Laws Lead to Genocide
Note from David: The
reason we share this is not because we trust in guns or need them, but the sign
they are of the coming genocide and Civil War.
Don Lett - 9/11/09
Below is an excerpt from my book
Phoenix Rising, chapter 15, warning that eventually the government will
impose gun control as we move toward a more totalitarian state.
But according to today's Living Constitution ideology, these types of
freedoms are being slowly eroded from the people, only to eventually be
completely seized through some national emergency. Please know and take
these words to heart, when you no longer have the right to bear arms you
will no longer have your freedom. The first thing that a dictatorship does
is have the citizens register their weapons. Then they take away those
weapons from those law abiding citizens. You don't have to own a weapon, but
as soon as you force everyone in the nation to give up their guns you stand
on the brink of a police state. History consistently demonstrates this
scenario to be true. Consider the following information from the book "Lethal
Laws" by Jay Simkin & Alan M. Rice. The list is sorted by the date the
gun control laws were enacted, the government that established those laws
and the genocide that occurred shortly afterwards.
1911 Turkey - 1915-1917, 1.5
million Armenians killed.
1929 Soviet Union - 1929 to 1953,
approximately 20 million dissidents killed.
1935 China - 1948 to 1952, 20
million political dissidents killed.
1938 Germany -1939 to 1945, 6
million Jews and countless others were exterminated. (Some estimate 11
1956 Cambodia - 1975 to 1977, one
million "educated" people were exterminated by Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge.
1964 Guatemala - 1964 to 1981,
100,000 Mayan Indians killed.
1970 Uganda - 1971 to 1979,
300,000 Christians killed.
1990s Rwanda - During 1994,
800,000 Christian Tutsis were systemically massacred by the
government-led Hutu military forces.
It has been estimated that the number
of registered handguns in this country is 70 million, and the number of
unregistered is 50 million. In comparison, the U.S. Army only has a small
arms inventory of about 4.8 million guns.
As you can see, before any government could take absolute control
of the American citizenry these weapons need to be seized as history has
One of the methods that have been used to reduce the arms among the citizens
is of course propaganda. Studies have found that guests on morning and
evening news-talk shows are more likely to represent a pro-gun-control
position by a ratio of 5:1 to 10:1. During the debate over the Brady Bill
research conducted by the Media Research Institute found that 59% of the
network reports were "anti-gun" and that only 4% could be considered
"pro-gun." Further, spokesmen in favor of the Brady Bill outnumbered
opponents on the four major news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN) by a ratio of
three to one.
But taking handguns off the streets will make the world safer, or at least,
that is what the Newspeak media would like for us to believe.
Consider what occurred in Australia in 1996 when they banned private
handguns in the name of public safety. After the citizens turned in their
handguns there were increases of homicides by 3.2 %, assaults by 8.6 %, and
robberies by 45%. In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have
climbed 300%. 25 years prior to the gun bans, crime in Australia had been
England followed suite in 1997. In May of 2004, the British
government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in
the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged
29% higher than 1996 and showed increases in robbery by 24%, and murders by
27%. The violent crime rate in Australia and England is now double what is
in the United States.
Thomas Jefferson fearing the oppressive governments and being a student of
history warned Americans against ever giving up this right.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. 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"
Feds sued to keep
out of state's gun affairs
Complaint filed seeking affirmation of Montana Firearms Freedom Act
Posted: October 03, 2009
11:25 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
In the second major front in the war over gun rights that has developed in just
days, a lawsuit has been filed against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder seeking
a court order that the federal government stay out of the way of Montana's
management of its own firearms.
The action was filed by the Second
Amendment Foundation and the
Montana Shooting Sports Association in U.S. District Court in Missoula,
Mont., to validate the principles and terms of the Montana Firearms Freedom Act,
which took effect today.
WND previously reported on the precedent-setting move taken over the course
of recent months when the 2009 Montana Legislature approved the bill and the
plan was signed into law by Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.
The law provides guns and ammo made, sold and used in Montana would not require
any federal forms; silencers made and sold in Montana would be fully legal and
not registered; and there would be no firearm registration, serial numbers,
criminal records check, waiting periods or paperwork required.
The idea is spreading quickly. Tennessee already has a similar law, and similar
plans have been introduced in many other states.
An organization called the
Act has created a map of such activity nationwide:
The move comes at a time the nation has a
president who has placed anti-gun activists in several influential positions,
including an attorney general who supported a complete handgun ban in the
District of Columbia before the U.S. Supreme Court threw it out.
Montana's plan is called "An Act exempting from federal regulation under the
Commerce Clause of the Constitution of the United States a firearm, a firearm
accessory, or ammunition manufactured and retained in Montana."
The law cites the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that guarantees to the
states and their people all powers not granted to the federal government
elsewhere in the Constitution and reserves to the state and people of Montana
certain powers as they were understood at the time it was admitted to statehood
"The guaranty of those powers is a matter of contract between the state and
people of Montana and the United States as of the time that the compact with the
United States was agreed upon and adopted by Montana and the United States in
1889," the law states.
The lead attorney for the plaintiffs' litigation team is Quentin Rhodes of the
Missoula firm of Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, PC. The team includes other
attorneys working in Montana, New York, Florida, Arizona and Washington.
"We're happy to join this lawsuit," said Alan Gottlieb, founder of the SAF,
"because we believe this issue should be decided by the courts.
"We feel very strongly that the federal government has gone way too far in
attempting to regulate a lot of activity that occurs only in-state," added MSSA
President Gary Marbut. "The Montana Legislature and governor agreed with us by
enacting the MFFA. We welcome the support of many other states that are stepping
up to the plate with their own firearms freedom acts."
David Codrea, a
Gun Rights Examiner writer, noted the federal government already has started
attacking the move.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, he wrote, previously
had written to Federal Firearms Licensees, warning that they could be prosecuted
for following the state laws in Montana and Tennessee
"What if an FFL was not acting in his capacity as a federal licensee to
manufacture for personal use, or to transfer firearms strictly within a state?
Or what if a person so engaged was not a federal licensee at all?" Codrea asked.
Then he answered: "ATF's determined intent to hold all accountable under federal
law has not wavered. In a letter to MSSA president Gary Marbut, Richard Chase,
Special Agent in Charge, Denver Field Division, states: 'The manufacture of
firearms or ammunition for sale to others within Montana requires licensure by
In a statement the SAF said, "The primary purpose of the MFFA is to set up a
legal challenge to federal power under the commerce clause."
The lawsuit seeks a "declaratory judgment" and is "brought for the purpose of
determining a question of actual controversy between the parties."
"Passage of the MFFA was an express exercise by the State of Montana of powers
reserved to the states and to the people under the 10th Amendment of the United
States Constitution," the lawsuit said.
"The MFFA is also authorized under the conditions of the compact with the United
States that Montana entered upon admission to the union. The United States
Congress therefore has no authority, under the limited powers granted to it by
the United States Constitution, to preempt the MFFA."
The arguments continued, "Under the 10th Amendment, all regulatory authority of
all such activities within Montana's political borders is left in the sole
discretion of Montana. Federal law therefore does not preempt the MFFA and
cannot be invoked to regulate or prosecute Montana citizens acting in compliance
with the MFFA, so long as they do so solely within the political borders of
WND also reported this week on a second front in the battle over guns when
the Supreme Court agreed to hear a landmark Second Amendment case challenging
Chicago's ban on handguns and onerous registration procedures on other firearms.
The Illinois State Rifle Association and the Second Amendment Foundation filed a
lawsuit against the city of Chicago claiming the city enforces a handgun ban
identical to the one struck down by the Supreme Court in the case
District of Columbia v. Heller and that the ban violates residents' Second
In Heller, the court rejected a lower court position that claimed the Second
Amendment applied only to state "militia," such as the National Guard. However,
the 5-4 ruling referenced the federal jurisdiction of Washington, D.C., and not
states and localities.
This case, McDonald v. Chicago, challenges a 7th Circuit court ruling that said
the Second Amendment applies only to federal regulation of an individual's right
to guns and not in cases of restrictions by states and municipalities like
Chicago and Oak Park, Ill.
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "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."
Furthermore, Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, or the Privileges or Immunities
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The plaintiffs argue that "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms" in the Second Amendment is "incorporated" into
the 14th Amendment and applies to both states and localities.
Guns, Causing Shooting Rampages
Top psychiatrist: Meds behind school massacres
Society conducting 'vast social experiment' without knowing its end
Dr. Jerome Corsi | 1/23/13 [link]
NEW YORK – If lawmakers and authorities
are truly concerned about stopping gun violence in schools, they need to take a
close look at the prescription of psychotropic drugs for children and young
people, says a leading psychiatrist.
In an exclusive in-person interview in New York City with WND, London-based Dr.
David Healy criticized pharmaceutical companies that have made billions of
dollars marketing Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, known as SSRIs.
Psychotropic drugs “prescribed for school children cause violent behavior,”
The drugs are widely used in the U.S. as antidepressants by doctors working in
the mental health field and increasingly by primary care doctors, he noted.
Healey insisted the problem today is that doctors working with schools to
control the behavior of children are inclined to prescribe SSRI drugs without
serious consideration of adverse consequences.
“The pharmaceutical companies made these drugs with the idea of making money,”
he said. “There’s a wide range of problems when it comes to looking at these
drugs for children. Very few children have serious problems that warrant
treatment with pills that have the risks SSRI drugs have.”
The drugs can make children “aggressive and hostile,” he noted.
“Children taking SSRI drugs are more likely to harm or to injure other children
at school,” said Healy. “The child may be made suicidal.
“We are giving drugs to children who are passing through critical development
stages, and as a society we are really conducting a vast experiment and no one
really knows what the outcome of that will be.”
Healey cautioned that there is a very high correlation between mass shootings
and use of the drugs.
“When roughly nine out of every 10 cases in these school shootings and mass
shootings involve these drugs being prescribed, then at least a significant
proportion of these cases were either caused by the drugs or the drugs made a
significant contribution to the problem,” he said.
President Obama, in a series of 23 presidential memoranda and proclamations
signed last week, called for the Centers for Disease control to undertake
research to examine gun violence and to explore medical means to control the
WND contended that putting more mental illness screening into schools would
actually increase the incidence of school shootings, not reduce the violence.
“You can draw a line between the number of child psychiatrists in the United
States and the number of school shootings, and you will find that both have gone
up in the same direction at the same time,” he said.
He sees a “propaganda campaign” being conducted in the U.S. in the wake of the
Aurora, Colo., cinema shooting and the Newtown, Conn., school shooting asserting
gun violence is being caused by mental illness and could be stopped by
additional school programs that screen for it.
“If school children are screened for mental illness problems, this presumably
will lead more medical doctors to put more students on more pills,” he said. “I
would predict then the outcome of more school screenings for mental illness will
be more mass killings, even if the guns are taken away and the mass killings are
not done with guns.”
He cautioned shareholders of
pharmaceutical companies to realize share prices can be adversely affected
should judges and juries determine the companies bear legal liabilities. Law
enforcement investigators could conclude one of the company’s medications was
prescribed to a child who ended up perpetrating a school shooting.
Healy cautioned that medical doctors who prescribe pills do not necessarily cure
mental illness problems.
He argued that today medical doctors are inclined to solve a wide range of
health problems by prescribing drugs. In previous generations, however, extended
families were capable of providing a context of family history to understand
behavioral problems and to identify a wide range of problem-solving treatments.
The families understood the issue as a developmental problem better treated by
family intervention than by medicine.
“Market research, for instance, has made pharmaceutical companies realize it is
much harder to sell drugs for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, ADHD, in
a home or a community where the child’s grandmother is likely to be present,” he
explained. “Because, of course, the grandmother may say, ‘That kid doesn’t need
pills. His father was just like him, and look, his father turned out alright.’
Medicine intervenes with pills when communities have lost their roots in
Healy also expressed distress that information available to pharmaceutical
companies exposing adverse side effects of SSRI medications is not made
available to the public.
To solve this problem,
Healy has created a
website, RxISK.org, that allows
the posting of personal experiences with SSRI drugs by people who have had
personal experience or have had partners, parents, children or friends injured
by them. These are people, the website says, “who have found themselves trapped
in a Kafkaesque world when they have sought help from doctors, regulators, or
others who seem to be there to help us”
The goal of
RxISK.org is to create a database open to the public that provides a report
a patient can take to a doctor or pharmacist to support and inform a
conversation about the adverse sides of a particular SSRI drug.
Independently, a sortable database of 4,800 cases in which SSRI drugs have been
associated with violent behavior in the U.S. and worldwide
has been posted on the
Internet, compiled from incidents that have appeared in the media,
scientific journals and Federal Drug Administration testimony.
Nearly every mass shooting in the last 20 years shares one thing in common, and
it isn't weapons
Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined
Hitler took up guns before slaughtering the Jews and many others and
he was popularly voted into office.
Also read Guns to Be