by Mike Dugger

... we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender. - Sir Winston Churchill before the British House of Commons, June 4, 1940

The massacre at Virginia Tech on April 16, like others before it, is simply further proof that as long as there are guns there will always be a lunatic with a gun. Since guns aren't going to go away - ever - we have to decide how best to live with them. The emphasis here is on "live."

The question isn't - How do we prevent lunatics from getting guns and rampaging? The proper question is - How do we prepare ourselves for the eventuality so that massacres like Virginia Tech's won't be repeated? Perhaps we should militarize our police so that they can quickly dispatch the lunatics when they strike.

Right.

If you think that's the answer after the Columbine and Virginia Tech Massacres, then you've been watching way too many cop shows on TV. Somehow the sight of scores of police in full body armor with automatic weapons traipsing about like Keystone Kops, or cowering behind cars and trees, or simply wading in jurisdictional red tape while a massacre is occurring in a nearby school building does nothing to make me feel safer. Television cop shows have failed to brainwash me in that regard. Cop shows are merely dramatic fiction with little or no relation to reality. These massacres on the other hand, usually covered live by the networks because if it bleeds it leads, are truly reality TV. Writ large.

But just what reality is it that they present us with?

Well, first I suggest we settle on correct terminology before we proceed. I use the word "massacre" in reference to the incident at Virginia Tech. This isn't my way of over-dramatizing the event. It is simply calling a spade a spade. While I haven't been exposed to much of the mainstream media coverage of the event, I would imagine that it has commonly been referred to as "killings", "mass murder", "rampage", or weepily as a "tragedy." Likewise in the case of Columbine. I believe that these terms are wrong if one wishes to correctly characterize these events. Referencing Mirriam Webster we learn the following:

"massacre... the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty."

Trailer

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/  

A documentary that explores the connection between income tax collection and the erosion of civil liberties in America...

Bittorrent of the complete movie available atleast here

The complete movie is, at the moment, available on Google Video.
Alternative download here

THEY are desperately trying to totally disarm the people so that no-one can fight against the N. W. O. Big Brother that they have planned for you and George Orwell warned everyone about in his book 1984.

Hence they set up Hungerford, then Dunblane, Jonesboro, Columbine, Port Arthur, now anti-knife legislation and a knife amnesty to hand them all in and then they are going after airguns until there is no possibility of resisting them.

Watch it progress daily.

The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan http://i.am/jah/plan.htm

Family home raided over 'toy gun'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/5110600.stm

The family denounced the police's "heavy-handed tactics" Armed police stormed a family's home after their teenage son was spotted playing with a toy gun in his bedroom.

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Including those in uniforms enforcing illegal legislation.

by John R. Lott, Jr.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lott/lott48.html

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans' residents got an idea of what life is like without the rule of law. They had no telephones, no way to call 911. Even if they had, the police who reported for duty were busy with rescue missions, not fighting crime. Citizens had to protect themselves. This was made rather difficult by the city's confiscation of guns, even from law-abiding citizens.

Why you WILL give up your guns

1. You are more afraid of the IRS or FBI kicking in your door than you are of a crack cocaine dealer.

2. You are more afraid of Federal prison than you are of foreign (or federal) paratroopers.

3. You are more afraid of thousands of dollars in legal fees to defend yourself from federal prosecution than you are of someone raping your wife.

4. You are more afraid of being labeled a radical than of having your house broken into.

5. You are more afraid of disobeying your Federal masters than of enforcing your rights under the Bill of Rights.

6. You are more afraid to fight for those things you know to be right than were the patriots who founded this country.

7. You are more afraid of federal swat teams than of defending your home and children against intrusion.

8. You are more afraid of men than you are of God.

9. You are just afraid!

If you consider that there have been an average of 160,000 troops in the Iraq theater of operations during the last 22 months, and a total of 2112 deaths, that gives a firearm death rate of 60 per 100,000.

The rate in Washington D. C. is 80.6 firearm deaths per 100,000. That means that you are about 25% more likely to be shot and killed in our nation's capitol, which has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, than you are in Iraq.

Conclusion: We should immediately pull out of Washington D. C.

November 23, 2005
Don B. Kates Jr.

San Francisco voters recently enacted Proposition H which confiscates all handguns and bans purchasing of all guns. Unfortunately this is based on the unfounded belief that the more guns in an area the more violence will occur. If that were true, the United States, with 280 million guns today, should have a far higher murder rate than after WWII when we had only 48 million guns. Instead, the murder rate is the same.

Seven dead at a church service in Wisconsin. Three dead in an Atlanta courthouse shooting, plus one more killed later by the same man. Ten dead, including the shooter, at or near a high school in northern Minnesota.

Recent headlines have brought the usual demands from gun control extremists for more laws and more restrictions on the private ownership of firearms. What the gun banners, and their media cheerleaders, have rather carefully ignored is that all of these brutal acts occurred in so-called “Gun-Free” zones.

From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia

Hi Yanks,

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's taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 %, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 %,; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 % (yes, 44 %!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 %. (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 evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly 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 citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!

"Our world, and every civilization that ever existed on it, has always been violent to the core. I¹ve arrived at the conclusion that violence is the general state of the human condition. This statement needs to be qualified: There is violence that is born of nothing more than unprovoked and unjustifiable malice. There is also violence that is a natural and righteous reaction to check the unprovoked, unjustifiable type. We can simply call these two categories aggression and self defense. As lawful owners of firearms we practice with the most efficient tools available to protect ourselves and our loved ones from practitioners of the former sort of violence ..."
http://i.am/jah/godgovmt.htm

Rabbi R. Mermelstein
December 15, 2004
Rules of Engagement
http://www.gunownersalliance.com/Rabbi_0353.htm
http://i.am/jah/rabbis.htm

Message intended for Tasmanians.
BUT it contains information of concern to the population of the world.  
A mass murder took place in Tasmania back in 1996, dubbed the Port Arthur Massacre (PAM), it preceded legislation, previously drawn up, but not put before the Federal Parliament prior to the PAM.  Following PAM, the legislation was passed into Law designed to disarm law abiding Australians. If this situation has any similiralities to other horrific events there is no coincidence.  The following will be of great value to those around the world still capable, and practicing, independent thought.  Port Arthur is an isolated place on a peninsula with one road in and out, the road is capable of being closed by an existing swing bridge.   Regards, Joe Bryant.

The official version is that Martin Bryant, (no relation that I know of), acting alone, was the lone gunman at Port Arthur in 1996.  Below are but a few anomalies which make the official version of the story hard to believe.


A few of the ANOMOLIES

1.  On the Sunday morning, 28th April, 1996, just hours before the murders, ten of the senior people at Port Arthur were sent  many  miles  away, up the Tasmanian east coast for a two-day seminar with no agenda and no visiting speakers.    One of the managers has spoken publicly about this unprecedented 'seminar' which kept them out of the way and safe.

2. Just before the shootings, the only two policeman stationed some miles away were called even further away on a wild goose chase. They were sent to the Coal Mine at Salt Water River, to investigate a drug stash removing them from any possibility of getting to Port Arthur ins hurry.     Had one of the two policemen remained at Dunalley, he could have closed the swing bridge to prevent anyone, e.g. the gunmen, from leaving the peninsula by road.

3.  BIG MORTUARY TRUCK :  Shortly before the massacre, a specially-built 22 body capacity mortuary truck was built. It attracted some derision at the time, but it was effectively used at Port Arthur.  Later it was advertised for sale on the internet.

 read more »

More anti-God man-made legislation.

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not ADD unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the "I AM" your God which I COMMAND you. http://i.am/jah/kofkad.htm

Senators are part of the problem, not the solution.

The ONLY solution is to enforce The Plan:- http://i.am/jah/plan.htm

http://jahtruth.co.uk/

Gun Owners of America BEWARE

Here Comes the Semi-auto Ban Again

Feinstein Planning to Offer Semi-auto Ban as an Amendment Soon
 read more »

Forwarded is one of the most bizarre events of the recent past. Its facts were so muted and disguised as to make the entire issue, hardly plausible. Yet, the event happened, and the Gun issue in Australia emerged.... The similar event in Scotland can easily fit into the same category ..as unsolved, or at least why these people did what they did...JRN

Was Port Arthur Designed to Undermine our National Security ?

It is an accepted media "fact" that Martin Bryant, an intellectually- impaired young man with a dramatically low IQ of 66, shot dead 35 people at Port Arthur and wounded 22 others.

Not just that, but this awesome shooter managed to kill the first 19 out of 20 dead in the Broad Arrow Cafe with single accurate shots to the head fired from his right hip.

Not bad for a man with no firearm experience other than using a Webley Osprey air rifle when he was a boy, and by the way, Bryant used to fire the Webley from his left shoulder because he is and has always been left- handed.

Perhaps the media should have questioned this startling inconsistency but failed to do so. After all, the suspect was in custody, international media outlets were screaming for the "dramatic" story, and somehow Martin Bryant's increasingly desperate pleas of "Not Guilty" were ignored by all and sundry.

Why? Perhaps because the Tasmanian Government was already aware that there was absolutely no evidence of any kind linking Bryant to Port Arthur, and needed a media "conviction" to protect their exposed political hides. And so it was that Martin Bryant became the most vilified and hated man in Australia, with thousands calling for his immediate execution.

BEFORE YOU RUSH TO JUDGEMENT ON PORT ARTHUR, TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THE QUEEN v. MARTIN BRYANT, AND TRY TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO YOUR SATISFACTION. IT IS UNLIKELY YOU WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO.