Handgun Control Inc. has ranked the gun laws of all 50 states. See where your state is ranked at http://www.handguncontrol.org/press/kids2000/page6.html ... These laws have little to do with children but HCI likes to link them just to inflame people. Unfortunately my state only ranks a C- but I'm looking forward to moving to a state that received an F, not the F- I was hoping for but good nonetheless. Any state that receives an F for people control and restriction of freedoms is a good state for me!
I like it. Good information when considering relocation. It's funny that what they give as a Grade of F is an A+ in my books.
Toshiro
What I find interesting is their "get the facts" section . . . It's good practice to pick them apart.
I'm trying to find the Gramsci Strategy, supposedly in Jan. 10, 1963 copy of Congressional Record. The entries on that date are about 75 pages-anyone exactly what page it's on? This "strategy", acording to Donald McAlvany at mcalvany.com, is a description of how Communists planned to destroy U.S. society from within. The techniques include promoting divorce, promiscuity (especially homosexuality), gun control, "dumbing down" education, etc.
Thanks, American Tea Party
amteaparty@yahoo.com
Supposedly Joel Skousen has this info., but I guess his email is on the blink-If you communicate w/him please have him email me. I can use the info. in speeches, etc.
John, here's a response I got from Joel about your post.
Quote:Tom, I don't have time to respond, but have them check the archives of The
New American magazine--has all the pertinent sources and quotes.
Best, Joel
Here is a source for the Gramsci Stategy:
http://xld.com/public/tyranny/gramsci.htm
Everyone needs to read this.
I just read an interesting article about the Alaska independence party AIP. They almost have parity with the republican and the democratic parties. Their goal is to make Alaska an independent country along the lines of the founding fathers vision. I found this fascinating. Now think about the gun banners. Make no mistake about it , their goal is near complete civilian disarmament in complete 'in your face' attitude regarding the second amendment. Of course firearms aren't the only problem. First amendment rights have been trampled. Taking prayer out of schools(again in complete disregard to the true meaning of the first amendment) started this nation on it's downward spiral. The list goes on with fourth amendment problems, tenth amendment ignorance, abortion 'rights',the UN,military interventions, treaties vs. the constitution. E.O.s, P.D.D.s, et al ad nauseam. When you think about all this the AIP seems like a pretty good idea. Alaska isn't the only state with independence political movements, I guess California, Idaho and some other states have movements similar to the AIP. Arizona's legislature also has said that if any E.O.s are passed against firearms ownership they would vote on succession(this is a fact). If we keep going in the direction we're going(and I'm sure we will)I think that we are going to hear a lot more on this topic. Now don't get me wrong, I'm NOT advocating violence in ANY way(and neither do any of the groups I mentioned,that I know of anyway) but I am saying that this alternative may become a more popular notion in the future.
P.S. To the meaning of 'alternative' that I mention at the end of my article I mean succession will become more popular in the future.
The Why Of Gun Ownership
James Ostrowski debunks arguments against the right to bear arms
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=1111&month=56&title=The+Why+of+Gun+Ownership&id=56
Please consider responding to this request from The Liberty Committee.
It's no longer a secret the United Nations wants to establish some kind of global tax scheme and impose global gun control. If the United Nations can do both at the same time, it will.
To make certain the United Nations has a clear understanding of the position of the United States, Congressman Ron Paul, along with ten other congressmen, introduced H.R. 3125 - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Act of 2003.
According to H.R. 3125, Congress finds that:
1. over the past decade, the United Nations has demonstrated a consistent animus to the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and to the right to keep and bear arms;
2. in June 2003, the United Nations sponsored a "Week of Action Against Small Arms";
3. French President Jacques Chirac and the socialist president of Brazil Luiz Lula da Silva both advocate the imposition of a United Nations' tax on firearms for various utopian purposes;
4. two million largely unarmed people are killed yearly by oppressive genocidal governments throughout the world; and
5. ironically, at the same time the United Nations was working to prohibit Americans from exercising their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms was called to investigate the illegal possession of submachine guns by bodyguards to Secretary General of the United Nations Kofi Annan.
H.R. 3125 would prohibit U.S. taxpayer dollars from being used to support or promote any United Nations' actions that could in any way infringe on the Second Amendment. The legislation also expresses the sense of Congress that proposals to tax, or otherwise limit, the right to keep and bear arms are "reprehensible and deserving of condemnation."
H.R. 3125 was introduced on September 17, 2003 with ten original cosponsors which is an impressive number to start. But let's make clear to the United Nations, France, China and to any other country what the position of the United States is. Urge your U.S. representative to defend America's Second Amendment by cosponsoring H.R. 3125. To send your message, go to
http://capwiz.com/liberty/issues/bills/bill=3560191
Kent Snyder
The Liberty Committee
http://www.thelibertycommittee.org
Why More Senior Citizens Are Carrying Guns
They're protecting themselves from what they see as a rise in violence, even if crime statistics say otherwise.
Reversing longstanding patterns in the US, residents ages 65 and up are now the mostly likely of all citizens to own a gun. "Personal gun ownership used to be highest among the middle-aged, but in our 2000 and 2002 survey, it was highest among the 65-plus age group. So there is a shift upwards in gun ownership," says Tom Smith, director of the General Social Survey, which is part of the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.
In Arizona alone, the state's Department of Public Safety reports that more than 31,000 residents between the ages of 50 and 69 - including 6,200 women - have concealed-weapons permits. It's easy to understand why, says Mr. Batory. "Just read the papers. Older people are getting tired of being picked on by savages."
More at http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0106/p02s01-ussc.html
The Tragic Results of Gun Control
By Debbie O’Hara
"In February 1915 a secret plan was made to eliminate Turkey's Armenian population. It was not difficult for the nation's new government to set these plans in motion because there were already gun control laws on the books requiring people to register their guns."
More at http://www.newswithviews.com/Ohara/debbie22.htm
I found an online source for the New American magazine article about the Gramski Strategy to subvert the USA at
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-99/vo15no14_gramsci.htm
(See the Feb 17, 2001 post above.)
15 Myths About Gun Control
(excerpt)
The National Crime Survey estimates that 83 percent of Americans will be victims of violent crime at some time in their lives...Switzerland has one of the lowest murder rates in the world, and it requires all able-bodied males between the ages of 20 and 50 to have a military-issued automatic weapon, ammunition and other equipment in their dwellings. Israel, which has an extremely low crime rate but is vulnerable to enemies including terrorists, depends on the defensive value of widespread civilian gun possession. Denmark and Finland also have high rates of gun ownership and low crime rates.
The experience of these countries shows that widespread gun possession is compatible with low crime rates. The National Crime Survey (NCS) estimates that there are about 5.4 million violent crimes (both reported and unreported) and that guns of all types are involved in some 650,000 or 12 percent. In other words, 88 percent of violent crimes do not involve firearms. Less than 2 percent of the estimated 36 million crimes of all types (in the National Crime Survey) committed each year involve a gun. A majority of gun crimes are assaults, but only one in 42 handgun crimes involves a victim being shot. While there is a lot of violent crime in America relative to other industrial nations, an overwhelming majority of the violence involves knives, hammers, sticks, broken bottles, hands and feet and other weapons besides firearms.
Guns are used in a majority of murders (from 59 percent to 66.3 percent in each of the past 10 years) and accounted for 14,265 deaths in 1991. According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports, 53.1 percent of reported murders in 1991 were committed with handguns, 5.2 percent with shotguns and 3.4 percent with rifles, while miscellaneous and unknown firearms accounted for the remaining 4.6 percent. (Long guns, although virtually uncontrolled, were involved in only 8.6 percent of homicides.)
The accidental shooting of an innocent person mistaken for an intruder occurs in fewer than 30 fatal firearm incidents a year, about 2 percent of all fatal firearms incidents. At a maximum, criminals take a gun away from armed victims only 1 percent of the time (while 10 percent of police who are shot are shot with their own guns). 70 percent of defensive gun uses are against criminals who do not have a gun.
More at http://www.ncpa.org/pub/st/st176/s176b.html
US Gun Statistics
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.
http://www.rense.com/general62/gns.htm
San Francisco Approves Handgun Ban
The gun ban prohibits the manufacture and sale of all firearms and ammunition in the city, and makes it illegal for residents to keep handguns in their homes or businesses. Only two other major U.S. cities - Washington and Chicago - have implemented such sweeping handgun bans.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/9/80901.shtml
What Happens When Citizens Guns Are Taken Away
From Ed Chenel
Australian Police Officer
12-9-5
Hi Yanks and Canadians - I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.
Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! (And criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
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 /Canadian evening news or hear your government or members of the State Assembly and Ottawa parliament disseminating this information.
The Australian experience proves it.
Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding public.
Take note Americans and Canadians before it's too late!
http://www.rense.com/general69/guns.htm
State ‘Emergency Powers’ vs. The Right to Arms
After Hurricane Katrina, many New Orleans residents legally armed themselves to protect their lives and property from civil disorder. With no way to call for help, and police unable to respond, honest citizens were able to defend themselves and their neighbors against looters, arsonists and other criminals.1
However, just when these people needed guns the most, New Orleans' Police Superintendent ordered the confiscation of firearms, allegedly under a state emergency powers law. "No one will be able to be armed," he said. "Guns will be taken. Only law enforcement will be allowed to have guns."2 (Fortunately, an NRA lawsuit brought an end to the seizures--along with a far-fetched denial that confiscation had ever been ordered.)
Of course, no one condones the mindless violence of those who would loot a helpless city, or shoot at rescue workers. But one reason for the citizens to retain a legal right to arms, is precisely because the government has no legal duty to protect them.3 Legislative bodies can, and should, act to protect the self-defense rights of citizens at the times when those rights are most important.
Unfortunately, 33 states have "emergency powers" laws that give the government permission to suspend or limit gun sales, and to prohibit or restrict citizens from transporting or carrying firearms. In some states, authorities are authorized to seize guns outright from citizens who've committed no crime--and who would then be defenseless against disorder.
The movement to change these laws is gaining speed. Just two months after Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana legislature--with only one dissenting vote--adopted a resolution declaring "the policy of the state of Louisiana to protect and uphold the citizens' right to keep and bear arms in their residences, businesses, and means of transport, and on their persons," condemning the seizure of firearms from New Orleans citizens, and announcing it planned to amend Louisiana's emergency powers law "to rectify the denial of these rights."4
In the past, America has balanced emergency needs with respect for constitutional rights. Months before Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress passed the Property Requisition Act of 1941, which allowed the President, as a last resort, to seize needed war materials "upon the payment of fair and just compensation."5 The Congress, concerned about the prospect of gun confiscation, included language to prohibit registration or seizure of privately owned firearms. America and its allies went on to win the greatest armed conflict in history. Today, Congress and the state legislatures should follow that lead.
1 Felicity Barringer & Jere Longman, Police and Owners Begin to Challenge Looters, New York Times, September 1, 2005; Robert Tanner, With Guns And Generators, A Few Homeowners Stand Guard (AP), Columbia Tribune, September 5, 2005; Bob Dart, Armed Militia Protects Its New Orleans Neighborhood, Austin American-Statesman, Sept. 10, 2005.
2 Timothy Dwyer & Ann Scott Tyson, Troops Escalate Urgency of Evacuation, Washington Post, Sept. 9, 2005.
3 See, e.g.. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep't of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 197 (1989) ("[A] State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.").
4 H.C.R. 39, 1st Extraordinary Session 2005 (La.).
5 Property Requisition Act, Ch. 445, 55 Stat. 742 (1941).
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=191
http://millennium-ark.net/NEWS/06_USA/060228.emerg.powers.html
Just this past Saturday I added some more ammo to our preparedness cache.