have been easier if the occupants of that compound were disarmed prior to the military-style operation," he added.
CNN- Obama To BAN Guns
The Follies of Gun Control
by Gennady Stolyarov II
Montreal, October 14, 2007
When it comes to restricting private individuals' Second Amendment rights, it seems that the world must turn upside down to justify gun control. Criminals need to obey the law, limited human beings need to be present everywhere and respond to anything, inanimate objects need to assume a volition of their own, and parents all of a sudden need to become totally oblivious to what their children are doing. Yes, all of these astounding assumptions are behind the common case for gun control. And, as logic dictates, either the assumptions themselves must be true, or the arguments made on their basis must be discarded as illegitimate.
Will restricting private gun ownership reduce gun-related crimes? Gun control advocates think it will. They presume that it is possible to simply legislate away an undesirable behavior if the electorate or the politicians wish it. If the law says that no private citizen may obtain certain firearms, then no private citizen will obtain these firearms. True? No; it is absurd.
To be fair, laws against private gun ownership will reduce said ownership among the people who respect the law and do not wish to violate it. But among people who are already outside the law or who hold no scruples about evading it, prohibiting gun ownership will have no effect. Indeed, some of these people are already thieves and murderers. It is astonishing that anyone thinks that such criminals will balk at committing a far more minor offense – such as possession of an illegal weapon.
Hence, gun control would – in reality – shift the balance of power greatly in favor of the criminal elements of society. Good people who obey the law will have disarmed themselves; evil people who ignore the law will continue to obtain weapons. Evil people will thus have more of an opportunity to conduct effective aggression, while good people will have a reduced ability to retaliate. Can anything but increased crime be the outcome?
In response, those who advocate gun control might assert that guns are a form of mind control. This is indeed behind the presumption that good people, by the sheer fact of owning a gun, will suddenly transform into evil people with a maniacal, uncontrollable desire to shoot everybody and everything. By extension, we need to watch all of our society's kitchen chefs in training. After all, each of them is a budding Jack the Ripper – since he has such extensive exposure to and practice in the use of knives!
If this particular argument goes nowhere in the discussion, gun control proponents will shift to another claim. Private citizens do not need guns, they argue, because protecting the public from crime is the job of the police and other government law enforcement agencies. This theory has several necessary corollaries: 1) that crime does not happen at all, because the work of the police and other government agencies suffices to protect the public against it, and 2) that it is possible to instantaneously notify the proper authorities and receive an instantaneous response from them whenever a crime is attempted. The truth or falsity of both of the above predictions can be easily verified empirically.
But, seriously, the police forces – no matter how well equipped or competent – are comprised of limited human beings with limited abilities. They cannot, contrary to gun control advocates' fancy, be everywhere, see everything, and act immediately to prevent any criminal conduct. But if the police cannot successfully address all crime, then something else needs to supplement their work. Indeed, private gun ownership has prevented many a crime before the police could get to the would-be criminal. In many cases of obvious aggression, the retaliatory use of guns by private citizens sufficed to prevent a tragedy and to enable police resources to be directed toward dealing with still other crimes.
Digging deeper into their repertoire of justifications, gun control advocates will pull out a favorite claim – that guns are responsible for a vast number of deaths from domestic violence. Indeed, some might even cite dubious statistics claiming that there exist more gun-related killings within families than instances in which private gun use repelled a criminal. But this argument, too, has its assumptions. One such assumption is that, aside from guns, there exist no deadly objects within anybody's home – such that if one member of a family wanted to kill another, he or she would simply be out of luck for a lack of means. This, of course, implies that the five drowned children of Andrea Yates are still alive and well, that all food is eaten solely using spoons and spatulas, and that human beings are all limbless torsos who have no arms or legs to deliver deadly punches or kicks.
Finally, we come to yet another interpretation of the way the world works from the perspective of a gun control proponent. Namely, guns are responsible for thousands of accidental child deaths because children find them, experiment with them, and kill or maim themselves in the process. Note that, under this view, gun safety locks do not exist, most parents keep their guns loaded all the time, and virtually no parents look out for what their kids are doing. Indeed, it requires an appalling degree of negligence on the part of a parent to fail to prevent a child from getting to a gun. Gun control advocates must be assuming that all parents are chronically drunk or have the IQ of a gun.
But if a parent lacks the care to protect his or her child from the possibility of accidentally abusing a firearm, then much more is wrong with that parent than the fact that he or she owns a gun. That is, unless gun control advocates also want to claim that owning a gun makes people negligent, just as it makes them inclined to go out and indiscriminately shoot things. It is as if guns have more volition than people. No matter how much parents love their children or how hard they work for their safety, if their gun decides it, the child will find it loaded and easy to abuse. People's prudence and foresight have absolutely no input in the matter!
Indeed, the theory underlying gun control is truly a theory of gun control: guns control people, and only government officials (who, strangely enough, must not be people under this view) can effectively control guns. Forget hypnotism and demagoguery: this is the way to truly reach into people's minds – either turning them into serial killers by giving them weapons or making them angels by simply saying that they may not have those weapons.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, gun control has always and everywhere resulted in increased crime and suffering for the most innocent among people.
Government of Canada
With the passage of the 1995 Firearms Act, Canada established a national registry of all firearms and their owners.
The Act required Canadian gun owners to apply for a license by January 1, 2001, from the Canadian Firearms Centre, a branch of the Justice Department, and register their guns with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) by the beginning of 2003. Associated amendments to the Criminal Code in 1996 increased the penalties for using firearms to commit crimes and for the illegal trafficking and smuggling of guns.
The registration of all handguns has been required by federal law since 1934, and since 1968 permits to carry them have been restricted to a few specific circumstances, for example, use in target practice or competition, protection in extreme cases where police protection isn't adequate, and in certain jobs, such as transporting large amounts of cash or other valuables. Fully automatic weapons have been banned since 1977. The new law extends the registration requirement to unrestricted long guns such as shotguns and rifles and adds short-barrelled handguns and those discharging 25- or 32-calibre cartridges to the list of prohibited weapons.
Gun Ownership and CrimeA national survey commissioned by the Canadian Firearms Centre in 2000 found an estimated 2.3 million firearm owners.
More than 1,000 Canadians die every year from gunshot wounds, most of them by their own hand. In 1996 the total firearm deaths amounted to 1,131, of which 815 were suicides, 45 were accidents and 156 were homicides.
The violent crime rate has been steadily declining in Canada over the last two decades, and progressively fewer crimes are being committed with firearms. In 1978, Canada recorded 661 homicides, a rate of 2.76 per 100,000. Of these, 250, or 37.8%, were committed with guns. In 1998, Canada had 555 homicides, a rate of 1.83 per 100,000. Guns were involved in 151 of the homicides, 27% of the total, the lowest proportion since statistics were first collected in 1961. Robberies using firearms accounted for 18% of all such crimes in 1998, down from 25% in 1988 and 37% in 1978.

The Firearms ActThe 1995 Firearms Act had three main public safety goals: to deter the misuse of firearms, to control access to them and to control specific weapons. The national firearm registry will make it easier to trace guns used in criminal activity and to return stolen guns to their owners. The licensing requirements, which include extensive background checks and a spouse's signature on the application, are designed to prevent those with a history of criminal behaviour, mental illness or spousal abuse from legally owning a gun. To prevent loss of life through accidental shootings, the law requires an applicant for a firearms license to take the Canadian Firearms Safety Course and pass a test demonstrating a basic understanding of who to handle guns safely and the legal responsibilities of firearm ownership. It also requires that all firearms be stored unloaded and locked.
The 1996 amendments to the Criminal Code created four-year minimum sentences for violent crime committed using a firearm, including attempted murder, manslaughter, robbery, sexual assault with a weapon and kidnapping.
Program Statistics
In the 18 months between December 1, 1998, when the Firearms Act came into effect, and June 1, 2001, 2 million Canadians, almost 90% of the estimated number of owners in Canada, had participated in the licensing process. Some 3,000 firearms licences had been refused or revoked, a figure 27 times the total for the last five years of the previous system. A toll-free telephone hotline established to allow spouses of license applicants and others to express concerns or report crimes committed with firearms had logged more than 22,000 calls.
Legal Challenges
Although polls have consistently shown that a large majority of Canadians support the mandatory registration of all guns, the Firearms Act has been controversial, particularly in rural and western areas. In 1996, the province of Alberta, in a referral to the provincial Court of Appeals, challenged Parliament's constitutional authority to enact the licensing and registration provisions of the law, which, it argued, infringed upon provincial jurisdiction over property and civil rights. The Court upheld the law in a split decision, which Alberta appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Five other provinces and two territories, as well as two Aboriginal groups and several gun owners' associations, intervened on behalf of Alberta. On June 15, 2000, the Supreme Court unanimously dismissed Alberta's appeal, affirming Parliament's jurisdiction under the federal criminal law power.
"Guns cannot be divided neatly into two categories — those that are dangerous and those that are not dangerous," the Court wrote. "All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns are capable of killing and maiming. It follows that all guns pose a threat to public safety. As such, their control falls within the criminal law power."
After the Court released its decision, the Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the agency that represents the Inuit in interpreting the land-claim agreement creating the territory in 1999, filed a statement of claim against the Firearms Act in the Nunavut Court of Justice. The claim argues that the agreement guarantees the Inuit "the right to hunt and harvest wild game without any form of license or permits." The case has not yet been resolved.
Ballistic Fingerprints and Smart GunsTechnology developed by a Montreal company is being used by law enforcement agencies in the United States and other countries to match spent bullets and casings to the guns from which they were fired.
The Integrated Ballistics Identification System or IBIS, developed by Forensic Technology, Inc., digitally scans bullets and cartridge cases (even damaged ones) for the unique markings left by each firearm, converts the images to mathematical algorithms which it stores in a database, and compares the information to data collected at crime scenes. Early in 2000, the White House announced it would spend US$43.7 million on an expanded database of ammunition prints from gun manufacturers, using IBIS and a new system being developed by Forensic Technology called VSN, or Virtual Serial Number.
Canadian technology is also being used to develop "smart guns" that can be fired only by their owners. Mytec Technologies Inc. of Toronto is working with Smith & Wesson, the world's largest gun manufacturer, to perfect a device that scans the shooter's fingerprints and compares it with data stored in the weapon. Once the user is authorized, a circuit board unlocks the gun. Under an agreement Smith & Wesson reached with U.S. federal, state and local governments in March 2000, it promised to equip all new handgun models introduced after three years with the smart-gun technology.

Gun Control
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." ---Thomas Jefferson, 1816.
To Preserve and Guarantee
Our Bill of Rights does not grant rights, it preserves and guarantees pre-existing individual rights. How do we know this? The Ninth Amendment states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."In other words, we have other rights beyond what is expressly stated in the Constitution, and the federal government is not justified in denying us those rights.
What could those rights be? Although, this Web site is not for the purpose of discussing natural and positive rights, below are quotes from two Founding Fathers telling us that the right to self-defense is a natural right, it cannot be justifiably taken away by any governing body.
"I go farther; and now proceed to show, that in peculiar instances, in which those rights can receive neither protection nor reparation from civil government, they are, notwithstanding its institution, entitled still to that defence, and to those methods of recovery, which are justified and demanded in a state of nature." "The defence of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law."--- James Wilson, Wilson, Of the Natural Rights of Individuals, in 2 The Works of James Wilson 335 (J.D. Andrews ed. 1896).
The above quote is from a series of lectures given between 1790 and 1792.
"Resistance to sudden violence, for the preservation not only of my person, my limbs, and life, but of my property, is an indisputable right of nature which I have never surrendered to the public by the compact of society, and which perhaps, I could not surrender if I would."--- John Adams, Boston Gazette, Sept. 5, 1763,reprinted in 3 The Works of John Adams 438 (Charles F. Adams ed., 1851). We have many, many natural rights not enumerated by law. Think about it! (Of course, we have responsibilities as well).
Gun Control
Congress continues to debate the efficacy and constitutionality of federal regulation of firearms and ammunition. Various federal laws have been enacted since 1934 to promote such regulation. Gun control advocates argue that they curb access by criminals, juveniles, and other "high-risk" individuals. They contend that only federal measures can successfully reduce the availability of guns. Some seek broad policy changes such as near-prohibition of non-police handgun ownership or the registration of all firearm owners or firearms. They assert that there is no constitutional barrier to such measures and no significant social costs. Others advocate less comprehensive policies that they maintain would not impede ownership and legitimate firearm transfers.
Opposition to federal controls is strong. Gun control opponents deny that federal policies keep firearms out of the hands of high-risk persons; rather, they argue, controls often create burdens for law-abiding citizens and infringe upon constitutional rights provided by the Second Amendment. Some argue further that widespread gun ownership is one of the best deterrents to crime as well as to potential tyranny, whether by gangs or by government. They may also criticize the notion of enhancing federal, as opposed to state, police powers.
The two most significant federal statutes controlling firearms in the civilian population are the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. The 1934 Act established strict registration requirements and a transfer tax on machine guns and short-barreled long guns. The 1968 Act prohibits mail-order sales and the interstate sales of firearms, prohibits transfers to minors, limits access to "new" assault weapons, and sets forth penalties and licensing requirements for manufacturers, importers, and dealers.
Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999. Firearm fatalities from all causes and for all age groups decreased by 22%. For juveniles, they de-creased by 40%, from 1993 to 1998. [Go to for Related Sites, Issues & Articles]
Gun Control Activism Center

Statistics on Gun Ownership
40% of all US homes have guns
81% of Americans say that gun control will be an important issue in determining which Congressional candidate to vote for.
91% of Americans say that there should be at least minor restrictions on gun ownership;
57% of Americans say that there should be major restrictions or a ban.
Child-Safety Locks
In 1996, 140 children died after being accidentally shot.
About 1,500 children are hurt by guns every year.
"Trigger Locks" require entering a combination to use the gun (or some other locking method); they are intended to reduce inadvertent use by children or other unauthorized users.
Background ChecksThe "Gun-Show Loophole" means that there are no background checks when purchasing guns in a private transaction.
Guns sold at gun shows through dealers ARE subject to background checks; only those sold privately are not.
Right to Bear ArmsThe Supreme Court ruled in 1939, in a case called "US v. Miller," that the 2nd amendment only protects guns suitable for a well-regulated militia -- for example, sawed-off shotguns can be banned because they're not "ordinary military equipment".
Since 1939, the Supreme Court has not heard any further 2nd amendment cases; the most recent ruling, in 1997, overturned part of the 1993 Brady Bill, but did not address 2nd amendment rights.
Hence, gun control issues are primarily the subject of Congressional legislation.
Gun Control BuzzwordsThe biggest component of the Gun Control debate is whether existing gun laws are sufficient, or whether more gun laws are needed.
Liberals and populists generally favor more gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "more registration" or "more licensing" to describe seeking further restrictions legal ownership; or "close the loopholes" and "restrict access" for further restrictions on illegal ownership.
Moderate liberals and populists will generally favor more restrictions on ownership while paying lip-service "sportsmen's rights" or respecting "the right of self-protection." A moderate compromise is to "extend waiting periods" before allowing ownership, to perform "background checks" of varying degrees of severity.
Conservatives and libertarians generally oppose gun laws. Look for buzzwords like "Second Amendment rights" or "allow concealed carry". A call for "instant background checks" pays lip-service to gun-control advocates: it sounds like a restriction, but means allowing purchasing guns on the spot.
Moderate conservatives and libertarians oppose gun laws while acknowledging that restrictions are inevitable. Look for buzzwords like "enforce existing gun laws," which implies not passing any NEW gun laws. Similarly, "more strict enforcement" of gun laws implies a pro-Gun Rights stance, unless it is accompanied by a call for new gun laws.
Centrists and moderates from both the right and left generally support restrictions on juvenile access to guns, especially in the wake of tragedies like Littleton and other gun-related deaths.
Positive mentions of the NRA (the National Rifle Association, the largest pro-gun rights lobbying group) implies support of gun rights, while opposing the NRA or "taking on the gun lobby" implies support of gun restrictions.
Gun Control Facts
By James D. Agresti.
Just Facts, June 10, 1999. Revised 6/27/08
Introductory Notes
This listing of facts is derived from over 200 hours of research and analysis of more than 100 articles, documents, and books. Every statistic from a given year was chosen based on availability, and not to slant the results by singling out a specific year that was different from others. Especially when dealing with statistics, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact and what does not, can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of giving our readers a tool to determine for themselves the viability of our work. To that end, we have provided four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts' Standards of Credibility.
Taking On Gun Control
21 July 2002
This site has been recognized by the Students for the Second Amendment and awarded the Heritage of Freedom Award for Internet Excellence. We proudly accept their honor and ask that you take a look at their site. Students for the Second Amendment work on college and university campuses to bring the truth regarding our constitutionally protected rights to students who have been misled by the left wing academic establishment.
Ten Commandments of Firearms Safety
1. Always keep the muzzle pointed in a safe direction.
2. Treat every firearm as though it were loaded.
3. Always make sure the firearm is unloaded and keep the action open except when actually hunting or preparing to shoot.
4. Be sure the barrel and action are clear of obstruction and that you have the proper ammunition for the firearm you are carrying.
5. Be sure of your target before you pull the trigger.
6. Never point a firearm at anything you do not want to shoot.
7. Avoid all horseplaywith any firearm. Never climb a fence, tree, or jump a ditch with a loaded firearm.
8. Never shoot at a flat hard surface or water.
9. Store firearms and ammunition separately.
10. Avoid alcohol and other [unnecessary] drugs before or during shooting.
National Rifle Association
Videos and News Stories
What is Gun Control?Self-defense – A basic Human Right
One group of people naively believe that, in the absence of guns, criminal violence would be much reduced. They are quite wrong about that prediction: to the contrary, the strong would be able to bully the weak and we would be back in the Dark Ages ... or the modern Third World.
Further, thinking that a mature technology such as firearms manufacture can be legislated out of existence is an opium pipe dream. Guns, in their basic form, are not very complex. Anyone with basic tools can make them and ammunition for them. Moreover, roughly 500 million functional firearms already exist. Guns, propely maintained, last for centuries.
Imagine a pack of hyenas stalking a human. As they close in for the kill, their intended prey repulses them with a rifle. As the surviving predators retreat, they think: "If only we could separate that human from her gun!"
People who think as those hyenas are less naive than the idealists who wish to ban guns outright. "Gun control" is a misnomer for what they have in mind. They are evil: they wish to control others. One of the easiest way to control other people is by making them defenseless.
Communists, fascists and other totalitarians world over have rendered their subject defenseless as the first step towards total control. Then they could imprison or murder millions with complete impunity.
Who wishes others to be defenseless? Rapists and muggers prefer unarmed victims. Politicians and mafia chiefs who want people to depend on them for protection. Racists who wish to exterminate other peoples: genocide is much easier to perpetrate when the victims are unarmed. In sum, those who wish to have a monopoly on arms are never well-meaning people. They might not admit it, but their narcotic of choice is power over others.
Disarming others is never done for their benefit. Usually, rendering people defenseless is a prelude to abusing them further. Was disarmament of the European Jews started in 1938 done for their benefit. Did it "reduce gun violence in their community" or did it merely make them easier to murder?
Did any people armed with rifles end up stuffed into the holds of slave ships? When we look at history, a pattern emerges: free people have guns, slaves don't. Just having guns does not guarantee freedom, just as having air to breathe does not guarantee survival.
Plenty of armed people are dependent on others for food, decision-making and the like. Being armed is just one of several essential elements necessary for freedom. Being unarmed by choice or compulsion guarantees having to exist at the mercy of others.
The Klan had much to do with the early gun control laws in America. Many of the current gun control laws stemmed from the fear of armed and independent minorities. After all, even a few determined (and armed) people can stop a Klan raid or make committing massacres like the 1923 Rosewood events too risky for the perpetrators.
Rioting mobs have always picked the path of least resistence. Taking steps not to look like easy prey could well be enough to avoid actual bloodshed. With that in mind, is it not ironic that many organizations pretending to fight for the civil rights of their people support keeping their members disarmed and defenseless?
Similarly, NAACP is fond of portraying their own members as too irresponsible to own guns. Many organizations aggressively advocate disarmament of their own members, apparently hoping that the feeling of vulnerability would cause people to rely on their self-proclaimed "community leaders" for security.
The periodic attempts to render Americans defenseless continue in the form of gun buy-ups conducted in the minority and poor neighnorhoods. Not only do the residents have to depend on a patently inadequate police protection but they are also coaxed into giving up their means of effective self-defense. For some reason, we do not see Hollywood celebrities or US Congressmen rushing to give up their guns in exchange for a fast food certificate or a pair of sneakers.
Just as racists pre-judge others based on appearances, gun-phobic people pre-judge inanimate objects. When you hear the phrase "keep guns out of the wrong hands", who do you think they mean to disarm?
Gay-bashing has become a hazardous undertaking lately: Pink Pistols chapters have opened nation-wide. Originally formed for training GLBT folks in self-defense skills, they have expanded to included many hetero members.
Traditionally, homosexuals have been perceived as weak, easily intimidated, in short, as ideal targets. The realization that attempted gay-bashing would likely be stopped at gunpoint ought to keep bigots from even trying.
Chauvinist pigs who think that "slapping the bitch around" is good fun might re-think that idea. The prospect of facing an armed victim strikes fear into the tiny brains of hostile bigots. That's how it should be.
No lawful person would wish to fire on another human. However, most people would wish to have a choice between being molested and fighting back. Should they choose to resist, who would begrudge them effective tools for the purpose?
Gun control is never about improving safety for those disarmed by it. It has only two purposes. The first is rendering people helpless for extermination or enslavement. The second purpose, more common among the US perpetrators of the practice, is to deny self-sufficiency to the victims of gun control. The same technique is used by the mafia in countries where civilian ownership of arms is rare: people must pay for protection, by voting for their "protectors" or by behaving meekly.
The disarming of Americans is being pushed by the means of laws prohibiting ownership or use of effective means of self-protection. Laws on Federal and local levels prohibit ownership of personal defense weapons (PDW), severely restrict ownership of older types and often prohibit carry of sidearms outright.
Violent criminals are direct beneficiaries of gun control. When the law-abiding are disarmed, they can rob, rape and murder without worrying that an intended victim would retire them from the business of crime.
Interestingly, even people in favor of gun control don't mind that sniper rifles and submachine guns are used to guard the President and members of Congress. Nor do they object to the shotguns and pistols of the bank guards. Apparently, protection of important people and their money is proper in their eyes. These same people object shrilly when a parent wishes to carrying a sidearm to protect herself and the kids. Hypocrites!
Big Brother's new target: Tracking of all firearms
'This is nothing less than a declaration of war on American gun owners'Posted: January 13, 2009
By Drew Zahn© 2009 WorldNetDaily
U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Ill., is hoping to pass a firearm-licensing bill that will significantly rewrite gun-ownership laws in America.
Among the more controversial provisions of the bill are requirements that all handgun owners submit to the federal government a photo, thumb print and mental heath records. Further, the bill would order the attorney general to establish a database of every handgun sale, transfer and owner's address in America.
The bill claims its purpose is "to protect the public against the unreasonable risk of injury and death associated with the unrecorded sale or transfer of firearms to criminals and youth."
Get "Shooting Back," the incredible DVD that shows once and for all why you should be packing heat for the protection of yourself and your loved ones, only from WND!
Columnist David Codrea of Guns Magazine, however, calls it a "ridiculous affront to liberty."
"This is nothing less than a declaration of war on American gun owners," Codrea writes on Gun Rights Examiner.
Rush's proposed bill, H.R. 45, is alternatively known as "Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009," named after an Illinois teenager killed by a gunshot.
According the bill's text, "On the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting."
The bill then argues that interstate firearm trafficking and children dying from gun violence create legitimate cause for the federal government to monitor gun ownership and transfers in new ways.
If passed, the bill would make it illegal to own or possess a "qualifying firearm" – defined as any handgun or any semiautomatic firearm that takes an ammunition clip – without a "Blair Holt" license.
To obtain a "Blair Holt" license, an application must be made that includes a photo, address, all previous aliases, thumb print, completion of a written firearm safety test, release of mental health records to the attorney general and a fee not to exceed $25.
Further, the bill makes it illegal to transfer ownership of a qualifying firearm to anyone who is not a licensed gun dealer or collector. Exceptions to this rule include transfer to family members by gift or bequest and loans, not to exceed 30 days, of a firearm for lawful purposes "between persons who are personally known to each other."
The bill also requires qualifying firearm owners to report all transfers to the attorney general's database. It would also be illegal for a licensed gun owner to fail to record a gun loss or theft within 72 hours or fail to report a change of address within 60 days.
And if a minor obtains a weapon and injures someone with it, the owner of the gun – if deemed to have failed to meet certain safety requirements – faces a multiple-year jail sentence.
H.R. 45 is a resurfacing of 2007's H.R. 2666, which contained much of the same language and was co-sponsored by 15 other representatives and Barack Obama's current chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel. H.R. 2666 was assigned to the House Judiciary committee, where no action was taken.
H.R. 45 currently has no co-sponsors and is likewise assigned to the House Judiciary committee.
Some Gun 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 Christian Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. 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: 56,000,000 people.
You don't think the government can't take your guns?
The citizens of Britain and Australia gave up their guns and now regret it. Watch the video and listen to their comments and their message - Don't give up your guns!

"All guns are capable of being used in crime. All guns pose a threat
to public safety." — The Supreme Court of Canada, June 15, 2000