The Myth of Mecca
BY: Jack Wheeler
9/27/2001
The most sacred spot on earth to all members of the Islamic religion is the Holy City of Mecca, revered as the birthplace of Mohammed. It is one of the five basic requirements incumbent upon all Muslims that they make (if their health will allow it) a pilgrimage to Mecca once in their lives (the other four: recognize that there is no god but Allah, that Mohammed is Allah's prophet, ritually pray five times a day, and give alms to the poor).
The founding events of Islam are Mohammed's activities in Mecca and Medina, a city north of Mecca. The life of Mohammed, known as the Sira, is popularly accepted to be fully documented historically, that everything he did and said was accurately recorded. According to one hagiographer, although Mohammed "could not read or write himself, he was constantly served by a group of 45 scribes who wrote down his sayings, instructions and activities.... We thus know his life down to the minutest details."
The evidence for this is "the earliest and most famous biography of Mohammed," the Sirat Rasul Allah (The Life of the Prophet of God) of Ibn Ishaq. The dates given for Mohammed's life are 570-632 AD. Ibn Ishaq was born about 717 and died in 767. He thus wrote his biography well over 100 years after Mohammed lived, precluding his gaining any information from eyewitnesses to the Sira as they would have all died themselves in the intervening years.
However, no copies exist of Ibn Ishaq's work. We know of it only through quotations of it in the History of al-Tabari, who lived over two hundred years after Ibn Ishaq (al-Tabari died in 992). Thus the earliest biography of Mohammed of which copies still exist was written some 350 years after Mohammed lived.
It is curious, therefore, that there seems to have been so little serious scholarly research of the historical evidence for how Islam came to be. Yet what seems to be isn't so. A number of professional academic historians, both Western and Moslem, have produced a large body of research on the origins of Islam. For reasons best known to the pundits and reviewers who should be aware of it, this research remains publicly unknown.
Dr. Patricia Crone, who received her doctorate under Prof. John Wansbrough at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies, was Lecturer in Islamic Studies at Oxford and Cambridge, and is currently History Professor at Princeton University, is an example. In her book, Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam, Dr. Crone demonstrates that Islam did not originate in Mecca.
Mecca is located in the Hejaz region of what is today Saudi Arabia. It is portrayed by traditional belief as a wealthy trading center, full of merchants trading goods by caravan from Yemen in the south and Syria and the Byzantium empire in the north. Crone shows that Mecca was in fact way off the incense route from Yemen to Syria, which bypassed where Mecca is today by over 100 miles. Further, there is no mention whatever of Mecca in contemporary non-Moslem sources:
"It is obvious that if the Meccans had been middlemen in a long-distance trade of the kind described in (traditional Islamic) literature, there ought to have been some mention of it in the writings of their customers... who wrote extensively about the south Arabians who supplied them with aromatics. (Despite) the considerable attention paid to Arabian affairs there is no mention at all of Quraysh (the tribe of Mohammed) and their trading center (Mecca), be it in the Greek, Latin, Syraic, Aramaic, Coptic, or other literature composed outside Arabia ." (p. 134)
An exhaustive examination of all available evidence and sources leads Crone to conclude that Mohammed's career took place not in Mecca and Medina or in southwest Arabia at all, but in northwest Arabia. Agreeing with her is Islamic historian Mohammed Ibn al-Rawandi. He observes that it took some 150-200 hundred years after the Arab Conquest which began in the 620s for places that had gone un-remarked and un-regarded to become places of reverence associated with the Prophet. Mohammed's supposed birthplace in Mecca, for example, was used as an ordinary home until al-Khayzuran, the mother of the first Caliph of Baghdad Harun al-Rashid, made it a house of prayer some 150 years after Mohammed's death.
For an increasing number of Islamic historians, the tradition of Mohammed being the source and explanation of the Arab Conquest, wherein Arab tribesmen on horseback emerged out of the Arabian deserts to conquer Syria, Mesopotamia, Persia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Libya, and Spain in less than 80 years (636-712), stands history on its head. They demonstrate that the story of Mohammed uniting various Arab tribes like Genghiz Khan did for the Mongols, and providing them with the religious fervor to conquer in the name of Islam, is "sacred history," rather than real history. Historian Gordon Newby explains:
"The myth of an original orthodoxy from which later challengers fall away as heretics is almost always the retrospective assertion of a politically dominant group whose aim is to establish their supremacy by appeal to divine sanction."
This applies to the Arab Conquest, says al-Rawandi, because for some two hundred years the Arab conquerors were a minority amongst a non-Moslem majority. For al-Rawandi, Islam is an invention for the purpose of providing a religious justification for Arab Imperialism. The Conquest is the reason and explanation for Islam, not the other way around. While there may well have been a historical individual named Ubu'l Kassim who was later entitled Mohammed ("The Praised One"), who raised followers and participated in the initiation of the Arab Conquest, he likely came from northeast Arabia in what is now southern Jordan. The deity that Ubu'l Kassim (MOHAMMED) chose to follow was Allah, a contraction of al-Lah, the ancient Arab God of the Moon [note: which is why the symbol of Islam to this day is the crescent moon]. Ubu'l Kassim died, however, some years before the Arab Conquest was fully underway (the traditional date is 632). Al-Rawandi summarizes what then happened:
"Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive back-reading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer - a Prophet - whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation. Hence (Ubu'l Kassim was selected to be the Prophet), the Koran, the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet), and the Sira were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Moslem monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab... an inner Arabian biography of Mecca, Medina, the Quraysh, the Prophet and his Hegira (flight from Mecca to Medina alleged in 622, Year One in the Islamic calendar) was created as a purely literary artifact. An artifact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries." (p.104)
Al-Rawandi concludes that the Sira, the life of Mohammed in Mecca and Medina is a myth, a "baseless fiction." This is the conclusion of a substantial number of serious academic historians working on Islamic Studies today. They include Mohammed Ibn al-Warraq, Mohammed Ibn al-Rawandi, John Wansbrough, Kenneth Cragg, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, John Burton, Andrew Rippin, Julian Baldick, Gerald Hawting, and Suliman Bashear. Yet they and their research are virtually unknown.
Not any longer. In committing The Atrocity of September 11, Islamic terrorists did far more damage to their religion than to New York City or the Pentagon. As U.S. Special Forces teams hunt them down and put them to death, they and all the Bin Ladens of the Moslem Terrorism network should know that the world is soon to learn about the Myth of Mecca.
We don't know about the Myth of Mecca because we are afraid to. We, Americans and Westerners and participants of civilization, have been intimidated and frightened into examining the historical truth regarding Islam. Dare to criticize Islam and some crazed ayatollah will issue a fatwah calling for your death. Well, if there is one thing that we must learn from The Atrocity is that we cannot, we dare not be afraid any longer. The Atrocity was committed exclusively by Moslems in the name of Islam. True enough, President Bush, in his magnificent speech to Congress, said their actions blaspheme and insult Islam. But throughout the Arab world, from cafes in Beirut and Cairo to the streets of Nablus and Gaza, people laughed and celebrated their religion's slaughter of thousands of Americans. So we should feel no need to refrain from exposing that this slaughter was committed in the name of a make-believe myth.
The Moslem Terrorists who committed The Atrocity have put all of their fellow Moslems on the defensive. We see full-page ads in newspapers taken out by Moslem governments and Moslem organizations, expressing their sympathy and condolences. These are welcomed and their sincerity need not be questioned. But words are not enough. Actions are what count. What is required of Arab-Americans is not words, but for them to locate the several thousand agents of Bin Laden and the Moslem Terrorist Network reputed to be in this country, and turn them in to the FBI. What is required of Moslem communities the world over is the same: identify, locate, and turn advocates of terrorism in to the appropriate authorities.
Yet much more is now required of the adherents of Islam: the reinvention of their religion. No longer can the words of the Koran be considered inerrant, infallible, and those of Allah himself . The words must be read thoughtfully and critically, and the wisdom they contain extracted with reflection, not reflexively. Christianity emerged from its Dark Ages when its sacred texts were considered infallible and criticism condemned (often to death) as heresy, to subject itself to historical examination and rational discussion. It is stronger for it. For a religion's strength does not lie in fanatical belief, in an unquestioned assumption that disagreement or criticism of it is an incomprehensible perversion. A religion's strength lies in the goodness it does for people's souls.
As Al-Rawandi puts it:
"The claims of Islam do not depend on historical origins, but on an inner knowledge of God, the accompaniment and reward of piety. What makes Islam true is the spiritual life of Moslems, not religious history but religious experience."
These are the teachings of a school of Islamic thought known as Sufism. How Islam must reinvent itself to emerge out of the Islamic Dark Ages it has inhabited for the last several hundred years, and join and flourish in the civilized world, is to combine the teachings of Sufism with those of Jadidism, the attempt by Central Asian Islamic scholars 100 years ago to make a revitalized Islam compatible with the modern world. While Jadidism was snuffed by the Soviets, its revival, combined with the inner peace and truths provided by Sufism, could reinvent an Islam prepared to participate and prosper in the 21st century.
The combined synergy of Sufism and Jadidism would be the salvation of Islam. Today it stands in dire need of being saved. I hope that dedicated Islamic scholars will appear on the scene to create such a salvatory synergy. In the meantime, none of us any longer needs to be afraid or intimidated by the Myth of Mecca.
References:
Al-Rawandi, I.M. Origins of Islam: A Critical Look at the Sources. Prometheus, 2000
Crone, P.M. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Oxford, 1987.Newby, G.D. The Making of the Last Prophet: A Reconstruction of the Earliest Biography of Mohammed. Columbia, 1989.
Wansbrough, J. Quranic Studies: Sources and Methods of Scriptural Interpretation. Oxford, 1977.
Warraq, I. M. The Quest for the Historical Muhammad. Prometheus, 2000.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, April 3, 2011
SLASH THE BUDGET - STOP FOREIGN AID
Speaker of the House John Boehner, is either lying or is horribly un-fit for public office when he claims he can only find $33 billion to cut from the proposed $1.6 trillion budget. What a crock.
Armed with nothing but a computer and calculator I found nearly $30 billion that could easily be cut, in addition to the $33 billion Congress is planning to cut. The details of what I located horrified me. Allow me to share my research with you.
How many people realize that in spite of the billions we have borrowed from Communist China, we are GIVING them more that $12.8 million in foreign aid? How many realize we are planning to GIVE Russia more than $64.6 million in foreign aid? The reality is we are going to GIVE $20,298,242,000 (that’s $20 + billion) to foreign countries with no strings attached. These are not loans, they are outright gifts.
We here in America are losing our homes to foreclosure and are facing enormous job cuts due to our industries leaving for foreign shores. Government taxation policies are not friendly to business. Yet we are giving aid to foreign slave-masters who are holding their own citizens in bondage and keeping Americans from full employment.
Mexico is exporting drugs, gangs and illegal immigrants to the United States in droves. We are planning to give Mexico $333,910,000 in foreign aid. Columbia is the source of tons of cocaine being used to hook our people, but have no fear, the idiots in Washington are going to give Columbia $400,208,000 in foreign aid.
Venezuela’s dictator, Hugo Chavez has on several occasions screamed insults to America. He once said: “I hereby accuse the North American empire (the U.S.) of being the biggest menace to our planet.” He also said: “I’m ready right now with the Venezuelan central bank…to move $5 billion (of Venezuelan reserves), to a South American bank.” Our response? We give him about $5 million in foreign aid every year. My question is, why are we giving him anything? After all, he is holding billions of dollars in “reserve.”
We all know that Cuba is a military dictatorship. Why then are we GIVING Castro $20 million in 2012 in foreign aid? Why are we propping up dictatorships with our money? More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives to keep Vietnam from falling to Communism. Yet, now that Vietnam is Communist we are sending them more than $125 million to prop up that evil regime. Why?
The United Nations stood by, issuing resolutions, while the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 took place. That genocide resulted in the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 people. The tiny East African nation is now controlled by President Paul Kagame, who rules with an iron fist. The U.S. is now supporting his dictatorship with approximately $248 million a year in foreign aid. I again ask; why?
That is only foreign aid. We are also pumping billions more in military aid and more millions into financial support to the United Nations. And there is more. Because our leaders jump every time the U.N. says to jump, we paid dues to the world in the blood of our finest young men and women.
Korea - 54,246 dead, 103,240 wounded or maimed, 4,439 POWs who never returned:
Vietnam - 58,253 killed, 53,203 wounded or maimed, 509 POWs:
Operation Desert Storm - 269 killed, 357 wounded or maimed:
Somalia - 18 killed, 70 wounded:
Afghanistan - 409 killed, 2,605 wounded:
Iraq - 4,211 killed, 30,871 wounded.
Total U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) during “peacekeeping” missions since WWII:
117,406 killed, 225,689 wounded.
I think we’ve paid enough dues to the U.N. We’ve paid enough to arm and care for the rest of the world. We are not giving them our tax dollars. We are giving them money we have borrowed and we have paid in blood. Enough is enough. It is time to cut off all foreign aid and military aid at least until our own deficit is repaid and maybe forever.
Scroll down to read the entire list of 108 nations set to receive foreign aid in 2012.
The U.S. Government website http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/ indicates that total U.S. foreign loans and direct aid in the form of grants for 2012 comes to $50 billion. Somewhere along the line about $30 billion more is hidden from public view. At least I couldn’t find it.
2012 FOREIGN AID REQUESTS
THE AMERICAS
Mexico $333,910,000
Guatemala $99,725,000
Honduras $67,960,000
Cuba $20,000,000
Nicaragua $25,336,000
Costa Rica $715,000
Panama $2,790,000
Ecuador $32,040,000
Columbia $400,208,000
Peru $111,109,000
Bolivia $32,710,000
Chili $1,300,000
Argentina $1,650,000
Uruguay $980,000
Brazil $18,250,000
Suriname $250,000
Guyana $13,850,000
Venezuela $5,000,000
Haiti $405,349,000
Jamaica $11,613,000
Dominican Republic $36,401,000
_______________________________________
Sub-total $1,167,783,000
EUROPE
Poland $37,200,000
Romania $14,800,000
Hungary $2,000,000
Czech Republic $8,000,000
Lithuania $3,850,000
Latvia $3,650,000
Estonia $3,650,000
Belarus $11,000,000
Slovak Republic $2,165,000
Greece $100,000
Croatia $4,850,000
Slovenia $1,200,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina $50,250,000
Serbia $39,250,000
Bulgaria $10,700,000
Moldovia $23,400,000
Montenegro $6,340,000
Kosovo $67,450,000
Albania $22,650,000
Macedonia $19,250,000
Portugal $100,000
Cyprus $3,500,000
______________________________________
Sub-total $335,405,000
MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
Turkey $5,650,000
Iraq $2,350,145,000
Jordan $675,700,000
Lebanon $232,360,000
Israel $3,075,000,000
Oman $12,650,000
Yemen $120,160,000
Egypt $1,557,250,000
Sudan $518,257,000
Libya $1,650,000,000
Tunisia $6,750,000
Burkina Faso $21,300,000
Algeria $2,870,000
Morocco $43,654,000
Mauritania $5,680,000
Mali $171,772,000
Niger $15,025,000
Chad $6,580,000
Ethopia $608,301,000
Nigeria $660,453,000
Senegal $119,860,000
Somalia $81,371,000
Central African Republic $125,000
Cameroon $13,035,000
Benin $29,100,000
Togo $140,000
Ghana $204,543,000
Cote d’Ivoire $142,480,000
Liberia $211,401,000
Sierra Leone $22,724,000
Kenya $751,400,000
Guinea $13,600,000
Gabon $400,000
Republic of Congo $125,000
Democratic Repub. of Congo $261,892,000
Uganda $527,774,000
Rwanda $248,383,000
Barundi $37,621,000
Zambia $400,770,000
Madagascar $78,800,000
Angola $72,858,000
Malawi $201,630,000
Mozambique $402,571,000
Zimbabwe $109,975,000
Nambia $99,650,000
Botswana $71,890,000
South Africa $561,936,000
___________________________________________
Sub-total $11,015,622,000
ASIA AND WESTERN PACIFIC
Russia $64,635,000
Kazakhstan $21,385,000
Georgia $87,607,000
Armenia $44,300,000
Azerbaijan $21,365,000
Afghanistan $3,213,380,000
Pakistan $2,965,029,000
Turkmenistan $10,275,000
Uzbekistan $11,830,000
India $142,600,000
Nepal $93,889,000
Kyrgyz Republic $46,625,000
Tajikistan $45,025,000
China $12,850,000
Bangladesh $266,118,000
Burma $37,200,000
Mongolia $10,550,000
Thailand $13,151,000
Laos $9,208,000
Cambodia $87,760,000
Vietnam $125,356,000
Indonesia $253,175,000
Sri Lanka $22,239,000
Malaysia $2,450,000
Papua New Guinea $7,500,000
Philippines $163,680,000
Taiwan $250,000
_____________________________________________
Sub-total $7,779,432,000 ($7.8 billion)
Totals:
Americas $1,167,783,000 ($1.168 billion)
Europe $335,405,000 ($335.5 million)
Middle East and Africa $11,015,622,000 ($11.02 billion)
Asia and Pacific Islands $7,779,432,000 ($7.8 billion)
________________________
GRAND TOTAL $20,298,242,000 ($20.3 billion)
SOURCE
Here is the entire list of 63 nations which received FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING in 2006. This is the most current information I could find. Remember, foreign military financing is different from Foreign Aid.
International missions, such as the United Nations, come with high price. Check out a few of the U.N. back dues here.
Link to a 2005 report outlining how the United States supports repressive, often socialist or communist regimes by giving and selling arms. How many billions have we given away? We may never know. CLICK HERE for the report.
Back to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Armed with nothing but a computer and calculator I found nearly $30 billion that could easily be cut, in addition to the $33 billion Congress is planning to cut. The details of what I located horrified me. Allow me to share my research with you.
How many people realize that in spite of the billions we have borrowed from Communist China, we are GIVING them more that $12.8 million in foreign aid? How many realize we are planning to GIVE Russia more than $64.6 million in foreign aid? The reality is we are going to GIVE $20,298,242,000 (that’s $20 + billion) to foreign countries with no strings attached. These are not loans, they are outright gifts.
We here in America are losing our homes to foreclosure and are facing enormous job cuts due to our industries leaving for foreign shores. Government taxation policies are not friendly to business. Yet we are giving aid to foreign slave-masters who are holding their own citizens in bondage and keeping Americans from full employment.
Mexico is exporting drugs, gangs and illegal immigrants to the United States in droves. We are planning to give Mexico $333,910,000 in foreign aid. Columbia is the source of tons of cocaine being used to hook our people, but have no fear, the idiots in Washington are going to give Columbia $400,208,000 in foreign aid.
Venezuela’s dictator, Hugo Chavez has on several occasions screamed insults to America. He once said: “I hereby accuse the North American empire (the U.S.) of being the biggest menace to our planet.” He also said: “I’m ready right now with the Venezuelan central bank…to move $5 billion (of Venezuelan reserves), to a South American bank.” Our response? We give him about $5 million in foreign aid every year. My question is, why are we giving him anything? After all, he is holding billions of dollars in “reserve.”
We all know that Cuba is a military dictatorship. Why then are we GIVING Castro $20 million in 2012 in foreign aid? Why are we propping up dictatorships with our money? More than 54,000 Americans gave their lives to keep Vietnam from falling to Communism. Yet, now that Vietnam is Communist we are sending them more than $125 million to prop up that evil regime. Why?
The United Nations stood by, issuing resolutions, while the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 took place. That genocide resulted in the slaughter of an estimated 800,000 to 1,000,000 people. The tiny East African nation is now controlled by President Paul Kagame, who rules with an iron fist. The U.S. is now supporting his dictatorship with approximately $248 million a year in foreign aid. I again ask; why?
That is only foreign aid. We are also pumping billions more in military aid and more millions into financial support to the United Nations. And there is more. Because our leaders jump every time the U.N. says to jump, we paid dues to the world in the blood of our finest young men and women.
Korea - 54,246 dead, 103,240 wounded or maimed, 4,439 POWs who never returned:
Vietnam - 58,253 killed, 53,203 wounded or maimed, 509 POWs:
Operation Desert Storm - 269 killed, 357 wounded or maimed:
Somalia - 18 killed, 70 wounded:
Afghanistan - 409 killed, 2,605 wounded:
Iraq - 4,211 killed, 30,871 wounded.
Total U.S. casualties (dead and wounded) during “peacekeeping” missions since WWII:
117,406 killed, 225,689 wounded.
I think we’ve paid enough dues to the U.N. We’ve paid enough to arm and care for the rest of the world. We are not giving them our tax dollars. We are giving them money we have borrowed and we have paid in blood. Enough is enough. It is time to cut off all foreign aid and military aid at least until our own deficit is repaid and maybe forever.
Scroll down to read the entire list of 108 nations set to receive foreign aid in 2012.
The U.S. Government website http://gbk.eads.usaidallnet.gov/ indicates that total U.S. foreign loans and direct aid in the form of grants for 2012 comes to $50 billion. Somewhere along the line about $30 billion more is hidden from public view. At least I couldn’t find it.
2012 FOREIGN AID REQUESTS
THE AMERICAS
Mexico $333,910,000
Guatemala $99,725,000
Honduras $67,960,000
Cuba $20,000,000
Nicaragua $25,336,000
Costa Rica $715,000
Panama $2,790,000
Ecuador $32,040,000
Columbia $400,208,000
Peru $111,109,000
Bolivia $32,710,000
Chili $1,300,000
Argentina $1,650,000
Uruguay $980,000
Brazil $18,250,000
Suriname $250,000
Guyana $13,850,000
Venezuela $5,000,000
Haiti $405,349,000
Jamaica $11,613,000
Dominican Republic $36,401,000
_______________________________________
Sub-total $1,167,783,000
EUROPE
Poland $37,200,000
Romania $14,800,000
Hungary $2,000,000
Czech Republic $8,000,000
Lithuania $3,850,000
Latvia $3,650,000
Estonia $3,650,000
Belarus $11,000,000
Slovak Republic $2,165,000
Greece $100,000
Croatia $4,850,000
Slovenia $1,200,000
Bosnia and Herzegovina $50,250,000
Serbia $39,250,000
Bulgaria $10,700,000
Moldovia $23,400,000
Montenegro $6,340,000
Kosovo $67,450,000
Albania $22,650,000
Macedonia $19,250,000
Portugal $100,000
Cyprus $3,500,000
______________________________________
Sub-total $335,405,000
MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA
Turkey $5,650,000
Iraq $2,350,145,000
Jordan $675,700,000
Lebanon $232,360,000
Israel $3,075,000,000
Oman $12,650,000
Yemen $120,160,000
Egypt $1,557,250,000
Sudan $518,257,000
Libya $1,650,000,000
Tunisia $6,750,000
Burkina Faso $21,300,000
Algeria $2,870,000
Morocco $43,654,000
Mauritania $5,680,000
Mali $171,772,000
Niger $15,025,000
Chad $6,580,000
Ethopia $608,301,000
Nigeria $660,453,000
Senegal $119,860,000
Somalia $81,371,000
Central African Republic $125,000
Cameroon $13,035,000
Benin $29,100,000
Togo $140,000
Ghana $204,543,000
Cote d’Ivoire $142,480,000
Liberia $211,401,000
Sierra Leone $22,724,000
Kenya $751,400,000
Guinea $13,600,000
Gabon $400,000
Republic of Congo $125,000
Democratic Repub. of Congo $261,892,000
Uganda $527,774,000
Rwanda $248,383,000
Barundi $37,621,000
Zambia $400,770,000
Madagascar $78,800,000
Angola $72,858,000
Malawi $201,630,000
Mozambique $402,571,000
Zimbabwe $109,975,000
Nambia $99,650,000
Botswana $71,890,000
South Africa $561,936,000
___________________________________________
Sub-total $11,015,622,000
ASIA AND WESTERN PACIFIC
Russia $64,635,000
Kazakhstan $21,385,000
Georgia $87,607,000
Armenia $44,300,000
Azerbaijan $21,365,000
Afghanistan $3,213,380,000
Pakistan $2,965,029,000
Turkmenistan $10,275,000
Uzbekistan $11,830,000
India $142,600,000
Nepal $93,889,000
Kyrgyz Republic $46,625,000
Tajikistan $45,025,000
China $12,850,000
Bangladesh $266,118,000
Burma $37,200,000
Mongolia $10,550,000
Thailand $13,151,000
Laos $9,208,000
Cambodia $87,760,000
Vietnam $125,356,000
Indonesia $253,175,000
Sri Lanka $22,239,000
Malaysia $2,450,000
Papua New Guinea $7,500,000
Philippines $163,680,000
Taiwan $250,000
_____________________________________________
Sub-total $7,779,432,000 ($7.8 billion)
Totals:
Americas $1,167,783,000 ($1.168 billion)
Europe $335,405,000 ($335.5 million)
Middle East and Africa $11,015,622,000 ($11.02 billion)
Asia and Pacific Islands $7,779,432,000 ($7.8 billion)
________________________
GRAND TOTAL $20,298,242,000 ($20.3 billion)
SOURCE
Here is the entire list of 63 nations which received FOREIGN MILITARY FINANCING in 2006. This is the most current information I could find. Remember, foreign military financing is different from Foreign Aid.
International missions, such as the United Nations, come with high price. Check out a few of the U.N. back dues here.
Link to a 2005 report outlining how the United States supports repressive, often socialist or communist regimes by giving and selling arms. How many billions have we given away? We may never know. CLICK HERE for the report.
Back to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Saturday, February 26, 2011
The Swiss Militia - A Model for America
Swiss influence was partly responsible for the adoption of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "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."
Most Americans only understand the phrase; “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” while ignoring the preceding phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”
The Founders didn’t say a militia would be nice to have. Rather they said, to paraphrase, if Americans want to maintain a system of freedom and liberty, a well regulated militia is necessary.
In Switzerland, there is no central governing authority. Political power is diffused through its Cantons. Cantons are geographical divisions similar to our states. The central government is weak while power remains in the hands of the people. Our Founders, for the most part, also envisioned a weak central government with power residing in the states and with the people.
The Swiss militia system was unlike anything in Europe and possibly the world.. Instead of relying on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a national militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. And here’s a little tidbit that will make Sara Brady and her gun-grabbing nest of snakes see red. Swiss militia members are not only allowed to purchase and use full-automatic machine guns, they can also (if they can afford it) buy armored vehicles, anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces. They are truly the homeland security of their tiny nation.
The Swiss-style militia is exactly the vision our Founders had for the defense and preservation of the nation they founded. Almost to a man the they feared and loathed a standing army and considered it an army of mercenaries - not necessarily loyal to the people from whence it sprang but rather to the power that paid them.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
Elbridge Gerry - founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence
The Founders preferred a militia for other important reasons as well. They considered the militia the best type of military because:
1. It protects the nation very well;
2. It is cheap;
3. It cannot be used for the wrong reasons;
4. It cannot be manipulated by power-seekers and
5. it cannot infringe on freedoms.
These criteria are the conditions that a good military must satisfy. A militia satisfies these better than the present standing army does.
A militia is also a purely defensive force. It cannot be used as an aggressor.
The Founders, despite their other views, almost to a man supported the usage of a militia over a standing army. A notable exception was Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist who not only encouraged a standing army, but also advocated a national banking system.
A militia after the Swiss model could never challenge, let alone overthrow, the federal government. Yet our current federal establishment frequently takes the position that militias are only formed to challenge or overthrow the government and indeed some groups of outlaws call themselves militia and have the overthrow of the government as their goal.
What then is a constitutionally correct militia as envisioned by the Founders? Again, they turned to the Swiss model.
When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argued: "The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century.
The "Swiss Confederation" developed only a weak central government, leaving most authority in the hands of the cantons or lower levels of government. The tradition of local autonomy helped keep Switzerland from experiencing the bitter civil wars between Catholics and Protestants that devastated Germany, France and England.
As one historian summarizes: "Switzerland was created in battle, reached its present dimensions by conquest and defended its existence by armed neutrality thereafter." The experience of Swiss history has made national independence and power virtually synonymous with an armed citizenry.
America’s Founders admired Switzerland as a “Sister Republic” amidst the despotisms of Europe. The American Founders—like the Swiss—understood the moral implications of a universal militia system: a people who are trained to self-reliance and responsibility will defend their freedom to the utmost. But a people who rely on a professional standing army may not have the nerve to resist tyranny.
As Switzerland proved in World War II, well-regulated militia really was necessary to the security of a free state. Swiss neutrality during WWII was not a gift bestowed by other nations or a declaration of neutrality but a status, earned through armed deterrence.
Further reading on the Swiss militia and gun control.
Click HERE to see where the Founders stood on the question of a standing army versus a militia and
additional reading about the Founders, the militia and gun control.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Most Americans only understand the phrase; “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” while ignoring the preceding phrase, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”
The Founders didn’t say a militia would be nice to have. Rather they said, to paraphrase, if Americans want to maintain a system of freedom and liberty, a well regulated militia is necessary.
In Switzerland, there is no central governing authority. Political power is diffused through its Cantons. Cantons are geographical divisions similar to our states. The central government is weak while power remains in the hands of the people. Our Founders, for the most part, also envisioned a weak central government with power residing in the states and with the people.
The Swiss militia system was unlike anything in Europe and possibly the world.. Instead of relying on a standing army, Switzerland was (and still is) defended by a national militia. Every man was trained in war, had his rifle at home, was encouraged to practice frequently, and could be mobilized almost instantly. And here’s a little tidbit that will make Sara Brady and her gun-grabbing nest of snakes see red. Swiss militia members are not only allowed to purchase and use full-automatic machine guns, they can also (if they can afford it) buy armored vehicles, anti-tank weapons and artillery pieces. They are truly the homeland security of their tiny nation.
The Swiss-style militia is exactly the vision our Founders had for the defense and preservation of the nation they founded. Almost to a man the they feared and loathed a standing army and considered it an army of mercenaries - not necessarily loyal to the people from whence it sprang but rather to the power that paid them.
“What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. ...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
Elbridge Gerry - founding father and signer of the Declaration of Independence
The Founders preferred a militia for other important reasons as well. They considered the militia the best type of military because:
1. It protects the nation very well;
2. It is cheap;
3. It cannot be used for the wrong reasons;
4. It cannot be manipulated by power-seekers and
5. it cannot infringe on freedoms.
These criteria are the conditions that a good military must satisfy. A militia satisfies these better than the present standing army does.
A militia is also a purely defensive force. It cannot be used as an aggressor.
The Founders, despite their other views, almost to a man supported the usage of a militia over a standing army. A notable exception was Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist who not only encouraged a standing army, but also advocated a national banking system.
A militia after the Swiss model could never challenge, let alone overthrow, the federal government. Yet our current federal establishment frequently takes the position that militias are only formed to challenge or overthrow the government and indeed some groups of outlaws call themselves militia and have the overthrow of the government as their goal.
What then is a constitutionally correct militia as envisioned by the Founders? Again, they turned to the Swiss model.
When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argued: "The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century.
The "Swiss Confederation" developed only a weak central government, leaving most authority in the hands of the cantons or lower levels of government. The tradition of local autonomy helped keep Switzerland from experiencing the bitter civil wars between Catholics and Protestants that devastated Germany, France and England.
As one historian summarizes: "Switzerland was created in battle, reached its present dimensions by conquest and defended its existence by armed neutrality thereafter." The experience of Swiss history has made national independence and power virtually synonymous with an armed citizenry.
America’s Founders admired Switzerland as a “Sister Republic” amidst the despotisms of Europe. The American Founders—like the Swiss—understood the moral implications of a universal militia system: a people who are trained to self-reliance and responsibility will defend their freedom to the utmost. But a people who rely on a professional standing army may not have the nerve to resist tyranny.
As Switzerland proved in World War II, well-regulated militia really was necessary to the security of a free state. Swiss neutrality during WWII was not a gift bestowed by other nations or a declaration of neutrality but a status, earned through armed deterrence.
Further reading on the Swiss militia and gun control.
Click HERE to see where the Founders stood on the question of a standing army versus a militia and
additional reading about the Founders, the militia and gun control.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Saturday, February 19, 2011
TWO STATES DEBATING NULLIFICATION OF OVERREACHING FEDERAL LAWS AND MANDATES - 28 other states are waiting in the wings
Two states say they will exercise their constitutional rights to ignore or refuse costly and invasive federal mandates, statues and executive orders.
Montana and Arizona this week introduced plans to set up standing commissions tasked with reviewing these federal orders “to determine their constitutionality.” The commissions then will recommend state lawmakers nullify any federal law or regulation outside the scope of powers constitutionally delegated to the federal government.
EDITORIAL COMMENT BY OLDTIMER:
The entire article (linked to below) is vitally important NOW and shows how states are standing up to the federal government and pushing back against Obama’s attempts to socialize the nation.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, nullification is a mild form of secession. We must never forget the federal government is the child of the states and people. We had a country before we had a federal government. We had a union before we had a federal government. We created the federal government to handle things the individual states were ill-prepared to do, such as enacting uniform maritime shipping laws and conducting foreign affairs with a unified front.
We neither gave the federal government permission nor authority to twist the simple wording of the so-called “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution into the justification for federal intrusion into nearly every aspect of our lives.
It was always in the minds and hearts of the founders of our Republic that any state that felt a federal law exceeded the limited authority given the federal government, that state or states could nullify, or simply ignore the law. NEVER was the federal government given authority to dictate laws to the states and force compliance.
Abraham Lincoln, one of the worst presidents in our history, changed that when he declared war on southern and western states for rebelling against what they felt were onerous and illegal tariffs that protected northern interests and hurt the Rebels.
States today face a similar challenge as the federal government passes illegal and unconstitutional laws. This may be our best chance, short of secession, to un-do Lincoln’s damage to state’s rights and tame our runaway federal government. We sure can't count on Congress to stand up for the people.
Please - read the entire report HERE. It’s a real eye-opener.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Montana and Arizona this week introduced plans to set up standing commissions tasked with reviewing these federal orders “to determine their constitutionality.” The commissions then will recommend state lawmakers nullify any federal law or regulation outside the scope of powers constitutionally delegated to the federal government.
EDITORIAL COMMENT BY OLDTIMER:
The entire article (linked to below) is vitally important NOW and shows how states are standing up to the federal government and pushing back against Obama’s attempts to socialize the nation.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, nullification is a mild form of secession. We must never forget the federal government is the child of the states and people. We had a country before we had a federal government. We had a union before we had a federal government. We created the federal government to handle things the individual states were ill-prepared to do, such as enacting uniform maritime shipping laws and conducting foreign affairs with a unified front.
We neither gave the federal government permission nor authority to twist the simple wording of the so-called “Commerce Clause” of the Constitution into the justification for federal intrusion into nearly every aspect of our lives.
It was always in the minds and hearts of the founders of our Republic that any state that felt a federal law exceeded the limited authority given the federal government, that state or states could nullify, or simply ignore the law. NEVER was the federal government given authority to dictate laws to the states and force compliance.
Abraham Lincoln, one of the worst presidents in our history, changed that when he declared war on southern and western states for rebelling against what they felt were onerous and illegal tariffs that protected northern interests and hurt the Rebels.
States today face a similar challenge as the federal government passes illegal and unconstitutional laws. This may be our best chance, short of secession, to un-do Lincoln’s damage to state’s rights and tame our runaway federal government. We sure can't count on Congress to stand up for the people.
Please - read the entire report HERE. It’s a real eye-opener.
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
GUN CONTROLS and Hitler's near conquest of Europe
Would-be tyrants all seemingly have one goal before the total subjugation of a race or nation. That goal is the disarmament of common citizens. One such notable tyrant was Adolph Hitler. But tyrants even closer to home have also tried.
King George tried to disarm the colonists right here on our continent. Some Americans think the Boston Massacre was the beginning of the American Revolution. Others think the Boston Tea Party triggered the event. Those acts served only to agitate unrest among the colonists but the action that drove them to arms was the edict from the king for the British Army to seize all the guns, powder and shot in colonial possession. The Revolutionary War started over gun control.
READ ABOUT THE FAMOUS RIDE OF PAUL REVERE and THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD HERE
Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Chiang Kai-shek, Lenin, Tojo Hideki, Pol Pot and other tyrants probably learned from the British experience because they all took steps to make sure the countries to be occupied had strict gun/weapons controls to make their conquest easier and the subjugation of the people possible.
The essence of Nazism, communism and socialism has always been based upon coercion, not persuasion. It is always imposed by a few elitists who think they have a right to rule over all of civilization because of what they arrogantly perceive to be their superior intellect or vast wealth or investment prowess.
Progressivism, like its collectivist cousins socialism, Marxism, Nazism and communism, is based upon brute force. And they don't recognize individual freedom or personal rights, either. To progressives, only the "collective" has rights! But ultimately, someone has to decide what those rights are, don't they? So of course, the elitists appoint themselves to dictate what those rights are!
They naturally resent it when we remind them that our rights are inalienable - they come directly from God - not some tin-horn dictator.
Here then is how Hitler disarmed most of Europe before WWII began.
First came the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 which included: Classification of guns for sporting and possible military uses; registration and background check; types of ammunition that were legal and subject to control by bureaucrats and age restrictions.
Then came a gun-control law aimed specifically at Jews.
“Jews…..(in the Austrian and Sudeten-German districts) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”
Penalties for violation were relatively light - forfeiture of firearms and ammunition and possible fines and jail time. That edict was signed by Minister of the Interior Frick.
The day before, Nov. 10, 1938, a much more restrictive law concerning guns was signed by SS Reichsführer Himmler, and the destruction of the Jews in Nazi Germany and all the subjugated countries of Europe was finalized. Even the New York Times on Nov. 8 warned the gun seizures were coming.
On the day the order was signed, all hell broke loose. Without warning and without giving people time to prepare, the raids began. Thousands of Jewish men were hauled off to the death camps and Hitler’s infamous “final solution” had begun. The “final solution” was the genocidal extermination of all Jews in German occupied territory.
Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which slaughtered six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.
Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.
France soon fell, and posters threatening the death penalty for possession of a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of the Liberation (Musée de l'Ordre de la Libération).
The Nazi invaders also set similar deadlines in: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Romania, Yugoslavia and Greece.
The New York Times, speaking of the French said: “Military orders now forbid the French to do things which the German people have not been allowed to do since Hitler came to power. To own radio senders or to listen to foreign broadcasts, to organize public meetings and distribute pamphlets, to disseminate anti-German news in any form, to retain possession of firearms--all these things are prohibited for the subjugated people of France…”
Today our own government is trying desperately to turn off the Internet and pass draconian gun control laws - both in DIRECT opposition to the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold and defend. Hmm, wonder why?
While the Nazis made good on the threat to execute persons in possession of firearms, the gun-control decree was not entirely successful. Underground resistance movements launched armed attacks. But resistance was hampered by the lack of civilian arms possession.
As far back as 1941, then U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson brazenly called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms. Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to actually protect the Second Amendment.
Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the OGPU, and the Cheka."
Rep. John W. Patman added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."
Not all the European Jews turned in their guns which eventually led to THE WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING
Armed citizens were hurting the Nazis, so they took the sternest retaliatory measures to quell any further resistance. The Nazis imposed the death penalty on a Pole or Jew: "If he is in unlawful possession of firearms, . . . or if he has credible information that a Pole or a Jew is in unlawful possession of such objects, and fails to notify the authorities forthwith.
"Even British citizens had been disarmed by their government prior to the war. With no way to defend the general population, the British issued a call to the U.S. National Rifle Association and The American Rifleman magazine to “send a gun to defend a British home.”
British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion and after two decades of gun control, now desperately needed rifles and pistols in their homes. America responded and soon Brits were organized into the Home Guard. Armed citizens were now ready to resist the expected Nazi onslaught.
During the past century individual criminals wreaked their carnage on individuals or relatively small numbers of people. For example: On April 16, 2007, a gunman killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech University; Dec. 5, 2007, a gunman killed eight people before shooting himself at a shopping mall in Omaha, Neb.; Dec. 9, 2007, four people were killed then killed himself at a church in Colorado; Feb. 2, 2008, 5 women were killed during a botched robbery in Chicago; Feb 7, 2008, two policemen and three city officials were killed at a city council meeting in a St. Louis suburb. (The gunman was killed by police); Feb. 8, 2008, a nursing student fatally shot two women and herself at a Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Feb. 14, 2008, a gunman killed five and wounded 18 before killing himself and on June 25, 2008, a worker at a plastics plant in Kentucky killed five people at the factory and wounded a sixth before killing himself.
SOURCE
These approximately 75 murders were and are a national tragedy. As were the tragic deaths of dozens of school children by crazed gunmen. But they pale in comparison to the horror unleashed on people by dictators and tyrants - by government if you will.
Hilter unleashed killing squads called the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe and Russia. As Raul Hilberg observes, "The killers were well armed . . . . The victims were unarmed." The Einsatzgruppen, in less than three years, executed two million people between fall 1939 and summer 1942.
As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world's most insidious tyrannies. Given this reality, it is not surprising that law-abiding gun owners oppose being objects of registration.
Yet somehow, as you will see later, during all the bloodshed of WWII, the Swiss managed to avoid invasion and provided safe haven for Jews and others fleeing Hitler’s hordes.
FOR FURTHER READING ON NAZI GUN CONTROLS CLICK HERE
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS or click HERE to find out how the Swiss ignored German gun-control laws, stood up to the German Wermacht and remained neutral during the war.
King George tried to disarm the colonists right here on our continent. Some Americans think the Boston Massacre was the beginning of the American Revolution. Others think the Boston Tea Party triggered the event. Those acts served only to agitate unrest among the colonists but the action that drove them to arms was the edict from the king for the British Army to seize all the guns, powder and shot in colonial possession. The Revolutionary War started over gun control.
READ ABOUT THE FAMOUS RIDE OF PAUL REVERE and THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD HERE
Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Chiang Kai-shek, Lenin, Tojo Hideki, Pol Pot and other tyrants probably learned from the British experience because they all took steps to make sure the countries to be occupied had strict gun/weapons controls to make their conquest easier and the subjugation of the people possible.
The essence of Nazism, communism and socialism has always been based upon coercion, not persuasion. It is always imposed by a few elitists who think they have a right to rule over all of civilization because of what they arrogantly perceive to be their superior intellect or vast wealth or investment prowess.
Progressivism, like its collectivist cousins socialism, Marxism, Nazism and communism, is based upon brute force. And they don't recognize individual freedom or personal rights, either. To progressives, only the "collective" has rights! But ultimately, someone has to decide what those rights are, don't they? So of course, the elitists appoint themselves to dictate what those rights are!
They naturally resent it when we remind them that our rights are inalienable - they come directly from God - not some tin-horn dictator.
Here then is how Hitler disarmed most of Europe before WWII began.
First came the Nazi Weapons Act of 1938 which included: Classification of guns for sporting and possible military uses; registration and background check; types of ammunition that were legal and subject to control by bureaucrats and age restrictions.
Then came a gun-control law aimed specifically at Jews.
“Jews…..(in the Austrian and Sudeten-German districts) are prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons. Those now possessing weapons and ammunition are at once to turn them over to the local police authority.”
Penalties for violation were relatively light - forfeiture of firearms and ammunition and possible fines and jail time. That edict was signed by Minister of the Interior Frick.
The day before, Nov. 10, 1938, a much more restrictive law concerning guns was signed by SS Reichsführer Himmler, and the destruction of the Jews in Nazi Germany and all the subjugated countries of Europe was finalized. Even the New York Times on Nov. 8 warned the gun seizures were coming.
On the day the order was signed, all hell broke loose. Without warning and without giving people time to prepare, the raids began. Thousands of Jewish men were hauled off to the death camps and Hitler’s infamous “final solution” had begun. The “final solution” was the genocidal extermination of all Jews in German occupied territory.
Himmler, head of the Nazi terror police, would become an architect of the Holocaust, which slaughtered six million Jews. It was self evident that the Jews must be disarmed before the extermination could begin.
Finding out which Jews had firearms was not too difficult. The liberal Weimar Republic passed a Firearm Law in 1928 requiring extensive police records on gun owners. Hitler signed a further gun control law in early 1938.
Other European countries also had laws requiring police records to be kept on persons who possessed firearms. When the Nazis took over Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, it was a simple matter to identify gun owners. Many of them disappeared in the middle of the night along with political opponents.
France soon fell, and posters threatening the death penalty for possession of a firearm went up everywhere. You can see one today in Paris at the Museum of the Order of the Liberation (Musée de l'Ordre de la Libération).
The Nazi invaders also set similar deadlines in: Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway, Romania, Yugoslavia and Greece.
The New York Times, speaking of the French said: “Military orders now forbid the French to do things which the German people have not been allowed to do since Hitler came to power. To own radio senders or to listen to foreign broadcasts, to organize public meetings and distribute pamphlets, to disseminate anti-German news in any form, to retain possession of firearms--all these things are prohibited for the subjugated people of France…”
Today our own government is trying desperately to turn off the Internet and pass draconian gun control laws - both in DIRECT opposition to the Constitution which they have sworn to uphold and defend. Hmm, wonder why?
While the Nazis made good on the threat to execute persons in possession of firearms, the gun-control decree was not entirely successful. Underground resistance movements launched armed attacks. But resistance was hampered by the lack of civilian arms possession.
As far back as 1941, then U.S. Attorney General Robert Jackson brazenly called on Congress to enact national registration of all firearms. Given events in Europe, Congress recoiled, and legislation was introduced to actually protect the Second Amendment.
Rep. Edwin Arthur Hall explained: "Before the advent of Hitler or Stalin, who took power from the German and Russian people, measures were thrust upon the free legislatures of those countries to deprive the people of the possession and use of firearms, so that they could not resist the encroachments of such diabolical and vitriolic state police organizations as the Gestapo, the OGPU, and the Cheka."
Rep. John W. Patman added: "The people have a right to keep arms; therefore, if we should have some Executive who attempted to set himself up as dictator or king, the people can organize themselves together and, with the arms and ammunition they have, they can properly protect themselves. . . ."
Not all the European Jews turned in their guns which eventually led to THE WARSAW GHETTO UPRISING
Armed citizens were hurting the Nazis, so they took the sternest retaliatory measures to quell any further resistance. The Nazis imposed the death penalty on a Pole or Jew: "If he is in unlawful possession of firearms, . . . or if he has credible information that a Pole or a Jew is in unlawful possession of such objects, and fails to notify the authorities forthwith.
"Even British citizens had been disarmed by their government prior to the war. With no way to defend the general population, the British issued a call to the U.S. National Rifle Association and The American Rifleman magazine to “send a gun to defend a British home.”
British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion and after two decades of gun control, now desperately needed rifles and pistols in their homes. America responded and soon Brits were organized into the Home Guard. Armed citizens were now ready to resist the expected Nazi onslaught.
During the past century individual criminals wreaked their carnage on individuals or relatively small numbers of people. For example: On April 16, 2007, a gunman killed 32 people and himself at Virginia Tech University; Dec. 5, 2007, a gunman killed eight people before shooting himself at a shopping mall in Omaha, Neb.; Dec. 9, 2007, four people were killed then killed himself at a church in Colorado; Feb. 2, 2008, 5 women were killed during a botched robbery in Chicago; Feb 7, 2008, two policemen and three city officials were killed at a city council meeting in a St. Louis suburb. (The gunman was killed by police); Feb. 8, 2008, a nursing student fatally shot two women and herself at a Louisiana Technical College in Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Feb. 14, 2008, a gunman killed five and wounded 18 before killing himself and on June 25, 2008, a worker at a plastics plant in Kentucky killed five people at the factory and wounded a sixth before killing himself.
SOURCE
These approximately 75 murders were and are a national tragedy. As were the tragic deaths of dozens of school children by crazed gunmen. But they pale in comparison to the horror unleashed on people by dictators and tyrants - by government if you will.
Hilter unleashed killing squads called the Einsatzgruppen in Eastern Europe and Russia. As Raul Hilberg observes, "The killers were well armed . . . . The victims were unarmed." The Einsatzgruppen, in less than three years, executed two million people between fall 1939 and summer 1942.
As this century has shown, terrorist governments have the capacity to commit genocide against millions of people, provided that the people are unarmed. Schemes to confiscate firearms kept by peaceable citizens have historically been associated with some of the world's most insidious tyrannies. Given this reality, it is not surprising that law-abiding gun owners oppose being objects of registration.
Yet somehow, as you will see later, during all the bloodshed of WWII, the Swiss managed to avoid invasion and provided safe haven for Jews and others fleeing Hitler’s hordes.
FOR FURTHER READING ON NAZI GUN CONTROLS CLICK HERE
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS or click HERE to find out how the Swiss ignored German gun-control laws, stood up to the German Wermacht and remained neutral during the war.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Shot Heard Around the World
THE FAMOUS RIDE of Paul Revere
British troops were planning a march to Lexington to arrest John Hancock and Sam Adams, then on to Concord to seize colonial arms and ammunitions. At nightfall on April 18, Paul Revere hung a two-lantern signal in the steeple of Old North Church, alerting his comrades that the Redcoats were crossing the harbor. Revere then galloped to Lexington and pressed on to Concord, where he was captured by a British patrol. Questioned at gunpoint, Revere was released after divulging nothing but misinformation.
THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD
More than 700 Redcoats (British regular army) marched through the night of April 18, 1775, reaching Lexington near dawn. Awaiting them were 77 Minutemen - farmers and laborers trained to be "ready in a minute." Then one musket went off. Historians still debate which side fired the first shot, but within seconds, eight colonists lay dead on Lexington Green.
At Concord, 400 Minutemen exchanged gunfire with 120 Redcoats at the North Bridge. Pealing church bells spread the alarm and colonial numbers grew to 5,000. The British would have been massacred, but reinforcements arrived as they fled back to Boston. April 19, 1775 … the war had begun!
RETURN TO ARTICLE
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
British troops were planning a march to Lexington to arrest John Hancock and Sam Adams, then on to Concord to seize colonial arms and ammunitions. At nightfall on April 18, Paul Revere hung a two-lantern signal in the steeple of Old North Church, alerting his comrades that the Redcoats were crossing the harbor. Revere then galloped to Lexington and pressed on to Concord, where he was captured by a British patrol. Questioned at gunpoint, Revere was released after divulging nothing but misinformation.
THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD
More than 700 Redcoats (British regular army) marched through the night of April 18, 1775, reaching Lexington near dawn. Awaiting them were 77 Minutemen - farmers and laborers trained to be "ready in a minute." Then one musket went off. Historians still debate which side fired the first shot, but within seconds, eight colonists lay dead on Lexington Green.
At Concord, 400 Minutemen exchanged gunfire with 120 Redcoats at the North Bridge. Pealing church bells spread the alarm and colonial numbers grew to 5,000. The British would have been massacred, but reinforcements arrived as they fled back to Boston. April 19, 1775 … the war had begun!
RETURN TO ARTICLE
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Sunday, January 30, 2011
NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS - Exploding the myths about guns and crime
Guns are NOT just for self-defense, hunting, target shooting or collecting. When all is said and done guns are the last and best resort against government tyranny.
Don’t take it from me, heed well the words of the lead draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Why all the hysteria and lies about guns from those who want to control guns? The answer is simple - those “gun-grabbers” want to control much more than just your guns, they want to control YOU!!
Sadly, experience has shown that the best way to subjugate and control a population is by eliminating the means of resistance through gun controls and eventually gun seizures.
They disguise their desire for dominance by using catchwords and catch-phrases, such as “guns kill” and write articles and produce video specials urging people to turn in their guns. They urge you to rely on the police. What they don’t tell you is the actual results of draconian gun control and gun seizure legislation. Nor do they tell the truth about police protection. Why? Because the police are usually, almost always actually, not on the scene when a crime is committed, but only show up after the fact to clean up the mess, track down the criminal and bring him to justice.
Gun grabbers lie about statistics and in their hatred of guns often become hysterical. But every once in a while, the truth leaks out from their own lips. They inadvertently expose their leftist, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-people agenda. They expose their ultimate desire - to rule with an iron fist.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."
Adolf Hitler (1)
Hitler’s plan to disarm his would-be opponents led to the destruction of every sovereign nation in Europe save two: England and Switzerland. With his “enemies” neutered by gun seizures, Hitler was free to unleash a holocaust on Europe that led to the deaths of 20 million people.
If you still don’t think most gun-grabbers have an agenda, read the following words carefully. Written by an American, in these three short sentences the speaker admits the ultimate goal of the species is the ultimate banning of all guns leading to total disarmament. I would guess that would include knives, archery equipment and pitchforks. The gun-grabbers will “distort the facts” and lie. They seek zero resistance while they kick our Constitution to the curb, run over it with a bus and implement a socialist form of government.
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sarah Brady
The gun-grabbers don’t want you to think about such things as government-created holocaust or genocide. Oh no. They distort facts and lie so you will think guns are inherently evil and cause murders and are to blame for most accidents and homicides. The result of this propaganda blitz has caused even some gun owners to believe that maybe society would be safer with gun controls of some type. The socialists, meanwhile, calmly go about working their plan, always keeping their ultimate goal in sight. That end goal is gun seizure.
Pete Shields, Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978,
warned the gun-grabbers that progress would be slow but in his mind inevitable.
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given political realities - going to be a very modest (one). Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved. . . .‘” Shields said. “So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. . . . Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of ALL handguns and ALL handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal." (2)
Looking at the gun-control issue from the perspective of guns used in murders, accidents and crime reduction, here are a few FACTS.
As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people. Based on production data from
firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.
In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.
During the 12-year span the handgun ban was in effect, the homicide rate in D.C. went from 26 deaths per 100,000 people to an astounding 80 deaths per 100,000 people. The Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
SEE DC GRAPH HERE
Nationally the homicide rate was about 10 per 100,000. In short, the chances of being killed with a gun in D.C. was EIGHT TIMES GREATER after the unconstitutional handgun ban went into effect.
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional in D.C. v Heller. Not all the Justices agreed with the decision and based their dissent on faulty statistics and hysteria. The four dissenters were, naturally, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In their collective opinion they cite as fact, based on a report by the local council committee, that the goal of the handgun restriction was “to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia” According to the committee, “for every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 .gun-related accidents within the home.”
The committee report cited no source or evidence for this statistic. The reason is there is NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE STATEMENT - only hysteria and lies.
The facts are that nationwide in 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the entire U.S. which constituted 0.5% of the 123,706 total fatal accidents from all causes. Compare the firearm fatalities with fatal car accidents, for example, which claimed 34% of the total U.S. accidental deaths.
Non-fatal accidents tell a similar story. Of the nearly 16,000 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents in 2007, only about 5,000 resulted in hospitalization. Of 27.7 million ER visits for all non-fatal accidents, falls led with 46% of reported incidents with firearm accidents next to last with 0.05 percent.
SEE ACCIDENT GRAPHS HERE
Granted, of the 16,272 murders in 2008, 10,886 (67%) were committed with firearms. But three states that instituted “right to carry” laws have seen notable declines in murder.
The Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than before right to carry laws, Michigan has averaged 4% lower and the Florida murder rate is down 34%.
SEE TEXAS, MICHIGAN, CHICAGO AND FLORIDA GRAPHS HERE
By contrast, countries that have banned all firearms have seen marked increases in their murder rates.
ENGLAND CHART
In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.
In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.
In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.
So, the murder rate went way down, right? WRONG. The British homicide rate has averaged 52% HIGHER since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% HIGHER since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
AUSTRALIA
Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia, wrote an article for Polidics.com, and gave an update on the nation's 12-month-old gun control law. Under the provisions of that law, honest, law-abiding citizens surrendered 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by the government.
But instead of the great reductions in crime the government sought to achieve, exactly the opposite occurred. Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, assaults are up 9.6 percent and armed robberies are up 44 percent.“In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent," Chenel said. "While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!"
Chenel also noted that armed robberies with firearms had been in decline for the past 25 years, but that trend abruptly changed for the worse when the gun seizures took place. Chenel attributed that rise in armed crime to the fact the criminals are now guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
“There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home," Chenel said. "Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns.’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information."
“The Australian experience speaks for itself.
“Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens," Chenel said. "“Take note Americans, before it’s too late!”
Gun control freaks insist they must “close the gun show loophole.” But are gun shows really where criminals are getting their guns, or is this just another bit of socialist feel-good thinking?
Well, it isn’t at gun shows like puddin’ head liberal/socialists want you and the gullible public to believe.
A 1997 Justice Department series of interviews with nearly 15,000 state prison inmates who carried a firearm during the offense that landed them in jail. Of that group nearly 40% admitted they got the firearm from a friend or family member; 39% from an illegal street source; 8% from a retail store, 4% from a pawn shop, 1% at a flea market and only 0.7 percent from a gun show.
Kinda nice having a few FACTS on your side, isn’t it?
Footnotes:
(1) Dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.
(2) A Reporter At Large: Handguns, July 26, 1976, 57-58, in the New Yorker magazine. At the time, Mr. Shields was the Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Don’t take it from me, heed well the words of the lead draftsman of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States, Thomas Jefferson:
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Why all the hysteria and lies about guns from those who want to control guns? The answer is simple - those “gun-grabbers” want to control much more than just your guns, they want to control YOU!!
Sadly, experience has shown that the best way to subjugate and control a population is by eliminating the means of resistance through gun controls and eventually gun seizures.
They disguise their desire for dominance by using catchwords and catch-phrases, such as “guns kill” and write articles and produce video specials urging people to turn in their guns. They urge you to rely on the police. What they don’t tell you is the actual results of draconian gun control and gun seizure legislation. Nor do they tell the truth about police protection. Why? Because the police are usually, almost always actually, not on the scene when a crime is committed, but only show up after the fact to clean up the mess, track down the criminal and bring him to justice.
Gun grabbers lie about statistics and in their hatred of guns often become hysterical. But every once in a while, the truth leaks out from their own lips. They inadvertently expose their leftist, anti-American, anti-freedom, anti-people agenda. They expose their ultimate desire - to rule with an iron fist.
"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country."
Adolf Hitler (1)
Hitler’s plan to disarm his would-be opponents led to the destruction of every sovereign nation in Europe save two: England and Switzerland. With his “enemies” neutered by gun seizures, Hitler was free to unleash a holocaust on Europe that led to the deaths of 20 million people.
If you still don’t think most gun-grabbers have an agenda, read the following words carefully. Written by an American, in these three short sentences the speaker admits the ultimate goal of the species is the ultimate banning of all guns leading to total disarmament. I would guess that would include knives, archery equipment and pitchforks. The gun-grabbers will “distort the facts” and lie. They seek zero resistance while they kick our Constitution to the curb, run over it with a bus and implement a socialist form of government.
“Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn’t matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sarah Brady
Pete Shields, Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978,
warned the gun-grabbers that progress would be slow but in his mind inevitable.
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily - given political realities - going to be a very modest (one). Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved. . . .‘” Shields said. “So then we'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. . . . Our ultimate goal - total control of handguns in the United States - is going to take time. My estimate is seven to ten years. The first problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of ALL handguns and ALL handgun ammunition - except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal." (2)
As of 2009, the United States has a population of 307 million people. Based on production data from
firearm manufacturers, there are roughly 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the United States as of 2010. Of these, about 100 million are handguns.
In 1976, the Washington, D.C. City Council passed a law generally prohibiting residents from possessing handguns and requiring that all firearms in private homes be kept unloaded and rendered temporally inoperable via disassembly or installation of a trigger lock. The law became operative on Sept. 24, 1976.
During the 12-year span the handgun ban was in effect, the homicide rate in D.C. went from 26 deaths per 100,000 people to an astounding 80 deaths per 100,000 people. The Washington, D.C. murder rate averaged 73% higher than it was at the outset of the law, while the U.S. murder rate averaged 11% lower.
SEE DC GRAPH HERE
Nationally the homicide rate was about 10 per 100,000. In short, the chances of being killed with a gun in D.C. was EIGHT TIMES GREATER after the unconstitutional handgun ban went into effect.
On June 26, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, struck down this law as unconstitutional in D.C. v Heller. Not all the Justices agreed with the decision and based their dissent on faulty statistics and hysteria. The four dissenters were, naturally, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
In their collective opinion they cite as fact, based on a report by the local council committee, that the goal of the handgun restriction was “to reduce the potentiality for gun-related crimes and gun-related deaths from occurring within the District of Columbia” According to the committee, “for every intruder stopped by a homeowner with a firearm, there are 4 .gun-related accidents within the home.”
The committee report cited no source or evidence for this statistic. The reason is there is NO EVIDENCE TO BACK UP THE STATEMENT - only hysteria and lies.
The facts are that nationwide in 2007, there were 613 fatal firearm accidents in the entire U.S. which constituted 0.5% of the 123,706 total fatal accidents from all causes. Compare the firearm fatalities with fatal car accidents, for example, which claimed 34% of the total U.S. accidental deaths.
Non-fatal accidents tell a similar story. Of the nearly 16,000 emergency room visits for non-fatal firearm accidents in 2007, only about 5,000 resulted in hospitalization. Of 27.7 million ER visits for all non-fatal accidents, falls led with 46% of reported incidents with firearm accidents next to last with 0.05 percent.
SEE ACCIDENT GRAPHS HERE
Granted, of the 16,272 murders in 2008, 10,886 (67%) were committed with firearms. But three states that instituted “right to carry” laws have seen notable declines in murder.
The Texas murder rate has averaged 30% lower than before right to carry laws, Michigan has averaged 4% lower and the Florida murder rate is down 34%.
SEE TEXAS, MICHIGAN, CHICAGO AND FLORIDA GRAPHS HERE
By contrast, countries that have banned all firearms have seen marked increases in their murder rates.
ENGLAND CHART
In 1920, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess any firearm except a shotgun. The certificate had to specify the types and quantities of firearms and ammunition that the applicant could purchase and keep.
In 1968, Britain made the 1920 law stricter by requiring civilians to obtain a certificate from their district police chief in order to purchase or possess a shotgun. This law also required that firearm certificates specify the identification numbers ("if known") of all firearms and shotguns owned by the applicant.
In 1997, Britain passed a law requiring civilians to surrender almost all privately owned handguns to the police. More than 162,000 handguns and 1.5 million pounds of ammunition were "compulsorily surrendered" by February 1998. Using "records of firearms held on firearms certificates," police accounted for all but fewer than eight of all legally owned handguns in England, Scotland, and Wales.
So, the murder rate went way down, right? WRONG. The British homicide rate has averaged 52% HIGHER since the outset of the 1968 gun control law and 15% HIGHER since the outset of the 1997 handgun ban.
AUSTRALIA
Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia, wrote an article for Polidics.com, and gave an update on the nation's 12-month-old gun control law. Under the provisions of that law, honest, law-abiding citizens surrendered 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by the government.
But instead of the great reductions in crime the government sought to achieve, exactly the opposite occurred. Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent, assaults are up 9.6 percent and armed robberies are up 44 percent.“In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent," Chenel said. "While the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!"
Chenel also noted that armed robberies with firearms had been in decline for the past 25 years, but that trend abruptly changed for the worse when the gun seizures took place. Chenel attributed that rise in armed crime to the fact the criminals are now guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.
“There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home," Chenel said. "Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in ‘successfully ridding Australian society of guns.’ You won’t see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information."
“The Australian experience speaks for itself.
“Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens," Chenel said. "“Take note Americans, before it’s too late!”
Gun control freaks insist they must “close the gun show loophole.” But are gun shows really where criminals are getting their guns, or is this just another bit of socialist feel-good thinking?
Well, it isn’t at gun shows like puddin’ head liberal/socialists want you and the gullible public to believe.
A 1997 Justice Department series of interviews with nearly 15,000 state prison inmates who carried a firearm during the offense that landed them in jail. Of that group nearly 40% admitted they got the firearm from a friend or family member; 39% from an illegal street source; 8% from a retail store, 4% from a pawn shop, 1% at a flea market and only 0.7 percent from a gun show.
Kinda nice having a few FACTS on your side, isn’t it?
Footnotes:
(1) Dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.
(2) A Reporter At Large: Handguns, July 26, 1976, 57-58, in the New Yorker magazine. At the time, Mr. Shields was the Executive Director of NCCH, which changed its name to Handgun Control, Inc. in 1978
Return to TABLE OF CONTENTS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)