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.

By Dave Workman

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.

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

More on the Port Arthur Massacre and their patsy.

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.

Since violence is an inate factor of human behavior (and not all violence is inherently bad or evil - some, like defensive violence to resist attack, is obviously justified) and guns are merely an inanimate tool, why should this come as any surprise?

Especially since Canada - that bastion of p.c. gun-registration and gun-banning - is now reporting that more people in Canada were killed with knives than with guns in 2002.... and that homicides in Canada are up...

By Tom Farrenkopf

An Ought Six Point of View

Monday, July 7, 2003, on American soil- soil soaked with the blood of our Fathers, men and women with no allegiance to this nation began a conference dedicated to stealing your right of self-defense. You must be genuinely concerned with this. The conference, The United Nations First Biennial Meeting of States to Consider the Implementation of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All its Aspects at the National, Regional and Global Levels, is part of the follow-up process to the United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects (2001 Conference), which was held in New York from 9 to 20 July 2001. The UN holds that, disarmament is vital for quality of life and ultimately the survival of the planet.
http://i.am/jah/horse.htm#UN

1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Colt : The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1789. All Rights Reserved.

An acquaintance sent me a shocking account of a Maryland man who was called last week by a purported FBI agent who claimed to have a list of the guns he owns, and began asking him why he had them and where he was at the time of the sniper murders. The man, whose Jewish name is Chaim, called the local FBI office to tell them someone was impersonating an officer, and gave them the number that had called. The pleasant FBI officer said they didn't make such calls, but then recognized the number as belonging to the Joint Task Force investigating the "Beltway Snipings."

 

By Stewart Beattie

Author of A Gunsmith's Notebook on Port Arthur, 2002

Recent news reports from out of America's East Coast of a "sniper" shooting unarmed people in Maryland and Virginia caused me to take a second look at part of an article I'd written earlier in 2000, about a "star" of the gun control network, Doctor Rebecca Peters, who coincidentally went to Baltimore as soon as her task "down under" was done.

In Australia the "gun control" compact deployed as a network of NGOs, but also they were strategically grafted into our Administration in the Attorney General and Justice Departments. Duncan Kerr (Labour) was the Minister responsible for the Department of Justice who over saw the appointment of one Daryl Smeaton, charged with the drafting of new gun laws, for the States and Territories to enact - as early as November 1995.

The National Coalition for Gun Control (NCGC) was based in Sydney, but had an important branch in Hobart, Tasmania, headed up there by lawyer Roland Browne, while in Melbourne a "sister" organisation, the Coalition for Gun Control (CGC) was run by John Bruce Crook. Prior to 1996, Crook was involved in a defamation action in Melbourne, and in that trial it was reported that none other than Daryl Smeaton presented the Court with a supportive character reference for Crook. 1

But it was in Sydney where Rebecca Peters rose to prominence, arriving in 1981, 'with a man she met travelling,' and apparently lived in Cairo prior to her arrival. While Peters says "she decided" to settle Down Under and become an "Australian citizen," I'm caused to remember those famous words, 'In politics nothing happens by chance. If it happens, it was meant to happen that way'. Apparently Rebecca was from a young age, bent on saving the world.

Born in 1962, Peters grew up as a teenager in Costa Rica, the second of six children in an American family. As her father worked for the American Government there, 'half jokingly,' she suggested in an interview in Australia he "probably worked for the CIA." At age 15 years while attending an "alternative school" in Costa Rica, Peters was educated by itinerant "young hippies". It was during this new-age education she became "obsessed with changing the world."

In Sydney, Peters enrolled in a university in the faculty of Engineering (possibly Macquarie), being just one of only two females in the course, but in 1983 she dropped out. For a time Rebecca took a job as a researcher and reporter with ABC Radio (known locally as the "Gay-BC"), worked with Andrew Olle, but soon found the nature of journalism, 'too disposable'.

In 1991 with a not-so-subtle agenda, Peters returned to university, enrolled as a law student gaining her law degree, at the end of which, she produced a thesis on 'tighter gun control'. This was the "centrepiece" of an enormous folio of material she collected and wrote for her campaign to remove loop-holes in existing gun laws in Australia. She promoted herself as a 'multilingual middle-class lawyer' who was fanatical about "gun control". 2

By `91 Peters was running the NCGC, rising fast to the position of "chair", almost as quickly as the death rate climbed with each incident of that new phenomenon to Australasia, the gun massacre. Undoubtedly her success in this new global calling was to the delight of her best friend the feminist activist Eva Cox and Peters' mentor Charles Watson, Professor of Public Health at Wollongong University, who admired her for her 'intellectual thoroughness.'

In a remarkably short time she quite brilliantly bull-dozed aside the entire weak, (some treacherous), and fragmented firearm owner, sporting shooters' groups, and almost surely was surprised by her success with the shooting massacres producing a 'win-win sound-bite' for the minds and meek support of the gullible Mums and Dads of Australia. Dunblane massacre occurred on 13 March `96 and Port Arthur followed 46 days later. Then all the pieces fell into place for Federal Attorney General, Daryl Williams, to implement the gun-ban laws prepared and ready in November of 1995 by Daryl Smeaton. Job done, it was off to the "Big Apple" for Peters.

But a point to remember, while Rebecca Peters was "down-under", 6 shooting massacres occurred in Australia and New Zealand resulting in 76 deaths and 53 wounded people. In "gun control" here, Peters was no doubt - numero uno. Curiously though since Peters left, the shooting massacres have ceased! None in the last six years. And private firearms still abound.

In New York, Rebecca Peters hit the pavement 'running' and is immediately associated with Desmond Riley of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence - part of the NAACP crowd involved in 'crafting a gun control strategy' for "curing gun ownership" - their words.

Shortly it was announced that Peters was awarded (if you believe their own news releases, or if logic is your guide, rewarded may be the more appropriate word), with a Senior Fellowship in March 1997 by the Soros Foundation's Open Institute funded Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Merryland. So the good citizens there should perhaps keep her Australasian achievements in mind. In making application for her fellowship, Rebecca had to 'submit a budget' for her envisioned work - forgive me from chuckling. Can you imagine her difficult task here? Think of a big digit add lots of zeros and voila - a budget!

You may wish to drop a line to the Doctor so here is her working address: The Center on Crime, Community and Culture, 400 West 59th Street, New York, NY10019. Or perhaps you may wish to forward a congratulatory e-mail to < rpeters [at] sorosny [dot] org . Rebecca's doctorate included a stipend incidentally of US$32,500 p. a., plus various expenses covered in her 'budgeted' expenses, the lot bankrolled by the tax-exempt Soros Foundation.

Her citizenry disarmament program is far flung, and includes Australia, New Zealand, the sub-continent, South America, Great Britain and Europe: she's a true-blue "globalist". First on the list after jetting out of Australia though, was her close involvement in organisation of the 'Million Mom March' and in reports of this event, her trademark outlandish unsubstantiated claims regarding crimes, firearms and related deaths appeared on cue. Easily destroyed later by reputable writers, but once the lie is said, truth inevitably is the casualty. Before leaving Australia though, her name was noted alongside that of her NCGC Hobart colleague (now chair of NCGC), Roland Browne on a University Paper entitled, Australia's New Gun Control Philosophy: Public Health is Paramount. 3 But I find it remarkable, that even although in Australia she'd been granted citizenship, Peters' American roots were emphasised. Now in America, Dr Peters is always reported as being 'an Australian gun control expert' - a weird twist don't you think.

In America, the Million Mom March staged on Monday 15 May 1996, on the Mall in Washington, was in Australia lauded 'a raging success'. But even with wall-to-wall major media publicity, numbers were in fact a long way short of the hoped-for million. Hillary and Bill Clinton were of course on tap for the regulation photo-shoot, not surprising really. As it was reported that the rally was 'conceived by Donna Dees-Thomases', supposedly just a concerned 'New Jersey housewife'. However it was reported that in fact Dees-Thomases was a 'high-powered CBS publicist who at one point worked for CBS anchor Dan Rather'. Even of more interest in this same report was the claim that the lady 'is the sister-in-law of Susan Thomases', who was lawyer, political advisor and confidant of Hillary Clinton, the then First Lady. 4

For Rebecca Peters, her 1996 schedule was quite hectic. It was crunch year and on 13 March at Dunblane primary school in Scotland,

by Bruce Gold

1.) Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year. However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police, who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's completion.

2.) Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned

Patrick K Martin warhawke [at] comcast [dot] net

I'm going to assume that the readers of this publication understand that the Second Amendment was designed to insure that the people of this country would always have the means to alter or abolish an oppressive government. The writings of the founders were most explicit on the matter, as anyone who reads the Federalist Papers can plainly see. Thus, the only weapons expressly protected by the Amendment are military ones, and despite an almost seventy-year assault on this principle, we still possess the most basic of all such weapons, the semiautomatic rifle. How long this will remain true is anybody's guess, but recently I began to wonder whether or not it will matter.

Since the September 11 attack, there has been a great deal of interest in the media about the state of our military preparedness. Quite a few of these shows, have dealt with new weapons and equipment which the military is currently working on. While much of this is the normal high-tech wiz-bang dog-and-pony show, one thing caught my attention very quickly, body armor! Even as you read this, our forces in Afghanistan are equipped with armor capable of withstanding hits from the ubiquitous AK-47 and even the more powerful 7.62NATO weapons, albeit only if struck in the center where a ceramic and metal plate provides extra protection. The issue I have is not with the current armors however, but with the new types even now being developed. These new armors hold the promise of rendering our soldiers and others essentially invulnerable to any weapons currently available to us.

New uniforms, custom fitted to the individual soldier or policemen, are expected to provide protection from bullets delivering up to 2000 foot-pounds of energy (for those of you who are less knowledgeable about weapons, an AK-47 delivers only about 1500fpe at the muzzle, and a .308 sniper-rifle will only deliver 2000fpe or more at less than 150 meters, trust me that is a LOT of energy), and the actual armor the troops will wear will withstand 15,000fpe, which is more than the .50 caliber machine gun delivers at the muzzle. Also, the use of new energy absorbent materials will reduce, or even prevent, blunt force trauma injuries. What does this mean to you and me? It means that when the government techno-ninjas storm our "compound," in an effort to arrest the "right-wing militia anarchists," people won't be seeing the jack-booted thugs retreating with their dead, because there won't BE any. Instead, like some bad science-fiction movie, the black-clad storm-troopers will advance through a hail of bullets, soaking up round after round of ammunition, advancing steadily to spray death from the chattering muzzles of their unregistered machine guns at point-blank range.

The 1950's and '60's were, in many ways, a golden age for weapons development. New space-age materials like plastic and aluminum were used for the first time. Weapons like the Dardick, which was expected to deliver 100,000 rounds per minute from a single barrel, or the Gyrojet rocket weapons, promised to revolutionize weaponry, but the "Gun-Control Act of 1968" put a stop to all of that. GCA '68 put the basement inventors out of business by treating them like real firearms manufactures. Huge licensing fees, storage requirements, inspections, and other regulations, meant that the little guy with a new idea would be required to spend tens of thousands of dollars in order to pursue what was essentially a hobby. Most were simply unable to do it, and so they gave up. The John Moses Browning's and the Hiram S. Maxim's were shut out, and private innovation in the field of firearms all but disappeared. I have begun to wonder if this was less than accidental.

Throughout history, tyrannical governments have known that to wreak their will, they must first disarm the people. No armed population has ever been (totally) oppressed without first being disarmed. In the case of America, our long history of weapons ownership, and our jealous regard for our rights, makes the removal of our firearms more difficult than most. Even in the 1960's, the trend toward ever more powerful weapons was clear to any who studied the subject, and for those who know history, as the weapons become more powerful, new means of defense are developed. Now I do not wish to imply that somebody sat down and said, "You know, one day we will have body armor that a regular gun won't penetrate . . . " But what if someone simply decided that if the weapons of the government became more powerful, and the weapons of the civilian population did not, the government might be in a position to overpower any resistance quickly and with relative ease.

The trend toward this kind of limitation on civilian weapons has continued. The McClure-Volkmer of 1986 prohibits anyone from building a fully-automatic weapon unless they had an approved government contract. The "Assault Weapons" ban prohibits anyone from bringing new military style weapons into the country, and has now been amended to prevent anyone from making them domestically, unless they leave out certain features. Well, what about new weapons technology? I recently saw a program which showed a pistol which fired rockets (the Gyrojet was the first such weapon and it was used in Vietnam, at least experimentally). Do you think Ruger will be selling them anytime soon? There are rumors of a "Rail-gun," which fires projectiles electromagnetically, small enough for one man to carry (where have I seen that before?), do you think Colt will make any for us?

The point is that in ten or fifteen years from now, we the people could be armed to the teeth with weapons as obsolete as flintlocks (or even more-so, as a flintlock is still capable of killing today as it was in the American revolution). We may face a time when, like the days of Knights in armor, an armed elite, invulnerable to the weapons of the peasants, does with us as they see fit. Unrestrained by the fear of revolt by the serfs, what would our government become? Whether or not we are seeing the result of a conscious policy, or simply an unintended consequence of victim-disarmament laws matters little. We may have only a few years to reverse this trend which will allow the forces of government to act with impunity, or face that time when we, "... fight only because it is better to die, than to live as slaves."