Back Home Next

Will We Follow the Rat-musicians for A New Gun Control Law? -- 12/09/1999
The Second British Invasion -- 3/21/00


Will We Follow the Rat-musicians for A New Gun Control Law?

by Victor John Serge


The main premise, which the Founders put into the foundation of the Constitution was that people will pursue their self-interests, and no "paper-barrier" (like a law, or a bill of rights, or even a constitution) would be a sufficient check on those self-seeking individuals, unless their interests would match and a major interest that defines the ruling majority would emerge.

And what is the major interest of ours? What is that glue that unites the majority of us into a great society? Isn't it a self-preservation? And if it is so, then, is the hand-gun not the "great equalizer" that can equate the power of the biggest man and the smallest woman, and preserve the latter from the former? If this is true, then why do we so often check upon our ability to protect ourselves? And from whom or from what? From the muggers? From the Russian bureaucrats? From own bureaucrats? Or from the guns and cigarettes?

That is the question and that is probably from where all that whining and screaming about "gun and drug violence" is derived as if the guns or drugs are animated and can go around shouting us by themselves or can sit down and light and inhale themselves. Those of us who seek self-preservation in the absence of guns and drugs are either absentminded or just playing stupid. The third possibility is that they are very shrewd and know precisely what they are doing when they are black-mailing the "free" manufacturers of the "free" world.

I cannot help the first category of the people -- I am not a doctor. The third category does not need my advice -- they think they know precisely where the cheese is, and they follow their perverted interest like those rats that followed the magic flute-player to their own extermination; so, my advice would be considered only as another obstacle for them. Therefore, I can facilitate the hard labor of learning only for those who are playing stupid or lazy-minded.

Leaving the question "from what should we protect ourselves?" to the nuts and rats, I will try to answer the question, "from whom should we protect ourselves?"

There were two main problems that the Founders solved so gloriously: 1) how the bureaucrats could control and keep order between the commoners and among themselves and 2) how the commoners could control the bureaucrats.

How could the bureaucrats control the commoners and themselves? The self-interest that leads people to unite in the groups by an interest and strive for a monopoly or the majority rule in this particular interest, if properly harnessed by the appropriate constitutional (organizational) arrangement, would provide a source of unity and stability of an open society, that would have a plenty of different groups with competing interests which are the guarantee of liberty for all. This harnessing was to be accomplished by dividing the branches of any organization (including the federal bureaucracy) among many bureaucrats and by giving them the necessary means and personal motives to resist encroachments of others upon their domain. Thus self-interest could prevent one group, one organization, from gathering all the political and economical power into its hands.

By dividing power between the state bureaucracy and the federal bureaucracy, one level of government can be a check upon the other. One group may come to dominate a government (or its part or a corporation) at one time, and a different group may dominate it at another time. The pulling and hauling among these groups would prevent any group from dominating all of the bureaucracy.

How could the commoners control the bureaucrats? The proper way to keep the bureaucrats in check while still leaving them strong enough to perform their essential duty (to keep order between the self-seeking commoners) is to allow the self-interest of any individual to check upon the self-interest of another individual or organization. The real problem is how can an individual control an organization (that is considerably stronger than he or she) without "keeping and bearing Arms?"

The citizens who possess the Arms can physically assert their Rights, and not only complain to the bureaucrats about a violation of their rights by those same bureaucrats. The difference between those citizens who possess the arms and those who only possess the right for the arms is the same difference as the difference between practice and theory. An armed citizen can exercise his/her rights, while a disarmed commoner can only moan and whine into the vest of a bureaucrat.

Gun control advocates usually emphasize the first part of the 2nd Amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." - which tells us only about a right of the state bureaucrats to resist the encroachments of the federal bureaucrats upon their local domain. However, the second part - "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - tells us that our right to resist the unlawful actions of anybody, either a bureaucrat or another commoner, "shall not be infringed" neither by that bureaucrat nor by that commoner.

Failing to divert our attention from the second part of the 2nd Amendment, the gun control advocates go on to argue about scholastic interpretations of "defensive and offensive (assault) weapons;" but, and on this ground, their il-logic failed to overcome the common sense, which tells us that even a fork or a frying pan can be an assault weapon under certain circumstances.

The liberals usually do not buy the argument of the ex-Nazis, that the latter were only the instrument and had to execute the Jews in order not to be executed themselves. These liberals would cry foul, with the lather around their mouths, about the "free will" and "responsibility for the deeds of any adult and sane individual". However, when the same liberals stumble about the gun control issue, their right hand wouldn't know what their left hand is doing. The liberals usually forget about their previous rationale and would try to saddle their ir-rational horse. If those German Jews wouldn't have listened to the liberals back then and wouldn't have exchanged their guns for toys, they would probably be alive today. But there is no reason for us to jump on the liberal band-wagon, which is going nowhere but Tartar.

Retrospectively, from British history, the right to bear arms was widely accepted in the 18th century and having been recognized in the British common law since before the Norman Conquest in 1066. Not only were the Brits allowed to possess arms, they were required to do so because Britain depended on the citizen's militia for its defense. Then, in 1328, when the threat from outside was diminished, Parliament placed limits on the right. The early restrictions were very innocent, like the prohibition to carry weapons in public, but, gradually, the bureaucrats  had restricted gun ownership to themselves, leaving the commoners unarmed. The Stuart kings further limited gun ownership, allowing only their supporters to possess weapons. And you know what kind of oppressions then followed.

The Founders conceived the armed citizenry as a necessary bar against tyranny from without, as well as from within; they saw the right to keep and bear arms as the material basis, on which the ideological basis (free speech) of the free citizenry can be founded for the centuries to come. On the contrary, the first decree of the Russian communistic bureaucrats was a decree about disarmament of the citizens. Any person, in whose possession was found an unlicensed fire-arm was to be punished by imprisonment or exile to Siberia for 10 to 20 years. There was no requirement for a warrant, and a slight suspicion of such possession was enough to ruin a commoner's life. Then, as you may know, came Orwell's 1984.

Statistics is a stubborn thing, and according to it, for the past two centuries the Americans lost 1.5 million people, because they had the guns; for the 80 years of the communistic regime, the Russians lost 50 million -- 12 million on the battlefields and the rest in the GULAG, because the Russian commoners had no guns to curb own bureaucrats. In the 20th century, the world lost 30 million on the battlefields and 150 million to their own bureaucrats.

To have... or not to have a gun, you decide, and that will be your price of the ticket to Freedom, but know that the bureaucrats and their Rat-musicians always try to sell it to the highest bidder, and those commoners who have the guns are always the customers and those who have not -- are always the commodities (what slaves are).

12/09/1999


The Second British Invasion


The Brits and the rest of the European liberals have long planned how to take over the world. The implementation of their imperialistic plan consists of three stages: 1) to take control over Europe; 2) to take control over North America; and 3) to take control over the rest of the world. Each of these stages consists of three phases, which can intertwine and go along with each other: a) to repeal the constitutional right of the minority to carry arms in order to protect their rights against the possible abuses of the majority; b) to take control over the firearms industry; and c) to disarm all of the citizens, except the bureaucrats.

By the year 1996, the European liberals were largely in control over the vast majority of European countries and could fearlessly transfer the gist of their efforts onto American soil, where they have had their own fifth column since the 1930's.

From the times of FDR, the Democratic establishment has been jealously eyeballing gun owners and the Second Amendment right of Americans as the main obstacle to their total control over the country. In April of 1999, the Democratic establishment and the Clinton-Gore administration identified explicitly their archenemy as "another culture in our country that … has gotten confused about its objectives, (the) huge hunting and sport shooting culture in America." Thereafter, they openly declared war on American gun owners.

In March of 2000, the Democratic establishment tasted the first fruit of their efforts, when Smith & Wesson, Inc. (S&W) became the first in the firearms industry that surrendered to their mercy. The British-based Corporation, TOMKINS PLC, is the owner of S&W, and it would like to sell its American subsidiary to the highest bidder because the executives at Tomkins PLC expect that America will soon follow the European lead.

The subjects of the Britain crown have no Second Amendment right and are barred from owning handguns and many long guns, which might protect them from the potential abuses of the bureaucracy. The same story applies to the vast majority of other European counties, in which the liberal establishment is firmly ruling over its subjects, without giving them any guarantee against their own potential abuses of power. Consequently, the executives at Tomkins PLC guess that to be a government supplier of handguns would hardly be a profitable business, therefore, S&W should be sold wholesale to the highest bidder as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the executives of S&W retail our Second Amendment right to the Democratic establishment.

On March 17, the CEO of S&W, Ed Schultz signed chicken-heartedly an agreement with the Departments of the Treasury and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to put gun locks on their firearms in exchange for which the latter dropped their frivolous lawsuits against the company. Although Schultz likes to say that he is not "willing to be a pawn in a political chess game," by signing this sweeping compact with the liberal bureaucrats, Schultz has become precisely that. His British employers manipulated him into executing a "settlement" with the Clinton-Gore administration that is unjust and unfair to the American public and to democracy all around the globe.

The very next day after the settlement, the Secretary of HUD, Andrew Cuomo and the liberal mayors of Atlanta, Detroit and Miami promised to Schultz to twist their procurement policies and purchase only S&W's guns. Yet the agreement dispenses with only a third of the municipal lawsuits, and binds only two federal agencies and two state attorney generals from filing future frivolous suits. The remaining city suits were not affected by this agreement. Moreover, other state and federal agencies can continue to use the frivolous lawsuits as a giant vacuum cleaner, with which they can suck out without retaliation the rest of freedoms of the firearms industry, including Smith & Wesson. Schultz's action appalled some members of the gun industry and perplexed others. The latter, though knowing that the appeasement strategy is doomed to failure, are bluntly consider joining the capitulation of the Brits.

When the liberal bureaucrats dry out the firearms industry by extorting and bribing the separate agreements from each company, then they will easily repeal the Second Amendment from the American Constitution. Thereafter, they can transfer their attention to the third phase of the second stage of their assault on democracy – the complete disarmament of American public.

The Republican lawmakers and law-abiding citizens should be outraged at this British invasion into our legislative process. However, the liberal media silences the voices of the conscious patriots. That is why the Democrats have been singing and dancing on the White House lawn lately.

The liberals are cheerful because the Brits not only gave away their own rights, but are also trying to influence the rights of licensed American gun dealers and law-abiding gun owners. Of course, making a smoke screen, the liberal media has been locking on formalities -- gun locks and serial numbers. However, the essence of the problem – the right of the citizens to bear arms -- was, as usual, unreported; and that will have a direct impact! on everyone from the gun maker to the consumer. Moreover, as usual for the liberal gun control schemes, only the criminals will remain unaffected.

Details of the agreement that affect law-abiding citizens include rationing gun sales, mandatory testing and bureaucratic mandates of capricious changes to gun design. The Brits have also pledged to control certain behaviors of licensed gun dealers, which they cannot enforce. It is more likely than not that the Clinton-Gore administration will not enforce the nation's tough federal gun laws after this agreement, as it did not enforce them before. Nor does this agreement prevent the bulk of existing frivolous lawsuits or threats of such from other state and federal agencies. It means that the liberals will continue their tactics of demanding more gun control laws while not enforcing them. Moreover, when violence with firearms, instigated by them, will continue, they can say that the laws do not work and it is necessary to get rid of them, all together, including the Second Amendment. Then, because the abstract laws do not work, the slogan will become: we must get rid off all the actual guns. Right, except those of bureaucracy. The previous thought will be gossiping surreptitiously in the liberal inner circles.

Meanwhile, distributors and dealers, who want to continue to sell the products of S&W, will be forced to agree to a wish list of the liberal gun-prohibitionists. The agreement that the liberal bureaucrats extorted from S&W requires the latter to impose some prohibitions on themselves, sellers, and buyers of S&W guns. S&W should thereafter enforce those prohibitions on its own. Among such prohibitions to the buyers are:


No more than one handgun can be bought in a 14-day period.
No firearm purchases allowed without passing an unspecified safety test (inspection).
No firearm purchases allowed without meeting an arbitrary accuracy standard for a self-defense handgun. With a view to severely hamper the production and distribution of such guns.
People are prohibited, if under age 18, from even walking into the firearm section of a sporting goods store unless accompanied by a parent or guardian.

Among the prohibitions to the sellers are:

No selling legal semi-automatic rifles, commonplace ammunition magazines and firearms that do not meet the difficult standards established by the liberal bureaucrats.
No selling firearms at any gun show where any legal private sale is conducted.


Distributors would be required to distribute anti-gun propaganda with every firearm they sell. Such leaflets should be by form -- in large boldface type, and by content -- that hundreds of children die each year from firearm accidents. The White House spin-doctors would again forget to inform the public that their statistical figures include the 16-18 year old juveniles who were killed in gang violence.

Distributors also would be required to carry $1 million in liability insurance and to perform tasks that should be handled by law-enforcement, because the liberal bureaucrats wish to receive salary from the people’s pocket. However, they think that someone else should do their job of enforcing existing laws.

Any manufacturer, who would agree with the liberal bureaucrats and would cave in under their pressure, would be prohibited from marketing firearms in a way that appeals to young shooters and hunters. You tell me what way has no appeal to the youngsters.

Any firearm manufacturer would be required to commit 1% of his annual revenues to an anti-gun propaganda campaign. He also must support legislative efforts to develop "smart" gun technology, and the so-called ballistic fingerprinting of every firearm. All guns would have to meet certain unscientifically defined design standards for handguns sold to civilians. Guns sold to the police and army bureaucrats would be exempted from those standards. Such discrimination betrays the true intent of the liberals -- not to make firearms safer or better, but to impose capricious standards on the producers and sellers and set up the phase for national firearm registration. The latter will be a prelude to the elimination of all firearm sales to private citizens, their complete disarmament, and the total tyranny of bureaucrats.

The true intent of the liberal bureaucrats can be traced through the deeds of the Clinton administration, which have failed for eight years to prosecute the violators of existing gun laws. For instance, a former Black Panther leader once known as H. Rap Brown and now known as Al-Amin was not prosecuted for a gun offense in 1995. In that year, Al-Amin was carrying an unlicensed handgun; he was arrested in Atlanta after a man accused him in an attempted shooting. The latter later recanted his accusations and all charges against Al-Amin were dropped. Although Mr. Al-Amin violated the federal laws and the Clinton administration could have locked him up in a federal penitentiary for ten years, the federal bureaucrats refused to prosecute him.

The last week, Ricky Kinchen, a deputy sheriff in Fulton County, Georgia, and another officer were gunned down when they tried to arrest Mr. Al-Amin for another violation. The leaders of National Rifle Association (NRA) see a strong correlation between a failure of the Clinton administration to enforce existing gun laws and the premature death of one of the officers and the harsh wounds of another.

The president and vice president of the NRA accused the Clinton-Gore administration of neglecting their duties and the having blood of innocent men and women on their hands. The press secretary of the White House was adamantly denying that the administration has been negligent in enforcing gun laws. The press secretary said that nobody believes that, "the president and vice president are responsible for murders," and it is a "sick rhetoric" to accuse them in such repugnant deeds. Concerning the fact that the administration refused to prosecute Mr. Al-Amin for unlawful possession of a firearm, the press secretary of White! House said that, "You probably need to talk to local authorities [because] the vast majority of [such] prosecutions are done at the state and local levels."

It is widely known that the local and state authorities do not prosecute a large portion of such cases because of a lack of financial means for lengthy litigations. Therefore, the locals tend to look to the federal authorities and, if the latter would not pursue the matter, the former would drop it too. Because the federal government is equipped better financially, it could and should prosecute these cases, but it largely does not.

Therefore, the president of NRA, Mr. Heston, said on ABC's "This Week" that, "Rap Brown would be in jail and that sheriff would still be alive… if the Clinton administration had done its job properly."

Rebutting the NRA’s accusations, the White House spin doctor, Bruce Reed said that federal prosecution of gun crime has risen 16 percent since Mr. Clinton took office in 1993. However, the vice president of the NRA, Mr. LaPierre said that federal prosecution of gun crime has dropped 50 percent since the Bush administration.

A law professor of Yale University, John Lot, thinks that both men (Reed and LaPierre) are correct. However, Mr. Reed failed to mention that federal prosecution of gun crime has risen 16 percent for only the first two years of the rule of the Clinton administration. For the following six years, it has dropped more than 60 percent.

Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts, the Chairman of Senate Judiciary Committee, a Republican from Utah, Orrin Hatch said he might strip gun provisions from a juvenile-justice bill that has been stalled in the Senate for months. The Clinton administration wants that this bill to include a 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases at gun shows. However, the Republican and NRA leaders believe that 24 hours would be a sufficient time for a background checking.

The National Rifle Association believes that a meaningful solution to present problems in prosecuting the gun crimes should go along with the implementation of the next measures:


Insist that schools be as safe as airports, with gun-free schools and zero tolerance for violators of the Gun-Free School Zones Act. Of 6,000 students caught at school with guns in the past 2 years, only 13 were federally prosecuted.
Adopt and fund Project Exile nationally, a zero-tolerance policy tested and proven to immediately cut crime and save lives because every violent felon caught with a gun goes to jail for 5 years, period. Provide $50 million for the necessary investigators and prosecutors to implement Project Exile nationwide, plus $25 million to build awareness of it.
Fund the Eddie Eagle® safety program, the most effective gun accident prevention program in existence, for every elementary classroom in America. It has already reached 11 million children, and gun accident rates are the lowest in history.
Restore full and permanent funding for the National Instant Check System. And when a felon tries to buy a gun, prosecute him. None have been prosecuted in the past 3 years.
Close the Hinckley loophole by making records of people adjudicated mentally incompetent available to the National Instant Check System. Insanity like John Hinckley's would not prevent a gun purchase today, because most mental records are invisible to the system.
Stop ignoring lawbreakers who illegally provide guns to juveniles. Only 11 were federally prosecuted in the past 2 years. Arrest them and lock them up.
Stop releasing juvenile criminals caught with guns. Only 11 were federally prosecuted in the past 2 years.
Bar all juveniles convicted of violent felonies from owning guns for life.
Hold adults responsible for willfully and recklessly allowing access to firearms.
Keep criminal records of violent juveniles open indefinitely, not expunged at 18 in the middle of a crime spree.
Stop ignoring easy access to firearms by convicted felons through straw purchasers. Only 37 were federally prosecuted in the past 2 years.
Admit that Right To Carry works. Properly permitted citizens who pass the background checks and training courses not only deserve that right but are a proven deterrent to crime. Abuse is nonexistent. Though very few actually choose to carry a gun, criminals do not know which few they are.
We believe in absolute adherence to the law at gun shows and will consider instant checks there when, and only when, this Administration stops demanding new gun taxes and stops illegally compiling and retaining the records of millions of lawful gun buyers.
We support and encourage the distribution and use of safety locks, trigger locks, gun safes or any voluntary means necessary and appropriate to keep firearms away from, or inoperable by, those who shouldn't have them.
We oppose waiting periods because they constitute prior restraint upon the law-abiding citizens. We oppose specified magazine capacities because the behavior of criminals is not influenced by what the law says the law-abiding citizens may carry that many bullets, magazines, guns, bombs or anything else.
We oppose one-gun-a-month schemes because once there is authority to say one, there will eventually be authority to say none. Most importantly, none of these proposals has any proven relationship to the criminal misuse of firearms.

The NRA has invested tens of millions of dollars teaching childhood accident prevention, promoting firearm safety, educating hunters, training police instructors, and funding the startup of Project Exile around the country. This is far more than the federal government, the media community, or other citizens' groups combined. The National Rifle Association believes that more firearm legislation, which is passed with no intention of enforcing it, is a dangerous fraud perpetrated upon the safety of the American people.

All of the above mentioned measures that the NRA suggests to resolve gun crime problems sound good and reasonable. However, they will likely fall on the deaf ears of those Americans who believe such liberal propagandists as Chuck Schumer and Barney Frank. The latter argue that guns are no better than cars, and therefore, must be licensed and inspected as cars.

The liberals consider this argument the paramount of their logic. It is a pity, but the Republicans could not offer, so far, a reasonable rebuttal to that argument. Consequently, in public debates, the Republicans tend to evade direct confrontation on this topic, thus losing the ground under their feet on the entire Second Amendment issue.

The fallacy of the liberal association of guns with cars can be seen not from the small frame of the Second Amendment, but from the big picture of the entire Bill of Rights and Constitution. The Bill of Rights was created as a small list of the most essential rights of any minority. Using these essential rights, a minority can curb the potential abuses of the majority while still leaving the latter strong enough to implement its main interest – to keep order between citizens so that the society can survive.

In that end, guns are essential to society’s survival, and cars are not. That is why the Framers of our Constitution did not mention any four-wheel vehicle as a must have mean to preserve society. That is why all governmental inspections of private guns and their licensing are unjust and unfair. Besides, licensing the guns implies that the majority (with its bureaucracy) permits to minority to have guns, but the minority already has such a license by the Second Amendment. Why do we need a license upon a license? What is next, a license upon a license upon a license? Therefore, the comparison of guns with cars is bogus and serves no other purpose as to destroy the American society for the sake of the Global Empire of the Liberals.

There already are 20,000 federal gun laws and regulations on the books. If those laws have not made you feel safe by now, why do you think 20,001 laws will be enough? Or is it just a placebo that bring you a temporal relieve from your fear, which will certainly return tomorrow?

Instead of patching the archaic construction of gun control regulations, the commoners should recognize that the multitude of them is the primary cause of the current level of violence. This multitude of regulations, which can be understood only a few highly paid lawyers, have made us and our children much less safe -- by disarming law-abiding citizens and encouraging armed criminals to take advantage of us. By definition, law-breakers do not obey laws. Hardened criminals do whatever is necessary to evade identification and arrest. So, they do not buy or register guns that can be traced; they simply steal them. Therefore, the gun control laws do not apply to criminals or stop gun violence, but they definitely multiply our bureaucracy and taxes. They simply make it much harder for innocent people to defend themselves, thus encouraging criminals to take advantage of us. Consequently, the commoners should level the ground, repeal all those twisted and unnecessary super-structures of law, and return to the fundamental principle of the 2nd Amendment.

Once more let's take a brief look at how the various kinds of gun control laws jeopardize your safety.

Waiting period means that a woman being stalked will have to remain defenseless for a few extra days. Can you guarantee her that she will be alive and unhurt till the waiting period is over?

Background check for buyer should take no more time than the check of his-her credit card, because no criminal wanted by law enforcement agencies is going to buy a gun in a way that requires a background check, either through credit or rap sheet reports. A criminal will rather steal a gun. So, the only result of a buyer's background check (longer than the credit card check) is inconvenience for law-abiding citizens.

Registration of hand-gun would achieve nothing positive, because criminals won't register their guns. Only law-abiding citizens will register their guns. So, if a registered gun, stolen from its owner in Los Angeles would help a criminal to murder a woman in New York, how this information will hell the police to catch that murderer? Your common sense should tell you that the only reasonable scenario, where the registration will work, is the transitional period from republican freedoms to monarchical tyranny. Only in this case scenario, gun registration will help the bureaucrats to confiscate the means of defense of the middle-class against armed to the teeth would-be tyrants.

Licensing of gun possession do not help find the predator, since criminals do not lawfully buy guns. Such a licensing is simply a surreptitious invasion of commoners' privacy by the bureaucrats.

Safety locks might prevent a child from accidentally firing a gun. However, they also can slow you down when you need a gun in a hurry to defend yourself. Imagine a woman attacked by a rapist in an elevator. Will you guarantee her that she will manage to unlock her gun just in time? Do you honestly believe that her assailant will have safely locked gun too?

Requiring guns to be locked up and kept out of reach of children means direct invasion of your privacy, because such a requirement should be enforced somehow. But the question is -- how? There are already other thousands of laws about parental responsibility that cannot be enforced. Will the police invade our houses periodically to verify that our guns are in safety boxes? If such "inspections" make you puke, then, what is the point of such a law?

Banning some types of guns, as "assault" weapons or mortars, might seem reasonable. The majority of the commoners do not need such weapons. However, during most riots, the police have been outnumbered and have stayed away of looting and vandalizing gangs. The Los Angeles Korean shop-keepers know it too well, when the life savings of thousands of them were looted and more than 50 of them paid the ultimate price. Suppose you are a small business owner and you have little or no insurance because your store is in a poor and dangerous section of town. How will you defend the store against a crowd of looters? With a kitchen knife or a purse pistol? Or with an "assault" weapon?

If the commoners will limit themselves in the choice of weaponry, criminals will still have them -- even if they have to smuggle them into America from Russia or China. So, attempts to limit gun ownership will only increase the dependency of commoners on the political bureaucrats, rather than to reduce crime. Then, what is the point in self disarming?

The only effective crime policy is trying to have as few laws regulating the ownership of guns as possible (because multiple laws on a subject are always confusing) and prosecuting vigorously anyone who intrudes on a person's life or property -- with or without arms (because even legs might be a weapon).

Disarmed citizens encourage crime and violence. Armed citizens prevent some citizens to turn into criminals.

3/21/00


[email protected]

Home editorial demise dead or alive free_speech abortion electoral_coll gun_control monopoly money social_security spy_who_douse_me star_wars tax_reform war_on_drugs others mymaxims photos content biography offer appendix deutsch francais espanol russian

Hit Counter


Victor J. Serge created this page and revised it on 04/13/03