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.
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.
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 continuously substantiated.
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 dropping steadily. 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
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 Firearms Freedom 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 in 1889.
"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 ATF'".
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 Montana".
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 Amendment rights.
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 Clause, states:
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.
Top psychiatrist: Meds behind school massacres
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", Healy stated.
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 problem.
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".
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 families".
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.
Also read Guns to Be Taken.