The Back Door To
Gun Control
Or Is It Elimination?

By Al Colombo
Copyright©1999

For many years now the liberal side of the political scene has tried to eliminate guns in an assortment of ways. Besides the general gun control measures, all designed to limit the number of guns on our streeets by restricting who can and cannot have them, the Congress has seen a steady flow of bills year after year, all designed to either eliminate handguns and certain types of military-style weapons or to mandate the registration of all weapons in CONUS (Continental United States).

California has long led the pack on the implimentation of oppressive gun control legislation. In 1989 a law was passed in California regarding the illegality of certain weapons registered after the cutoff date of March 31, 1992. This law came to be known as the Roberti-Roos law. Handgun Control Inc., one of the proactive leaders in gun control in the United States, lodged a lawsuit about two years ago in opposition of the 1992 cutoff date, stating that it violated the 1989 decision. The court agreed and the California DoJ was asked to confiscate weapons registered after that date.

For the benefit of those who believe that Sarah Brady's Handgun Control Inc. is not out to disarm America:

"Handgun Control, Incorporated filed a lawsuit about two years ago claiming that rifles registered after the March 31, 1992 cutoff date were done in violation of the 1989 Roberti-Roos law. The court agreed with HCI and the ruling now forces the Department of Justice to demand their destruction or that they be turned in to a law enforcement agency for disposal. This is the same Handgun Control, Inc. that continually claims that it does not want to ban firearms, just implement reasonable and common sense gun control laws. Confiscation appears to be on their list of reasonable and common sense measures," said Ralph Weller, CalNRA Contributing Editor.

According to Weller, the California DoJ is already sending notices of intent regarding the destruction or voluntary relinquishment of weapons that qualify. Weller says that approximately 1500 California citizens are involved and those who fail to comply will be brought up on criminal charges.

"We urge those of you involved to review the following page very closely and contact the law offices of Chuck Michel. Mr. Michel and others are contemplating legal action against the state and you may qualify for free legal help. http://www.calnra.org/plaintiffs.html," says Weller.
(Note: Clicking on this link will open a new window. When you are finsihed, close out the window to return.)

Another recent tactic used by the globalists relates to the use of public opinion, shaped and molded via an intense propoganda campaign desided to promote an overwhelming anti-gun stance over several decades. Sadly, may honest, sincere Americans have fallen for this. Rosie O'Donnell is a good example of this. While watching Rosie on Larry King Live (15 Oct 1999), I found her to be a sincere individual, genuinely interested in the well being of society's children. Although she does not openly advertise it, she generously donates millions of dollars to various charitable organizations every year. According to her, the proceeds from the work she did with Kmart went to charity as well.

During the program I noted that she, herself, had suffered hard times as a child and that her charity towards children is largely driven by those early childhood experiences. Rosie says that she fully intends to use her celebrity status to further the anti-gun cause. She intends to promote gun control measures by swaying Americans in a public forum. When Larry King asked her if she would like to see all guns disappear, she answered "yes."

Personally, if it were possible, I, myself, would like to see all articles of death disappear; but this is not heaven--this is planet earth; and this is not Star Trek, we live in reality. The fact is, like it or not, criminals will ALWAYS have guns. To ban all firearms would place Americans, en masse, in grievous danger, not only from criminals, but from other governments as well as our own federal government. If you think that it's unreasonable to consider oppression from our own government, then you need to research what life was like twenty, thirty, forty, a hundred years ago. Look around you and see that all is not well at the federal level.

Rosie quoted statistics that relate to the number of children who die by firearms in this country per year. She said, in essance, that America has the highest incident of child-related deaths caused by firearms in the entire world. Perhaps the reason for this relates to the fact that citizens throughout most of the world have been disarmed. Perhaps America is one of only a few nations where honest, law-abiding citizens can still own guns.

Since the Civil War, Americans have not seen military-related hostilities on U.S. soil, but almost every other nation has. I hardly think that two incidents of terrorism, one plotted and executed by others outside CONUS (World Trade Center) and the other allegedly executed by an individual with ties to the Arian Nations group, qualify as sufficient grounds to outlaw all firearms.

The other issue here is that of priorities. Yes, children are very important and we need to do everything in our power to protect them. However, without a doubt, our national defense and personal protection must come first. What good is child protection if we allow our children to inherit a country where they are mere slaves to an oppressive system owned and controlled by big money, large corporations?

There are much broader issues involved here than just protecting society's children from the bad guns. There are bad people out there who have the potential of being even more deadly than guns. The guns are at this time one of the prime ingredients holding them back from implimenting their insidious plans. This is true at all levels of society, from the next door neighbor to the rich elite of society who are motivated by greed and a desire for absolute power.

The other ploy being used is the redefinition, or the creation of a new interpretation, relating to the intent of the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. For more than 200 years, it has been common knowledge throughout America that this most cherished amendment provides Americans with the right to own firearms. Instead, this administration, as well as the FBI, have gone on record stating that it was never the intent of the Founding Fathers that any and all citizens have this right, but only the State-based militias, such as the National Guard.

This is simply not true because there are enough writings penned by those who formed this country and risked so much to institute our Constitution that we really do know better. Without a doubt, the intent of these great men was clearly for Americans to own and keep firearms for personal protection and national defense.

Have you ever sat down and really read the 2nd Amendment? You'd be surprised how many Americans haven't. Most people do not really know what it says.

FYI:

A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the peope to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

One of my American Government study books provides the following subhead above the 2nd Amendment: Right to a State Militia and to Bear Arms. Just as the comma in the 2nd Amendment makes all the difference, so does the and in the subhead. The Copyright of this book is 1975, so quite obviously, twenty years before Bill Clinton became president, our educators believed and taught that the 2nd amendent had two purposes: 1) guarantee the right of the States to form their own militias, and 2) the right of the people to bear arms. Why did our Founding Fathers build this safeguard into our Constitution? Because they knew first hand how oppressive an all-powerful central government can become. Folks, any other interpretation but the above is entirely political in nature and must be dismissed.

It is the opinion of many Constitutional experts' that the founders of this country also intended their citizens to have and own weapons of comparable quality and capability to those used by foreign powers. Why? Simply because when the Constitution was written it was the citizens that comprised the State Militia. When these citizens were needed, they were called to service.

Article I, Section 8
15. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions;
16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Frankly, an armed America is a much safer America. I ask you, what foreign power in their right mind would want to send their military into the United States when more than half of the civilians who live there are well armed? By contrast, consider the fate of tens of thousands of Hutus in Rwanda who, in 1994, were killed by an armed Tutsi. These deaths took place because these men and women were previously disarmed. A disarmed citizenry cannot protect itself. Sadly, the United States, other countries, as well as the United Nations sat idly by while the Tutsi-dominated rebel movement, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), attacked and killed tens of thousands of defenseless Hutu.

Many who live in the United States have become soft and of the opinion that national security should be left to the military establishment alone. If they were to carefully read their newspapers, watch the news broadcasts on their televisions, and scan the various periodicals on the market, they would come to realize that much of our military is now out of country keeping the peace throughout the world. Considering the enormous numbers of military personnel who have been cut from the payroll of the Pentagon, I ask you, who's at home minding the store? So, when there's an real national emergency, not one concocted to provide the president with more power over Congress and the People, who do you think will come to the aid of America? The U.N. peacekeeping force? I sure hope not, and you'd better hope not, too.

So, now, we have communities and individuals, pushed and prodded by lawyers with dollar signs in their eyes, suing gun manufacturers and distributors because criminals used their products to injur and kill others. The official line is, the gun manufacturers and distributors are not adequately protecting their wares from falling into the hands of the bad guys. Those who agree with this method of gun control also point to the lawsuits against the tobacco companies as a precedent. However, the flaw in this logic is that the product produced by the tobacco industry was defective from the start; they knew it and attempted to cover it up, and now they are paying for their actions--or should I say that those who smoke are paying for their actions?

The gun manufacturers' products are not defective, they work just fine in the hands of a law-abiding person. Those manufacturers who make weapons that blow up in the hands of users, for example, have all along been held liable for their products. However, to hold a manufacturer liable for injuries to people where the possessor of a device did the grevous act is total lunacy and hinges purely on 1) greed, and 2) the desire to put gun manufacturers out of business--which totally violates the 2nd Amendment which says that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed." Tobacco producers, finish manufacturers and users do not have the same protected right under the Constitution by any stretch of the imagination.

Who's next folks, GM, Ford, because their vehicles are used in the hands of people who drink and drive, those who have heart conditions, causing nearly 45,000 deaths each year? Will lawyers maintain that the automobile makers and their dealers should screen the individuals they sell to? If someone has a heart condition, should they say "No, can't sell you a car because you could have a heart attack and accidently kill someone and we'll be sued." Who will it be after that, hunting knife manufacturers and anyone who sells them? What about toilet bowl cleaner manufactuers, for kids have been known to get into bathroom cabinets. What about toilet bowl makers? After all, kids sometimes drown in them; or what about bathtub makers? Lawyers will continue to have a field day until judges say "enough is enough." But, the only way that will happen is if the public at large first says, "enough is enough!"

Do you and I have enough money to pay for all these frivilous lawsuits brought about by greedy lawyers and those who they represent? I could go on and on about this, but let it suffice to say that we the People of the United States are headed for big problems unless we wake up, smell the coffee, and do more than just complain under our breath. How many letters have you written in the last year to your Congressional representatives? If you say anything less than one, shame on you. There is no excuse for not participating in the political and law-making process. It's so easy and it costs so little to make your voice heard. If you are interested in making your opinions known but you don't know how or who to contact, click HERE.

In closing, for more than 200 years, this country has remained strong because the population has enjoyed the right to own and use guns. Yes, sadly enough, along with this right comes gun-related accidents and homicides. There is a price to pay for freedom and that price will either be paid in the battlefields or the streets of America. It's your choice. In the mean time, all true, patriotic Americans will continue to resist socialism, communism, and the believe in nothing but the all mighty dollar attitude being perpetuated by this administration and the International community, which is designed to interweave the financial fate of all nations so the internationalists can claim that country lines are no longer relevant.