Health v medicine


Climate change hoax  



Nobody does it better than America   

MH17 coverup  



The Fake Arab Spring

Time for a Truth War  

Massacre of Taliban POWs  

Myths for Iraq war 

Are sanctions justified?


Saddam Hussein 

Gassing of Kurds 

Who set light to the oil wells?  

Kosovo deception 

Elite sets stage for WW3  

Pre-emptive action

Why Hiroshima was bombed  



Fake terror 

Thank a vet?

Al-Qaeda - fictional terror group 

Defaming Islam 

Fake terror - the road to dictatorship 

Fabricating an enemy  

Inside Indonesia's war on terror 

War on terror a hoax   

911 - White collar terrorism 

911 Training drills 

Bird flu hoax 

Osama bin Laden  

War Propaganda 

WMD found in Iraq 

Bali bombing - JI   

School of Americas 


Covert operations 

Pearl Harbor

Operation Paperclip

Psyops & psywars 

Secret Team: CIA & Allies in Control of US & World   

CIA & agencies

Operation Mongoose

Operation Cyclone

Bay of Pigs

Gulf of Tonkin

Operation Northwoods






Corporations - pathological pursuit of power  

The science of exploitation

Economic Hitman



US government is a corporation 

Australia government is a corporation 




Water agenda  

Sandy Hook massacre hoax 

Boston Bombing 

Operation Mockingbird  

50 false news stories     




US History  

Guggenheim Foundation  

US is a corporation  

American Union  



Australian government  - legally invalid 

Constitution defunct 

What next? The issues  

United People Power  

  The Lima Declaration  

PM's powers 

Government tyranny 

"National security" 

Trial by jury 

One Nation 

Harold Holt's murder [external link] 

Port Arthur massacre  

  Port Arthur (v2) 

  Why not gun control? 


  Manchurian candidate

  Dr Peters / Dr Mullins 

Save Australia Alliance - Tony Pitt 


Foreign debt 

Bracket creep 

Stamp duty on houses  

Fascism in Australia (CEC)  

Illegal taxation  

The Hilton bombing - a case of political terrorism? 

Jean-Paul Turcaud / Telfer 

Andrew Wilkie  

Principality of Camside 

Principality of Rangeview  

Fortress Australia 







Free energy  

Scientific dictatorship  

Scalar energy  

What is scalar electromagnetics? 

12 things about about scalar weapons  

Brave new world of scalar electromagnetics 

Universal Seduction extracts 
Pine Gap 

Hurricane Andrew  

Forbidden Archaeology   

Geo science 

Origins of oil 
The fake oil crisis 
Oil con job 
Nuclear energy myths 

True geology 




Goals of the Illuminati 

Pike's plan for 3 world wars 


Rewriting history 

The grand deception - Manipulating US into war - CFR  

World peace, 1814-1914   

Global Strategic Project 

Letter to 'Sheople' from NWO 

The Secret Covenant 

The secret behind secret societies 

Collectivism vs individualism 

Communism & the Illuminati 

Communism & capitalism  


Why not world government? 

Purpose behind UN 

UN destroys rights 

UN 50 years on  

IMF - created by UN 

EU exposed 

Skull & Bones 

Chronology of ruling class conspiracy 


New world order 

NWO - fact or fantasy? 

Deskilling trades 

Role of secret societies 

Unveiling the mystery religion 

Environmental scam - Greenpeace, ozone hole 

Shadow government

Secret budget 


Economic sanctions - Operation Population Control  

Concentration centres in US 

Widening gap between rich and poor   

Weather control  

Hurricane Andrew 1992   


Underground bases  

AIDS - Made in the USA  

Population control 




Our patriarchal society   

Patriarchy - the root cause of society's ills  

Is feminism a nwo plot?  

Patriarchy: the development of a "war system" 

Capitalism: the latest stage of patriarchy  

Patriarchy and bureaucracy  

Islam's shariah law and treatment of women 

Islam and patriarchy 

Other islam issues  


Fake mental health 


Silent weapons for quiet wars  

Tavistock/social engineering 

Mind control 

Hegelian dialectic  

Two steps forward, one back 

Thesis, anti-thesis & synthesis 


Order out of chaos  



Compounds & boxcars 

The Alaska Mental Health Bill 




Hidden technology 
Hollow earth theory 

The truth about hemp 
Ether - scalar technology 
Time travel 
Crop circles  
Mars & moon  
Coverups uncovered 





How to collapse an economy 


Fed-up with the Fed 

Beast from Jeckyll Island 

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892 


Fractional reserve banking 

Fiat money 

16th amendment not ratified - income tax illegal  

Money myth   

Gold Standard 

Usury / interest 

Fall of civilisations    

Hidden taxation  

Social credit 





The Bible exposed  

Biblical contradictions  

The Jesus myth 

US Govt's agenda  

The most evil people in the world 

Fake apocalypse 

Billy Graham   

Clarifying what is proof  

Council of Nicea 325 AD      

Reincarnation & karma  




Universal laws  





The Galactic Federation 

A new paradigm 






Up ] Australian govt ] Australian constitution ] United People Power ] Tyranny of government ] Trial by jury ] Port Arthur massacre ] [ Gunlaws ] Harold Holt ] One Nation ] PM's powers ] Save Australia Alliance ] Hilton bombing ] CEC ] Taxation ] Bracket creep ] Foreign debt ] Jean-Paul Turcaud ] Andrew Wilke ] Rangeview ] Fortress Australia ] Omega ]


4 easy steps to create a totalitarian dictatorship

Take away the arms of the people so that they are unarmed.

Take away any means of organizing and communicating so that they cannot form groups, or large armies.

Make the people vulnerable. If they are homeless or without food, they are subject to mass control and manipulation.

Get rid of the opinion makers, the leaders - the Christians and patriots because they have certain principles and values that they do not wish to compromise, thus guaranteeing no major resistance to the New World Order. By this, they will be able to tell the remaining people what to do and they will do it. Many will do it for reward, others will do it to avoid punishment.


Gun control history of republics around the world 

1-----Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938 enabling the government to round up 13 million defenceless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings, imprisoning them in concentration camps, and by a conscious process of attrition, destroyed them.

2-----The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, proceeding then to exterminate 1.5 million Armenians from 1914 - 1917.

3-----The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently from 1928 - 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

4-----China. Gun control laws were enacted in 1935. Between 1948 - 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were likewise murdered.

5-----In the United States the first gun control laws were enacted during the Civil War era to prevent guns from falling into the hands of black slaves who might be inclined to attack their masters and thereby keeping control in the hands of the latter.

6-----Guatemala. Gun control laws were passed in 1964: as a result, between 1964 - 1981, 100,000 defenceless Mayan Indians met their deaths.

7-----Uganda. Established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 - 1979, 300,000 defenceless Christians met a similar fate.

8-----Cambodia. Established gun control measures in 1956, subsequently from 1957 - 1977 one million Cambodians met their deaths.

9-----Closer to home, Indonesia, another Republic, has a similar record. Out of a population of just one million people in East Timor, 200,000 have been killed over the past twenty years until the recent bloodshed when it still unknown how many thousands more have been murdered. Being promised freedom these brave people elected to vote in a referendum during which the United Nations guaranteed their safety and still they died unarmed and defenceless.


Next time someone talks in favor of gun control, ask them, "Who do you want to round up and exterminate?"
With guns we are citizens. Without them we are subjects. Don't let the liberal media control your mind with their propaganda blitz. They want to blame crime on gun ownership to justify eventual gun confiscation, but they're soft on crime law enforcement


"When the people are afraid of the government, that's tyranny. But when the government is afraid of the people, that's liberty."    --Thomas Jefferson.


Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new laws to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by  their 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!) and we have no idea of  how many firearms are in the hands of  resident Middle Eastern Terrorists & their sypathisers.

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 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. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the evening news or  hear our politicians disseminating this  information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and,  yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Australian Gun owners before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please  remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens' and free men,. Without them, we are 'subjects'.  

If you value your freedom and respect History,

Please send this message to all of your friends  lawful Gun owners or not.


by Agent 'Wolverine' [Google]

When and if a "U.N. Police Action" is taken against America, the first order of business will be to confiscate all personal weapons (take away the right to bear arms -- in fact the Gun Control Act of 1968 was lifted in its entirety from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938, which was supposed to curb "gang activity" between Nazi and Communist Party thugs); outlaw all non-sanctioned religious activities (remove freedom of worship -- or initiate an "inquisition" against all religions that are not approved by the "New World Order"); and confiscate all two-way communications devices such as computers, telephones, fax machines, etc. (disabling freedom of speech -- of assembly, free expression, etc. 


Media to blame for biased reporting 


On the 29th June 1996 almost 9000 anti-gunlaws demonstrators  rallied in the streets of Brisbane in the biggest protest march since the Vietnam War - next day it was reported as a non event on page 43 of the Sunday papers.

BUT next week just over 1000 people, mostly politicians and media, rallied for Howard’s gunlaws and made front page headlines in the same paper. 

Read more facts and statistics on gun use


The real issues - gun control 
by Geoff. Muirden.
From a lecture given in Hobart, November 1997

New World Order guinea pigs

US citizens are concerned about the Australian attempt to ban guns. In a report titled WAKE UP CALL FOR AMERICA, it says : 

    "The people of Australia are only used as New World Order guinea pigs. What happens in Australia is almost always done later in America, so, US citizens, you better get ready! Soon, a horrible "terrorist" act will be committed by a person who will be branded by the media as a "crazed shooter". 

    "The President and the media will scream and holler for action. New, draconian, gun-confiscation legislation will be rushed into law by our controlled and bought-off Congress. You'll have to bring your guns-or else go to prison."


Despite the fact that most adult Swiss citizens are armed, Switzerland has NO record of mass shootings and assassinations. Switzerland trusts its own citizens. Apparently Australia cannot. And that strikes at the hearts of our so-called democracy. But what are the real issues? Why are guns banned?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government".

"Americans need never fear their government because of the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation".

Short of drawing diagrams, it couldn't be clearer. The Founders of the US wanted grassroots citizens to have a gun to defend themselves from tyrannical government. They had to battle for their freedom, it wasn't given to them on a plate, now they wanted to safeguard it.

This is the first stage in a war against the rights of Australian citizens and a dress rehearsal for a slave state. The main purpose of the government is to defend its citizens. But now they seek to deny them a basic right: the right to self-defence with guns if attacked. Denial of the right to have guns for self defence is rather like saying that you can have food, but you can't eat it, you can have water, but you can't drink it. There is a natural right of self defence and national defence being denied.

These people realised that the greatest enemy they might have to face was their own governments, and this has proved true today, especially in the light of the Waco and Randy Weaver cases.

It was precisely this right of the individual to keep and bear arms that was a foundation of freedom for the American pioneers. Some people have suggested that the US Founding Fathers meant only the Organized Militia (National Guard) to have weapons. If you listen to the following quotes from the US Founding Fathers, it couldn't be more clear that the right to keep and bear arms was meant to apply to all US citizens.

"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorise Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms".

"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun".

BILL OF 1688
The same thing applied in the case of the 1688 Bill of Rights. It was part of the culmination of a disastrous war in which the citizens fought for their freedom and wanted to save future generations from that suffering, Clause 7 of the 1688 Bill of Rights affirms the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Why don't we learn from history? Must we keep repeating the pattern where citizens have to fight for their rights, seek to protect future generations from tyrannical government, to find these principles later discarded?

In a wider sense it has implications for the defence of the country.

According to a map in OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER (p. 74) foreign troops and police will be sent to guard countries, including Australia. One possible reason for this is that troops and police may hesitate to fire on their own citizens but foreigners will have less hesitation in doing so. I've left the best for last. PRAY that we can successfully awaken the people to the real dangers to freedom posed by the UN gun grab and its One World tyranny, before it's too late.

At a time when the national defences are totally inadequate to fend off an attack, which may come from a well armed country such as Indonesia, or perhaps China, the backup of a citizen militia, such as exists in Switzerland, is crucial.

Indonesia has a history of invading neighbouring countries, and Australia, during both the ALP and Liberal/National Governments has had a history of appeasing them, even allowing Indonesian troops to train in Australia: supplying them with weapons and assistance and turning a blind eye to Indonesian atrocities, including the shooting of five Australian journalists.

The armed forces at the moment in Australia are woefully inadequate to handle an Indonesian invasion. What is needed is a citizen militia trained in the use of weapons and having guns at home to use. At the moment, even the regular army's short of ammo.

Pardon the diversion into botany, but is the government treating us like mushrooms, are the explanations provided not entirely adequate or truthful?

We know what the government and the media tell us: guns are banned, gun control laws and also the lowest crime rate. It was a barrier to the imposition of uniform gun laws, so perhaps it had to be taught a lesson, Perhaps an incident had to be manufactured to "convince" them? We don't know exactly who organized that., We do know that the Port Arthur Massacre was preceded by the Australian signing of the UN Conventions designed to implement universal disarmament (see September issue of Shooters' Journal)

There was no referendum to ask the Australian people what they thought, or any intention to notify them what was planned

The fact that there was a move on banning guns and getting State-wide agreements within 12 days of the shootings suggests prior planning. It seems possible that the politicians were ready to act on any excuse to ban guns.

Franklin Roosevelt said that "in politics, nothing happens by chance". Things can be and have been engineered for political means. An illustration of the way things can happen is suggested in a letter in Christian Identity Ministry Newsletter, August,1997:

CLINTON GUN CONTROL. It says: "President Clinton had a gun control bill that Congress would not pass". An incident was staged where four federal officers were killed by a "cult" that supposedly had machine guns, illegal ammunition, hand grenades,etc. The cult was wiped out, killing 86 men, women and children and Mr. Clinton's gun bill passed in Congress with flying colours.

A second incident is mentioned: Later Mr Clinton had an anti-terrorism bill that was going to be defeated. A federal building was blown up, killing 168 and the bill passed.

A third incident: Mr Clinton's airport security bill was going down. A missile shot down flight 800 killing 230 people and Mr Clinton's airport security bill was passed. It was proven that the FBI was involved in the Trade Towers' bombing. All this was done under Clinton's administration. This is legislation by mass murder. Is anyone ready to believe that this sequence of events "just happened" by pure chance, enabling these controls to be forced through? I don't think so.

A pattern is created:
1. Suggest a bill to remedy a social problem.
2. If they don't pass the bill, create the social problem.
3. Enforce the answer to the social problem which you created.

Could something like the Port Arthur Massacre have been engineered for Australia to create the problem of a lone nut assassin so that uniform gun controls could be forced through on the tide of popular sentiment? Or am I being too cynical? Was it more noble than that? Was Little Johnny Howard a champion protecting the safety of the people? This is the way he was presented in the Melbourne Herald Sun cartoon, as an Olympic champion protecting the people-an award winner. But is this the reality or is it an image created to justify a preconceived policy. Could Howard have been manipulated by forces behind the scenes?

To what extent did manipulation operate? Is it possible that Martin Bryant was either not the real assassin or that he was trained as an asssasin? Maybe. There are 2 theories bearing on this. One is the theory by Joe Vialls in Strategy magazine (May, July & August,1997) and in the magazine Exposure. And the other is that of Douglas and Sharp in New Citizen, the journal of the Citizens' Electoral Council (the LaRouchites), June-July,1997.

The first part of Joe Vialls' article is his documentation of the way in which an English policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher, was assassinated in England, allegedly by Libyan terrorists, so that Libya could be expelled from England, which it was. He concluded that it wasn't carried out by Libyans but by some other group trying to implicate the Libyans.

He decided that the same type of tactics were used in the Port Arthur Massacre, which he feels is an engineered atrocity. He argued that Martin Bryant didn't have the IQ or the skill to carry out a massacre which he feels showed the skills of a sharpshooter. He feels that either Martin Bryant was assisted by others or that a man, perhaps of Martin Bryant's general build, did the shooting and that Martin Bryant was the "fall guy" or "patsy" forced to take the blame. Part of his goal in writing is to call for an investigation into the shooting that may clear Bryant.

Part of his evidence is that the frantic shooting of Martin Bryant at Seascape Cottage hit no targets, inconsistent with the high kill rate at the Broad Arrow Cafe. Later information from Joe Vialls is to the effect that the gunman shot from the right hip and finished off 12 head shots in 15 seconds, firing 12 feet away, an accomplishment showing a professional sharpshooter skill beyond that of Martin Bryant, whereas Martin Bryant is left handed. He claims that those in the Cafe were in a state of shock and trauma and not able to properly assess what was happening. In a later article in Strategy, Joe Vialls suggests that a Tasmanian gun dealer, Ted Hill, was used as a "scapegoat" after the incident, blamed for having sold guns to Martin Bryant.

The version of events from CEC or the Larouchites agrees with Joe Vialls that it would have taken a man with professional military skill to carry out the massacre. However, they claim Bryant did it, but that he was programmed or encouraged to carry out his killings, which they attributed to a London based terrorist outfit called Tavistock Institute which the CEC believes is a centre for world terrorism.

The CEC may be wrong in thinking it was necessarily the Tavistock Institute who did the killings, as it could equally well have been another group - U.S. for example.

Joe Vialls may be right in thinking that there is an inconsistency between the high kill rate at the Broad Arrow Cafe and the ineffective firing by Bryant at the Seascape Cottage.

But the details have to be worked out.

Both theories differ in details, but they agree in one respect: Military training was needed for the sharpshooter. Other queries include who supplied the shooters high-tech weapons? Was it modelled on the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland?

We can't be sure of the identity of the group behind the massacre but we do know the underlying motive, summed up in the letters G.U.N. Grab by the United Nations, as a move towards global disarmanent. And here we have the real motive-part of the real issue. But before we leave the topic of the Port Arthur incident, leaving to one side whether or not it was engineered, let's point out that if we had a situation, such as applies in Switzerland where most able bodied males have what amounts to a machine gun in their homes, then any assassin could have been surrounded by people from homes in Port Arthur who could have ordered him to drop his gun or be killed? So the problem is not having too many guns, but too few.

Before we go on, let's examine the issue of gun control. One survey suggests that about 78% of people surveyed supported gun control, and whether that's an exaggeration or not, nevertheless many people have supported the policy. Many feel that gun control is a good thing: that it takes dangerous weapons out of irresponsible hands, that banning would prevent or lessen crime. Part of the answer to this has already been suggested: that guns provide a remedy against government tyranny, and the Switzerland allows its citizens to bear arms without many incidents of "lone nut assassins. Did Little Johnny Howard in his touching concern for our welfare, believe he was doing us all a good favour, thus explaining his ruthless determination to ban guns?

I don't think so, because if Little Johnny had done any research, he would have found a lot of evidence refuting the idea that gun control means less crime, some of it coming from within the Federal Government department, the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Is it that he didn't look, or didn't he want to know?

For example, if Johnny had checked with the federal department, The Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the booklet titled Firearms Deaths In Australia (ABC cat. no. 4397.0) p.5, he would read that crude firearm death rate declined from 4.8 deaths per 100,000 population in 1980 to 2.6 in 1995. This represented a decline of 49% over a period of 16 years.

"The majority (78%) of firearms deaths during the relevant period (1980-95) were suicides: 15% were homicides, while deaths from the accidental discharge of firearms contributed" So most firearms fatalities during 1980-95 were suicides, not homicides. However, regarding suicides with firearms, it says in another ABS survey, Suicides Australia,1982-1992 (cat. 3309.0) p.8, says that "there has been a change in the pattern of suicide methods between the years 1982-1992. In 1982 suicide deaths from the use of firearms and explosives accounted for 31% of total suicides. By 1992 this has decreased to 21% of all suicides".

So the general pattern was reduction in deaths owing to firearms.

The general pattern has been observed: it is generally the law abiding citizens that willingly hand in guns: criminals refuse to. An article in the Melbourne newspaper, The Age, 1/9/96,mentions that two American cities with the tightest gun controls are Washington, D.C and New York City, and both are rife with illegal guns. Experience in the US has shown that criminals hesitate to attack citizens with guns. Guns can prevent crime.

US citizens are concerned about the Australian attempt to ban guns. In a report titled WAKE UP CALL FOR AMERICA, it says : "The people of Australia are only used as New World Order guinea pigs. What happens in Australia is almost always done later in America, so, US citizens, you better get ready! Soon, a horrible "terrorist" act will be committed by a person who will be branded by the media as a "crazed shooter". The President and the media will scream and holler for action. New, draconian, gun-confiscation legislation will be rushed into law by our controlled and bought-off Congress. You'll have to bring your guns-or else go to prison.

"Of course, only you, the individual, law-abiding citizen, will have your guns confiscated. The ruthless gangs in the inner cities will actually be given more guns. Guns headed for gangs are being smuggled in almost every day now on Red Chinese ships docked in Long Beach, California, and Portland, Oregon. "You and I will be left unarmed and defenceless. We will be prey to urban gangs, criminal elements, roving packs of illegal immigrants, and the entire federal Gestapo (the FBI,BATF,CIA, the EPA, NSA and all the other alphabet cops). It's time for us to protest now, or soon it will be too late. They've already cracked the whip on gun owners in Australia. We're next! "

The drive to ban guns in Australia, and later in the US - has a very ominous precedent- that every time Communists have taken over a country they moved to confiscate guns.

If you want a description of how that operates, hear the audiotape by Reverent Milne, a Christian minister who worked in China, prior to and during the Communist takeover of China. He relates how the Communists first reacted with a plastic smile, treating people with courtesy until they had taken their guns. Then they moved in for terrorist control. (see How The Communists Captured China, by Rev. Milne, from; Australian Freedom Foundation, PO Box 140, Glenelg,S.A. 5045 or Christian Identity Ministries, PO Box 146,Cardwell,Qld.,4849)

Mentioned in Aid & Abet Newsletter, Feb.,1997, published by Police Against The New World Order (PANTWO) "Gun registration always lead to gun confiscation! As a matter of fact, the seven major genocides that occurred in the 20th century, each and every one of them was preceded by gun control. No tyrant can force his will on the people of his nation if the people are all armed. That is why our founding fathers insisted on giving us the 2nd Amendment in our US Constitution which reads in part: "the right of our people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". According to a study done by Professor R.J. Rummell, there were 119,000,000 people killed by their own governments in the 20th century, while 35,000,000 were killed on battlefields in that same period of time! That means that governments have killed almost 4 times as many of their own people as did war in this century.

And now we're faced by an intended monopoly of weapons control on the part of the UN, a super government that will eliminate national sovereignty and impose a One World dictatorship. They have the potential for a total global tyranny that will make murders by national governments pale into insignificance!

The historian, Lord Acton, made the famous statement: "power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely" If men were angels, there would be no problem, but the potential for absolute power placed in the hands of globalists answerable to nobody is an invitation to tyranny. The history of UN so-called "peacekeeping" shows a determination to protect Communist rulers. For example, under UN rule, Croation Moslems were disarmed while Serbians were armed., The Serbs were allowed to commit genocide or "ethnic cleansing".

Then there's the case of Katanga, now part of Zaire. One of the best references for this is The Fearful Master, by Edward Griffin. Briefly, in 1960, the Belgian Congo was given its independence, and the country was taken over by a Communist dictator, Lumumba, who established a reign of terror, murdering and torturing men, women and children. In this situation, one area of Congo,the province of Katanga, headed by a man, Moishe Tshcmbe, declared its independence. Tschombe was a devout Christian and an ardent anti-Communist. Instead of the UN being thrilled to support such a declaration of independence, Communist-led influence led the US to join with the USSR in support of a UN resolution, July 14,1960, authorising sending troops to the Congo to suppress Katanga.

UN troops, including US warplanes, bombed and strafed civilians in schools, churches and hospitals, obviously with genocidal intent. Troops even bayonetted Red Cross officials who tried to help the wounded. There has been no admission of wrong doing on the part of the UN, no apology and no restitution for victims of this UN atrocity. It served its purpose, to bring Katanga under Communist control.

This is the same kind of body that wants universal control, and wants to take away all our guns so they can enslave us. Their goal is to have global control by the year 2000.

A body with absolute power would be able to suppress all civil liberties, including free speech, to crush all dissent.

Some people are withholding guns, and risking arrest or massive fines to prevent their guns being seized. But we shouldn't have to risk life and limb to retain what remains of our freedom.

One option is suggested by Joe Vialls - that funds be raised to form a Royal Commission into the Martin Bryant case, including also the scapegoating of Ted Hill, the Tasmanian arms dealer, to open up information being withheld from us. ''1688 BILL OF RIGHTS-Several Attorney-Generals of individual States have admitted that the 1688 Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms is still in force. On this basis, some patriots want to launch a High Court challenge to the validity of the gun laws, claiming it is banned by the 1688 Bill of Rights. However, lawyers that I've spoken to insist that it is not in force, that it has been overriden by the Statute of Westminster dated 1931 and ratified 1932 which allows Australia to pass laws repugnant to British law. One QC insists that the 1688 Nill of Rights is not even valid in U.K., let alone Australia. This seems to be based on the idea of Pariamentary supremacy. The reality is, of course, that UN is becoming supreme over the Parliaments. There are some moves you can take.

Support a political party that favours unbanning guns, such as Australia First and One Nation and make the right to keep and bear arms an election issue. Say you won't vote for politicians that support banning guns.

One possible move is to press for Citizens Initiated Referenda, which would give the ordinary grassroots a voice, and demand a refendum on the gun issue.

We need to consider that the immediate implementation of the plan to ban guns will depend mainly on the police.

I appeal to police to heed the literature put out by Jack McLamb's Police Against the New World Order (PANTWO), to read the booklet, OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER, available from, Christian Identity Ministries Box 146, Cardwell, Qld 4849. A lot of this deals with the way police are being conditioned to support the "system" rather than the individual. The tendency is to create an "us versus them" mentality, that means any citizens who won't hand in their guns are portrayed as dangerous rednecks and not as individuals who want to preserve their freedom. Under thinking like this, there have been invasions of property and seizure of guns before the gun amnesty even ended. A significant section in PANTWO's Operation Vampire Killer is the comment: "the question each officer individual must face is a very difficult but realistic one: which way will your own gun face when the orders are issued?" Will you protect the people you have sworn to protect? Or will you do what other patriotic officers from other countries have done to their countrymen, "obediently just follow orders?"

Perhaps it will help that you will be told by superiors, "It 's for the national good" and/or "it's for the good of society (History proves that the nations' enforcers can expect some such motivational indoctrination such as this) "Could there be such a police action, taken against the public, if the police were told the truth, ie.. that officers should take the guns and liberties from the masses so that the Controlling Elite of the nation can enslave them? We think not. In other words, police officers, is it such a good idea to prepare the grounds for a police state, run by the UN in the interests of a one eyed class with absolute power at the top? Be aware of what is going on, instead of blindly following orders, be aware of the consequences of your action. You may be interested to learn the results of a poll conducted in the US with over 16,000 police, conducted by the American Federation of Police and the National Association of Chiefs of Police (Aid & Abet Newsletter, v. 1# 9) concluded that: 90% said that they did not agree that by banning ownership of firearms by private citizens, there would be fewer crimes committed with firearms.

"86% believe that it was not for "hunting and target shooting" that the 2nd Amendment was placed in the US Constitute but for every citizen to (1) defend their person and property;(2) defend this nation (US) from enemies, domestic and foreign.

"71% do NOT believe that a waiting period will have any effect on the criminals obtaining firearms.

"86% are critical about the way in which media presented particular crimes such as shooting, riots,etc.

"90% resent the hypocritical manner in which the media hypes violence and at the same time promotes the banning of firearms for law abiding citizens. So please note that US police officers are mostly against the banning of guns for citizens. Will Australian police consider coming out against this policy when they realise it's intended to create a slave state?

Lastly, police may themselves be disarmed under a New World Order because. according to a UN volume, World Peace Through World Law, the authors claim that local "police forces supplemented by civilians armed with sporting rifles and fowling pieces might conceivably constitute a serious threat to a neighbouring country. So they recommend "rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition possessed by civil police and private citizens".

Last but not least, foreign troops and maybe foreign police may be sent to patrol Australia.

A letter to police in Perth received this response: "an inalienable right to bear arms does not exist in Western Australia". But he might as well have said "Australia" since guns are now banned nationwide. And there's something worrying about it, because the man who alienated an inalienable right could just as easily alienate other inalienable rights, such as the right to free speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, trial by jury, etc., because this is the way things are headed: in the direction of fewer civil liberties.

We are now being told that having a gun in self-defence is not acceptable. Not that this is anything new. An ad. placed in the Sydney Sunday Telegraph, during 1992, defended gun registration and insisted that "personal protection is no reason to have a gun". And now this is a nationwide policy.

Affect on crime

No effect. Slight increase in crimes. 


What about Gun Confiscation and Civil war?

This Awareness indicates that this [gun control] is seen as part of a plan [for bringing in nwo]. Whether this plan actually manifests into action and reality is yet to be determined. It is more probable that this will occur than that the NWO will actually be successful in setting itself up. This Awareness indicates that it is quite possible that there will be these dramatic moves to establish control that would remove guns from the hands of U.S. citizens.

This Awareness indicates that this is a priority before a New World Government could be established. This Awareness indicates that it does not appear that it will be an easy event or easy goal for the globalists to conclude. It appears that there will be great resistance to having the guns removed from the citizens, and they will not likely attempt any action until the guns are removed. This Awareness indicates that the possibility exists that if there is not a consensus among or a majority among the masses in favor of gun controls, and if this does not catch on among the masses, then the indication would suggest the people have no intention of giving up their guns, and it may be sufficient to keep the globalists from enacting their scenario of bringing in UN troops to confiscate guns from people's homes.

This Awareness indicates that the people who refuse to be disarmed will not be disarmed in the future, if this refusal is wide-spread and a kind of a general majority or consensus of the people insist that they wish to keep their right to bear arms. This Awareness indicates that no government on earth would risk trying to take guns from a majority of people who are armed ten to one over that government officials, and when you have some of the police in the government also objecting to the disarming of the masses, it puts quite a damper on the government effort to disarm the masses.

Gun Control will come in increments

This Awareness indicates that instead, the approach would be to disarm them in small increments, taking away certain rights, requiring registration of guns and so forth, beginning with what is obvious: the disarming of children, which is obviously a necessity, and moving from there to the next step, registering guns and investigating gun buyers before selling a gun to them, et. cetera. By creating many little laws regarding the ownership of guns, the hope is that there can be a gradual changing in the consciousness in regard to licensing and regulating gun ownership, and if entities can be licensed, then everyone who owns a gun is known in terms of location and the ownership of the gun, which makes it easier for ever future government to locate those people having guns,.

There can also be taxation placed on guns at some future date, and there can also be the action of government control over the bullets, and in so controlling the bullets and the making of the shells for these guns, the government can make the guns useless, or near useless. This Awareness indicates that there are many ways whereby the government may attempt through one increment after another to disarm the people, even if they cannot get them to give up their ownership of their hand-gun.

This Awareness indicates that it is something that entities may wish to consider and to watch carefully in terms of what is coming next in the attempt to disarm the people. This Awareness indicates that when people are totally disarmed and the ownership of guns are only in the hands of criminals and government forces, then the people will be at the mercy of the criminals and the government forces.

Government and criminals may combine

If the criminals and the government forces should join together to enslave the people, there is little that can be done by the people to avoid this. In many people's minds the criminal organizations may be seen not so much as independent of government control, but as part of a greater conspiracy using the criminal organizations by the government. For example, down through history, there were many governments who used those forces from that group know as assassins. This Awareness indicates that the same has been suggested in regard to the government use of the Mafia, whereby if a legitimate government agency was not effective in dealing with a particular individual or group, the government might enlist the Mafia to take part in the assassination.

How Gestapo tactics by government can snowball

This Awareness indicates that with this recognition, there are as many people who consider it their patriotic duty to keep the right to bear arms, and become quite concerned when they feel that the elected officials are encroaching on that right, and have seen the results of elected officials in their past, using their brown-shirt techniques to come in with guns drawn into homes, into places of business, to raid a clinic or a home because someone has violated some statute which was improperly placed in the first place. The FDA may decide that some vitamin is improper or is ineffective or perhaps doing too good a job and cutting in on the earnings of the medical profession, and may raid a clinic or a health food store, to totally put the business out of business, and the entities would be totally hopeless.

This Awareness indicates if all entities were without any protection of arms and it were known all over the United States that only government officials had the right to bear arms, do you not think that these Gestapo tactics would increase ten-fold, and become much more belligerent and threatening in their expression? This Awareness indicates that as long a s people have some protection, protection against their own elected officials, against their own bureaucratic appointees, and the organizations that have been created from the executive branches of various administrations down through the years of lobbyists from special interest groups, as long as these entities do not feel they have proper justice in this country and these lobbyists and special interest groups can buy off government to create agencies that protect their special interests, such as the FDA or the IRS or other groups such as the firearms and alcohol and housing authorities or whatever, do you not think that before long you might also have postal inspectors raiding your home because of some product you are mailing or sending through the mail or because of some information you have been sending or receiving through the mail?

Do you not think it might spread to other government bureaucratic agencies so that perhaps the welfare mother will be invaded by welfare agents who come to check to find out what she eats, or what she does with her money? This Awareness indicates if entities are totally helpless, those in power tend to bully, even if they are supposed to be the servants of the people.

This Awareness indicates that your choice of medical care may some day be classed as criminal, if you have no power left, and if these entities have strengthened their power by your total disarmament as a citizenry. This awareness indicates that therefore, the struggle for total domination of the people by those in position of bureaucratic status can become either a curse upon the people, or the people can remind the bureaucrats where they are, and who they serve.

This Awareness indicates that if the power base is given to the bureaucrats, then the people are really nothing more than victims dependent on the good will and altruism of those who carry the guns. This Awareness indicates that there will be a time some day in the future wherein guns can be eliminated from consciousness, but it is not appropriate to eliminate these tools of protection while there are still others out there who are willing to use these tools as weapons of control.




Don't worry about the gun you have at home, worry about the doctor you go to see when you are ill. The next time you see or hear some Medical Association or governmental Public Health spokesman calling gun ownership a "Health Problem", you may want to direct their attention to these statistics:

Number of physicians in the USA = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000

Accidental deaths per physician = 0.17100
(US Dept of Health & Human Services)

Number of gun owners in the USA = 80,000,000
Accidental gun deaths per year (all ages) = 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner 0.00187

(US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
John Schuessler

Consider yourself well and truly warned. Doctors are approximately 9,000 times more hazardous to your health than gun owners.




by Joyce Rosenwald 

"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."

Many of us living today were not yet born during the reign of terror of Adolph Hitler and his German Nazi party. Yet, every one of us have been told about the horrors and inhuman crimes perpetrated by the Nazis against select groups of people throughout all of Europe. We refer to Hitler and the Nazis as a group of criminals who took over a legitimate government and turned it into a killing machine. We heave a sigh of relief and thank God that kind of thing could never happen here in America.

Germany's Nazis were criminals .... mass murderers. About 12,000,000 civilians were murdered by the Nazis, among them thousands of women and children. Jews and Gypsies were targeted by the Nazis for total extermination. Some died from gassing in concentration camps. Some died from starvation in ghettos. Some were lined up in front of open graves and shot.

In 1928, five years before the rise of Hitler, Germany's freely elected government enacted a "Law on Firearms and Ammunition." This law required anyone who owned a firearm, or who wanted to own a firearm, to make themselves known to the authorities. Anyone who wanted to purchase a firearm had to get a "Firearms Acquisition Permit." If you needed ammunition, you had to get an "Ammunition Acquisition Permit." When you wanted to go hunting, you had to get an "Annual Hunting Permit." Every firearm that changed hands professionally had to have a serial number and the maker's or dealers name stamped into the metal. "Proof of need" was made a condition for issuance of all licenses, not just the carry permit. Mandatory prison sentences were imposed on anyone who professionally sold or transferred a firearm or ammunition without a license. Truncheons and stabbing weapons were subject to the same licensing requirements as firearms, in terms of their manufacture and sale.

As a result of the 1928 Law, all firearms and firearms owners were registered. To take firearms from anyone they distrusted, the Nazis simply did not renew permits. Under the law, their privately created law, the Nazis could now easily confiscate all firearms and ammunition from any, or all, selected groups. The gun law of 1928 had served the Nazis well. It made almost all law abiding firearms owners known to the authorities. The 1928 law on firearms and ammunition helped the Nazis to destroy democracy in Germany, by disarming the law abiding majority, whom they feared.

By the end of 1931, a rising tide of violence, mainly between Nazi and Communist street fighters, moved the authorities to tighten restrictions. Under new regulations, the police could order everyone's firearms and ammunition ... even items not normally used as weapons ... to be put into police custody,

"If the maintenance of public security and order require it."

'1, Fourth Regulations of the President for the Protection
of the Economy and Finance, and on the
Defense of Civil Peace, December 8, 1931

The Nazis came to power legally. They were voted into power. In elections held on March 5, 1933, the Nazis fell short of 50 percent of the vote. Hitler, afraid the public might oust him, didn't plan to hold more elections. On March 23, 1933, parliament voted to give him emergency powers under the Constitution. There were no more elections in Germany until after World War II. The Nazis were far from being popular with the German people. The Nazis knew that many Germans opposed them. The Nazis used the 1928 Law on Firearms and Ammunition to disarm their opponents and to prevent any armed resistance. The Nazis, at most, were a minority of the German population, not the majority. The Nazis operated within the Law. But in Germany, as here, a small private elite group wrote and defined the Law. WHEN YOU CREATE THE LAW, YOU CAN DEFINE THE LAW. IT CAN BE AS LEGAL TO ABOLISH LAWS AS IT IS TO INSTITUTE THEM. Hitler not only came to power legally, but instituted dictatorship legally.

On taking power in 1933, the Nazis did not immediately begin killing Jews. In April 1933, the Nazis enacted a law that kept Jews out of the civil service, universities, and most professions. In September 1935, the Nuremberg Laws were enacted: Jews lost their civil rights. In November 1938, the Nazi SS troops were unleashed against Germany's Jews. Jewish property was confiscated.

On March 18 1938, the Nazis enacted a new, tougher, gun control law. The Nazi Weapons Law (Waffengesetz) ensured that only Nazis and their friends could own or carry weapons, especially handguns. Licenses to sell, own, or carry firearms were required, except for exempted Nazi organizations and officials. Private persons were not exempt, but a Nazi Party Membership Card was proof of political reliability. The Nazi Weapons Law stated that no Jew could be involved in any business involving firearms. On November 11 1938, one day after the SS were unleashed against the Jews, new regulations under the Nazi Weapons Law barred Jews from owning any weapons.

Gun control in Nazi Germany was not difficult to enforce. Being a police state, (operating under the police power, not law) to get a "Firearm Acquisition License", one had to prove one's identity ---- the national identity card) --- and one's political loyalty (nazi party membership card). With strong police state controls over people, (loss of civil rights) gun control was easily enforced. A disarmed population is helpless. Bureaucrats and obedient civil servants "just doing their job", helped the Nazis carry out their plans. Without the help of those good people who were just doing what they were told, the Nazis could never have murdered as many people as they did.

The Nazi Weapons Law of March 18, 1938 is the blueprint for "Gun Control" in America today. America could not make Nazi style gun control work without the documents that Nazi style gun control needs. THE NAZI STYLE GUN CONTROL LAWS WERE ENACTED BY THE FEDERAL CONGRESS AS THE U.S. GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968. Under this Act: every law abiding firearm owner had to prove that he/she was law abiding; firearms dealers had to record purchases and sales of firearms on behalf of the federal government. Federal and/or state bureaucrats (un-elected civil servants) got the new and broad power to decide who, among law abiding persons, may own and/or carry firearms and under what conditions what type of firearms may lawfully be owned. The vague concept of "sporting purpose" as a way of classifying firearms was introduced. Transactions in ammunition had to be recorded (this is no longer so). Ammunitions that were "legal" were subject to control by bureaucrats.

The Nazi gun control law required nation wide identification papers. Here in America the "social security number" created by Executive Order under President Franklin Roosevelt, is used as a national identifier. The Nazi gun law required a "Firearm Owner Identity Card." In Illinois, a person who wants to own a firearm has to get a "Firearm Owner Identification Card" complete with photograph. This takes 4 to 6 weeks. This "FOID" card is the direct descendent of the Nazi "Firearm Acquisition Permit" (Waffenerwerbschein), concealed carry permits are generally not available. No special permit is needed to transport a firearm from home to a target range if it is locked in the trunk of a car.

In Massachusetts, a "FOID" (Waffenerwerbscheine) card is necessary to own a firearm. To transport a pistol, even in a locked gun case in a locked trunk requires a "carry permit," the direct descendant of the Nazi "Firearm Carry Permit" (Waffenschein). To get this permit, or a permit for general concealed carry, three (3) letters of reference are required, as is a safety course at applicant's cost, a test of one's knowledge of firearm law, and a talk with the chief of police. The chief of police may still withhold the permit. If he agrees to issue the permit, the applicant is then finger printed.

In New Jersey, an applicant must first get a "Firearm Purchaser Identification Card" (Waffenerwerbschein), which requires finger printing. There is a special document for would be handgun owners, the "Permit to Purchase a Handgun." It is valid for 90 days, (extendable for 90 days for "good cause") and only for one handgun. Copies of this permit must be sent to the issuing authority (the local police) and the state police; the seller keeps a copy and the purchaser keeps a copy. Concealed carry permits (Waffenschein) are only rarely issued and are valid for no more than 2 years. A "justifiable need" must be shown, but the term is not defined. The local police chief must approve it. His approval is reviewed by the Court in the applicants county of residence.

For the Nazis, society was the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consisted in using individuals as instruments for its social ends. Individuals rights were only recognized in so far as they were implied in the rights of the state. The state was conceived as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the state. The Nazi state was viewed as an embodied will to power and government. The Nazi's ruled under Police Power. The essential method of the police power is that of regulation, restriction, or prohibition, but not that of taking for public use. This power or means is used where the government does not desire ownership of anything, but wishes rather to control the conduct of individuals. Sometimes regulation is much easier when a license is required. Some courts here in America have held that the taking of a few dollars for licenses, the primary purpose not being revenue, is an exercise of the police power. The courts have held that where "regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking." In operation, it may be defined as the power of the state (government) to regulate the conduct of individuals to the point of complete prohibition of certain acts of conduct or even to the destruction of the things involved. This belief in the police power is the theory that animates a number of dictatorial and totalitarian regimes throughout the world today.

The Nazi Doctrine rejected the whole idea of democracy and representative government. Rules of morality do not apply to the state or to its workers when serving the state (absolute immunity). Fraud, treachery, torture, even murder, are right if committed in the interest of the state (Waco, Texas). The people, incapable of governing, must be led by an "elite," a group or party that is able to seize and to hold power. Freedom of speech, press, thought, and religion must not be permitted; they are foolish democratic ideas, like elections and representative government. The state is not simply a means to attain the welfare of men. Instead it uses men to achieve its higher purpose, and that purpose is nothing less than power, power and more power. To avoid war and seek peace is only democratic weakness. War is the very life of the state in Nazi doctrine. As strange as it may appear, Nazi ideas have been imported into the United States, and have found secret as well as open and avowed recruits among both ordinary American citizens and many elected officials. One need only look to Washington D.C., as well as to elected public servants in the Union States, where you can find many supporters of the Nazi Doctrine.


National Gun Registration - Paving the Road to Tyranny
Miguel A. Faria Jr., M.D.
Friday, Aug. 31, 2001 

Georg Hegel (1770-1831), the father of dialectical idealism, which Karl Marx transmogrified and misappropriated as dialectical materialism, lamented that what we learn from history is that man does not learn its lessons! Despite what we have learned about the deleterious effects of draconian gun control in other countries, particularly during the last bloody century, politicians with authoritarian leanings, mostly Democrats but also some Republicans, continue to beat the drums calling for more gun control.

Gun control features prominently in the police state designs of totalitarian states with which any student of history is familiar. Take for instance:

Federalization of the police force with a vast network of surveillance and informants to spy on citizens.

National identification cards for all citizens.

Civilian disarmament via gun registration, licensing, followed by banning and confiscation of firearms.

Once this mechanism of oppression is firmly in place, persecution and elimination of political opponents follows, and every social, political and economic policy the Total State desires can be implemented. This has happened in National Socialist states such as Nazi Germany, Fascist states such as Italy under Mussolini, and Communist powers such as the former Soviet Union (and its satellites behind the Iron Curtain) and Red China.

It is therefore astonishing and disturbing Americans have been assailed in the last several years by politicians putting forth dangerous proposals leading to the construction of the type of freedom-eroding scaffold which is anathema to the individual liberties our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us as responsible citizens capable of self-governance.

Construction of this scaffold reaching up to an authoritarian tower is the case with several bills that were introduced in Congress in 2000, all of which could be reintroduced in this Congress, requiring that all "qualifying firearms" in the hands of law-abiding citizens be registered. One of them is Sen. Dianne Feinstein's, D-Calif., bill, S-2525, also sponsored by Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.

This dangerous proposal requires that all persons be fingerprinted, licensed with passport-size photographs, and forced to reveal certain personal information as conditions for licensure. As the measure itself elaborates, "It is in the national interest and within the role of the federal government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the states, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know to use and safely store their firearms."

Another such bill is that proposed by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., S-2099, mandating gun owners to, likewise, register their firearms (in essence, establish a national gun registry), and treats handguns, for purposes of federal statue, like machine guns, short barrel shotguns, grenades and other specialized weapons. It gives gun owners one year to register all handguns. This will be effected by a vigorous public campaign funded by the taxpayers, as is already the case in Canada today.

The Canadian experience itself is instructive. Lorne Gunter, in the Edmonton Journal (Oct. 13, 2000), reveals the Canadian Outreach program to register all gun owners is falling short. The result and cost of this Outreach campaign not only has failed to bring in the expected 1.4 million gun owners (to only one-third of that, 486,000), but it has exceeded the projected price tag. The latest estimates project the cost of the registry from December 1998 through March 2001 at $600 million, seven times the original estimate of $85 million," Gunter wrote.

Americans, and now Canadians, have pointed out that rather than helping track criminals and their guns as claimed, registration of firearms is dangerous to the liberties of law-abiding citizens, and as we shall see, counterproductive against criminals.

Gun Registration and Tyranny

Unbeknownst to many Americans, who having seen and experienced mostly the goodness of America, gun registration is the gateway to civilian disarmament, which often precedes genocide. In the monumental book "Lethal Laws," published by Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, we learn that authoritarian governments that conducted genocide and mass killings of their own populations, first disarmed their citizens. The recipe for accomplishing this goal went as follows: demonizing of guns, registration, then banning and confiscation, and finally total civilian disarmament. Enslavement of the people then followed with limited resistance, as was the case in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, Cuba and other totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.

Frequently, when presented with these deadly chronicles and the perilous historic sequence - namely, that gun registration is followed by banning, confiscation, civilian disarmament and, ultimately, by authoritarianism - naïve Americans opine that it cannot happen here.

As to the dangers of licensing of gun owners and registration of firearms, they frequently retort, "If you don't have anything to hide, then you don't have anything to fear!" Followed by, "I see nothing wrong with gun registration because we have to do something; there are just too many guns out there that fall into the wrong hands." This is not only a naïve but also a dangerous attitude because governments have a penchant to accrue power at the expense of the liberties of individual citizens. Civilian disarmament is not only dangerous to one's liberties but also counterproductive in achieving safety.

This has been further attested by two other great books. One is University of Hawaii professor R.J. Rummel's "Death by Government" (1994). The other book is Stéphane Courtois' "The Black Book of Communism" (1999). These books make it clear authoritarianism and totalitarianism are dangerous to the health of humanity. During the 20th century, an excess of 100 million people were killed by their own governments bent on destroying liberty and building socialism and collectivism.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the danger of tyranny. Thomas Jefferson had admonished us long ago, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

I can personally testify that when Cubans lost their guns in 1959, they also lost their ability to regain freedom. Thus today, Cubans on the other side of the Florida Strait remain enslaved in what was supposed to have been the dream of a socialist utopia, the ultimate Caribbean Worker's Paradise. What they ended up with was the nightmare of a police state in a communist island prison.

Although with the new administration in Washington, registration may not be a politically viable option, other freedom-eroding measures remain a real concern, particularly if they continue to be passed, hidden in the voluminous legislation passed by Congress year after year. Americans must remain informed and vigilant to preserve their sacred tradition and their liberties and prevent enactment of piecemeal gun control legislation, e.g., closing of gun shows with burdensome regulations, rationing lawful gun purchases, and the banning of the importation of certain magazines and firearm accessories, etc. Gun control should be directed against criminals and felons, and should best be referred to as crime control rather than gun control.

Registration and the Law

Another fact Americans need to understand is that registration is directed to law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Not only do convicted criminals by definition fail to obey the law, but they are constitutionally protected against any registration requirement. In Haynes vs. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled 7-1 that compelling registration by those who may not lawfully possess firearms amounts to a violation of the Fifth Amendment's proscription against forced self-incrimination. In other words, the court said that if someone "realistically can expect that registration [of a firearm] will substantially increase the likelihood of his prosecution," the registration requirement is unconstitutional.

Astonishingly as it may sound, some courts have ruled that registration of firearms only applies to lawful citizens, not to felons. This has been pointed out by Legal scholar Don B. Kates in "Firearms and Violence - Issues of Public Policy" (1984; pp. 14-21) mentioning, for example, the Kastigar vs. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972) decision. Does exemption of felons from gun registration sound irrational? It certainly does! Were gun registration to be implemented in the United States, criminals and felons could very well not be expected to register their weapons, since they are already felons proscribed from legally owning firearms. Requiring them to register their guns, some courts may opine, would necessarily incriminate them, and this would violate their Fifth Amendment rights.

Although with the new administration in Washington, registration may not be a politically viable option, other freedom-eroding measures remain a real concern, particularly if they continue to be passed, hidden in the voluminous legislation passed by Congress year after year. Americans must remain informed and vigilant to preserve their sacred tradition and their liberties and prevent enactment of piecemeal gun control legislation, e.g., closing of gun shows with burdensome regulations, rationing lawful gun purchases, and the banning of the importation of certain magazines and firearm accessories, etc. Gun control should be directed against criminals and felons, and should best be referred to as crime control rather than gun control.

In short, with the historically crucial and potentially fatal issue of progressive civilian disarmament, perhaps, we should once again summon the words of our wise Founders; this time those echoed by Jefferson's fellow Virginian, Richard Henry Lee ("Letters from the Federal Farmer," 1788): "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Yes, the easiest way to enslave citizens is to disarm them.

Dr. Miguel A. Faria Jr. is the editor-in-chief of Medical Sentinel, the official journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, author of "Vandals at the Gates of Medicine: Historic Perspectives on the Battle Over Health Care Reform" (1995) and "Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine" (Macon, Ga., Hacienda Publishing Inc., 1997). He is a contributor to and a columnist for Advance copies of his book, "Cuba in Revolution - Escape From a Lost Paradise," will be available in the fall 2001.


Firearms save more lives than they cost?