YOU ARE NOW ON

THE CUTTING EDGE

NEWS BRIEF:  "The scene -- of a gunman, police and terrified children -- was all too tragically familiar.  Yet another shooting in a usually placid American place, this time a day-care center in Los Angeles, raises an urgent question:  is no one safe?  A Special Report on guns and violence in America." Newsweek Special Report:  America Under The Gun: What Must Be Done; Protecting Your Kids", August 23, 1999, p. 20+.

In all cases of Problem Solving, you must take several separate steps.

1.  You must properly identify the problem.

2.  You must seek workable solutions to the problem at hand. You must examine all aspects of possible solutions, even those that are not "politically correct".

3.  You must ensure that the solution will not also produce another set of problems that just might be worse than the original problem.

4.  You must make sure that the solution does not break any laws and will be accepted by the citizens of the society.

This Newsweek article fails to go through most of these steps, leaving out a couple of concepts that just so happen to be the ones that would really solve the problem and would leave American society more free and more secure than before. 

Remember, Newsweek is part of the Liberal Press that is increasingly strident in its support of the New World Order, planned to be the most dictatorial regime in the history of the world.  Since all dictatorships of the world disarm their people immediately, we must understand that, before the Americans can be enslaved by this new system, they must be disarmed.

Since 90 million Americans own 200 million guns, this task is formidable.  Certainly, no invading force could possibly go house to house to confiscate these guns without planning on taking prohibitive casualties.  Therefore, a plan has been developed that would turn the 100 million adults that do not own a gun against gun ownership.  What better plan than to start shooting innocent children, public school children, Jews and minorities?  Then, if you can successfully blame the inanimate gun for all this carnage, you can make the case that guns are the problem, and need to be outlawed.  If any of you do not believe this is the ultimate goal, you need to think again.  Outright confiscation of guns is the #1 goal of this insidious plan.

NEWSWEEK PROPERLY IDENTIFIES THE PROBLEM

"GUNS AND THEIR DEADLY TOLL: In a terrible season of killing, suspects have been driven by hate, rage, and inexplicable demons.  They had one thing in common: firepower."

LOS ANGELES, CA. 8/10/99 --" WEAPONS :  Uzi semiautomatic, Glock 9mm handgun.  BUFORD O. FURROW, JR ., 37, a white-supremacist, opened fire at a Jewish community center, wounding three children, a teenager, and a 68-year-old receptionist.  He later shot and killed a postal worker" [who was Hispanic].

PELHAM, ALA., 8/5/99 -- "WEAPON: 40-caliber Glock semi-automatic handgun. ALAN EUGENE MILLER, 34, allegedly shot two co-workers to death at their office.  Authorities say he then killed a third man who worked at a company from which Miller had been fired earlier this year."

ATLANTA, GA., 7/29/99 -- "WEAPONS:  Glock 9mm pistol, Colt .45 pistol, 22-caliber Raven pistol, ,22-caliber Harrington and Richardson revolver. MARK BARTON, 44, shot and killed nine and wounded 13 after bludgeoning his wife and two children to death."

ILLINOIS AND INDIANA, 7/2/99 - 7/4/99 -- WEAPONS: Bryco .380 handgun, .22 caliber Ruger pistol. BENJAMIN NATHANIEL SMITH, 21, a white-supremacist, killed two people and injured nine in a racially motivated three-day rampage before shooting himself."

CONYERS, GA., 5/20/99 -- "WEAPONS: 22-caliber rifle, .357-magnum revolver. T.J. SOLOMON, 15, is charged with entering Heritage High School and opening fire.  Six students were injured ..."

LITTLETON, CO., 4/20/99 -- "WEAPONS: TEC-DC9 handgun, sawed-off double-barreled shotgun, pump-action shot-gun, 9mm semi-automatic rifle. ERIC HARRIS, 18, AND DYLAN KLEBOLD, 17, killed 12 students and a teacher [13 people total] and wounded 23 others before shooting themselves in the library at Columbine High School."

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 4/14/99 -- WEAPON: .22-caliber Ruger. SERGEI BABARIN, 70, a schizophrenic, allegedly killed a woman and a security guard and wounded four others at the Mormon Family Museum Library.  He was fatally shot by police as they attempted to apprehend him."

WASHINGTON, D.C., 7/24/98 -- WEAPON: .38-caliber Smith & Wesson revolver.  RUSSELL EUGENE (RUSTY) WESTON, 41, is accused of killing a policeman and a federal guard, as well as wounding a female visitor, while charging the Capitol building.  He was seriously wounded in an exchange of gunfire." [This is the only one of this group of 12 shooters who knowingly attacked a place guarded by men with guns.]

SPRINGFIELD, OR., 5/21/98 -- WEAPONS:  .22-caliber Ruger semi-automatic rifle, Glock 9mm pistol.  KIPLAND KINKEL, 15, allegedly killed two Thurston High School students and shot 22 others. He is also charged with killing his parents the day before.

JONESBORO, AR., 3/24/98 -- WEAPONS: Remington .30-'06 rifle, .44-caliber Ruger, Smith & Wesson .38 revolver, Remington 742, Universal .30-caliber rifle.  MITCHELL JOHNSON, 13, and ANDREW GOLDEN , 11, are charged with killing a teacher and four schoolmates, and wounding 10 others."

PADUCAH, KY., 12/1/97 -- WEAPON: .22-caliber Ruger pistol. MICHAEL CARNEAL, 14, a B student and the son of a successful lawyer, is charged with firing 12 shots at a prayer group in Heath High School, killing three students and wounding five others just after the assembly recited its final 'Amen'."

PEARL, MISS., 10/1/97 -- WEAPON: .30-caliber hunting rifle. LUKE WOODHAM, 16, stabbed his mother to death and then drove to Pearl High School, where he opened fire, killing two students, including his ex-girlfriend, and wounding seven others.  He has been sentenced to life in prison."

This list is quite extensive and filled with infamy.  We have seen 12 major shootings, most in public schools, in a 22-month period.  Americans are getting sick and tired of these types of shootings, as well as they should be, and more people than ever are seeing gun ownership and National Rifle Association [NRA] as being as much of the problem as the deranged people described in this list.

As a result, Congress is passing legislation that is unprecedented in scope, and is supported in some of the provisions thought radical by the NRA! Since the focus of these Newsweek articles on the terrible shootings in America and what can be done about it, let us review their recommendations.

NEWSWEEK'S GENERAL PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT

"If we separate legend from history, guns can be seen not just as inviolate relics of the Revolution, but as what they are:  products.  And products are something we often need to regulate ... It's time to apply consumer-product safety standards to firearms." [p. 24]

"We should always be wary of relying upon government, but it's reasonable to weigh the Second Amendment against the common good and risk more bureaucracy; even property owners have to submit to zoning." [Ibid.]

The fallacy of the first philosophical statement, above, is that guns are not dangerous when wielded by responsible law-abiding adults that are not using the guns in an illegal manner.  The Rush Limbaugh show in early August, after the Atlanta massacre, kept repeating the FBI statistic that says that 98% of all guns owned by Americans are never used in the commission of a crime.  Yet, Americans intent upon ensuring that the ownership of guns will not stand in the way of the coming dictatorial New World Order, are successfully pushing the nonsensical idea that outlawing the 98% ownership will result in the 2% usage going away!  Further, not one of these horrible shootings would have been prevented by any of the new proposals now before Congress.

The fallacy of the second philosophical statement, above, is that the person who would make such a statement that at least part of the Second Amendment be amended to allow governmental control, are not the least aware of history.  When you read this second comment, you will notice that the authors believe that the only risk to amending the Second Amendment comes from having to increase the bureaucracy!

How naive, how silly, and how ignorant of history this statement truly is.  Our Forefathers who crafted our Constitution were painfully aware of the terrible atrocities committed against their own citizens by the Kings of England and Europe.  Our Forefathers were bound and determined that Americans would never be subject to a dictatorship where the king held absolute sway.  The blood that had flowed from European and British monarchs in the 1,000 years before the birth of America was as wide and deep as any river that has ever flowed on this earth. 

Further, such murder was usually accompanied by beatings and tortures of the helpless victims.  Our wise Forefathers were determined that American citizens would never be helpless in the face of a tyrannical ruler.  The Second Amendment was their weapon to keep an American tyrant from ever arising to afflict Americans.  We have to resist mightily the continuous efforts to tamper with this amendment, and all others that are under attack today.  We can afford no compromise, none whatsoever, even the ones that seem innocuous.

We must bear in mind that the real risk to tampering with the Second Amendment is that we will be enslaved.  I almost laugh out loud at the suggestion that the main risk of changing the Second Amendment is that we will "suffer" an increased bureaucracy!  I would laugh, too, if the consequences of believing such nonsense were not so serious, and so personal.

NEWSWEEK'S CONCRETE PROPOSALS

1.  Require background checks on all sales and transfers -- This article claims that the Brady Bill has kept "hundreds of thousands of felons and other prohibited users from buying guns at a legitimate source".  This statement may almost sound true from a surface reading.  The key words are "buying guns" and "legitimate source".  Criminals almost never "buy" a gun, they simply steal the ones they need.  Further, criminals never utilize a "legitimate" source; they just use illegitimate ones.  Even the Newsweek authors admit, at the end of their article, that background checks would not keep someone intent on murder from obtaining a gun secretly.

Remember this: Our society is much better off having 12 shooting incidents over a 22 month period that killed 47 innocent people, than to be subject to a dictatorial government that goes on a rampage, imprisoning 12 million of its subjects, and killing 470,000 of them, over  the same 22 months.  If you laugh at this possibility, you need to carefully consider the 50 million Russians and the 100 million Chinese, killed by their Communist masters. The coming New World Order is a cousin to Communism and plans on eliminating two-thirds of the total population of the world,  4 billion people. 

But, for now, the 200 million guns owned by 90 million Americans stands in the way of this planned dictatorial government being implemented.  I have read of some estimates that any hostile army that would take our guns away house by house, would have to contend with 10 million casualties.  This prohibitive figure is the reason we are seeing such a push to get Americans to voluntarily hand over their guns.

2.  Enforce the laws that are on the books -- This proposal makes sense, and it is the only one that does.  Since America has over 20,000 laws currently on the books regulating guns, and most of them are leniently enforced, we should strictly enforce the ones we now have before creating new ones. Have you ever heard someone say, "There ought to be a law against ____?"  Too many Americans equate passing a law against something with solving that problem.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

In a related article, a Democratic advisor to Robert Kennedy, Robert Shrum, says, "All we're saying -- all we have to say -- is that further gun control can help."  What nonsense!  Every one of the proposals for further gun control being advanced by both Democrat and Republican today would have failed to prevent any of these 12 shootings.  Yet, this statement panders to the person who is uneducated, or who does not employ critical thinking skills, or who is swept along by emotion.  But, these type of people are precisely the ones who are targeted by this current Gun Control campaign.  The ultimate goal is complete eradication of our right to own and use guns, either for pleasure or self-defense.

3.  Ban assault weapons -- for real . -- Once again, this issue appeals to the emotional among us.  In these 12 killing sprees, assault rifles were used only twice!  Therefore, why is this issue brought up so regularly as a panacea for keeping this kind of killing from occurring? 

If you assume that the ultimate objective of this entire Gun Control debate is to ultimately seize all guns, you would realize that military leaders would fear the assault weapon being used against their soldiers more than any other weapon,.

During the actual seizure campaign,  more government soldiers would be killed by assault weapons than by hunting weapons.

The people that argue that assault weapons have no use in hunting animals or in "pleasure" shooting, are leading us up the wrong debate tree.  Since the ultimate danger to a disarmed citizenry is its own government , we should be encouraging as many law-abiding citizens as possible to own such weaponry and be expert in using it!

4.  License owners and register all guns -- These Newsweek authors liken the licensing of all guns to getting a driver's license to be able to drive a car.  While most Americans are not afraid of being required to get a driver's license every few years, I wonder if we should be afraid in light of the coming New World Order dictatorship.  The driver's license system enables the government to keep track of the whereabouts of its citizens in such a way as to make the citizens comfortable, even though this system will enable a dictatorial government to know exactly where its potential enemies are living. Granted, the driver's license system has its limitations since many people move within the time limit of getting a new one, but it is a very useful tool to the potential tyrant, nevertheless.

Let us review two really stupid statements made by these Newsweek authors in defense of their proposal to license all owners and register all their guns.

1.  "Still, all rights have to be balanced with the need for public order ..."  What a stupid statement!  Our society is not currently thrown into disorder by these 12 shootings.  Granted, you cannot convince the people who were in harms way during one of these shooting sprees that chaos was not reigning at that place at that time.  Yet, the truth is, that American society as a whole was not thrown into disarray by these shootings.

However, the New World Order Plan envisions that society as a whole will be thrown into massive disarray as soon as they get absolute control.  This deliberate chaos will enable the government to rid itself of all its potential enemies and to dismantle all forms of government that currently stand in its way of absolute dictatorship. 

The most peaceful place on earth is a graveyard!  The most peaceful societies on earth are those whose citizens are so enslaved they cannot breathe without government control. Our objective cannot be to take away guns so as to achieve "public order".

2.  "... registration is one sure-fire way of shutting off a line of supply to criminals."  I suppose the key word to this stupid phrase is the little word, "a".  If you forced complete registration of all firearms and firearm dealers, you might shut off that legitimate source of arms to criminals.  But, which criminals ever use a legitimate source to obtain anything they need?  Criminals always step outside the legitimate system for anything and everything.

A SURE-FIRE METHOD OF STOPPING THIS KIND OF SHOOTING AND KILLING SPREE

One of the axioms of life is that it is never enough to simply be against some proposal in a debate over a serious problem.  Rather, the opponent of an idea or set of ideas in a debate must also be ready to offer a proposal that WILL solve the problem at hand.  The Cutting Edge makes such a proposal.

But first, let us tell you a true story. 

In June, 1984, a small cell of Arab terrorists conceived of a "fool-proof" plot that would enable them to kill a lot of Jewish citizens without being killed themselves.  They planned to pull their car into a crowded intersection in Jerusalem, jump out firing their military assault rifles, gunning down as many people as possible.  Before military, paramilitary, or police forces could react by getting to the scene, these gunmen would jump into their car and speed off.  They figured they could carry out this type of killing spree in several intersections before they would drive off to safety somewhere in the Arab enclave adjacent to Jerusalem.

Did they succeed in their plans?  How many innocent people did they kill?

As they jumped out of their car at the first intersection, military assault rifles blazing, they were suddenly confronted by accurate counter-fire from several Jewish citizens who were carrying concealed handguns.  Three terrorists were killed, while Jewish fatalities were held to one.  The rest of the terrorists not killed by Jewish defense fire were pinned down until the military, paramilitary, and police forces could arrive on the scene.

At a news conference the next day, the surviving terrorists complained [whined, actually] that they did not realize Israeli citizens were personally armed. Not only did the terrorists fail to kill a lot of civilians at the first intersection, they were stopped cold in their tracks from going to Intersections 2, 3, 4, and 5.  Those Jewish citizens using those intersections likely owe their very lives to the few armed Jewish citizens that were "packing heat" that day. ["More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws ", by John R. Lott, Jr., p. 6]

In this debate, you only have to substitute criminals in America for those Arab terrorists.  Just as the Arabs planned to get away with their murder without getting killed, so do criminals plan on getting away from their crime without getting killed.  At least, most of them do not want to get killed.

You see, criminals steal and murder because that is the only way they can see to get the things of life without having to punch a time clock five days per week.  They steal so they can enjoy the fruits of society without having to work a regular job to get it.  Therefore, they carefully pick their victims for their vulnerability and degree of helplessness .  Criminals do not want to get killed.

Therefore, they stay away from anyone they perceive as being able to fight back, which is the reason women are disproportionately victims of assault.  However, as John Lott observes, guns are great equalizers for women. With a handgun, they can stop a 300-pound male attacker in his tracks, if she can accurately fire her weapon.

Lott then lists some of the Liberal celebrities who own and carry guns:

1.  U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat, California

2.  Howard Stern

3.  Robert De Niro, Actor

4.  Bill Cosby

5.  Cybill Shepherd, Actress

Listen to Lott as he summarizes his findings on the subject of the effect on crime that concealed weapons produce.

"Overall, my conclusion is that criminals as a group tend to behave rationally -- when crime becomes more difficult, less crime is committed.  Higher arrest and conviction rates dramatically reduce crime.  Criminals also move out of jurisdictions in which criminal deterrence increases.  Yet, criminals respond to more than just the actions taken by the police and the courts.  Citizens can take private actions that also deter crime. Allowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crimes, and the reductions coincide very closely with the number of concealed handgun permits issued.  Mass shootings in public places are reduced when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns." [Ibid., p. 19]

This paragraph brings me to my final point.  You might argue that these 12 shooters were not your ordinary criminals.  They would not fall into the category of being deterred from their crime because their potential victims were armed, and capable of killing the shooter.  You are right.  These shooters were deranged, and some of them actually killed themselves after their rampage.

However, citizens carrying concealed weapons are very capable of stopping such a madman shooter in his tracks, just as the Jewish citizens, above, stopped the Arab terrorists in their tracks.  If any of these shooters encountered any citizens carrying a concealed handgun, they probably would have been killed so quickly that they could not have killed as many people as they planned.

Let us review some of these 12 shooting sprees with that idea in mind.

STUDY OF THE VULNERABILITY AND HELPLESSNESS OF THE VICTIMS IN THESE SHOOTING SPREES

1.  LOS ANGELES, CA -- Buford Furrow, the madman shooter, told police that he had cased out several other potential Jewish targets, but was afraid to attack them because he respected their security.  In other words, he respected the fact that these first Jewish targets were protected by armed security guards.  But, when he spotted the unguarded Jewish community center, he attacked, knowing full well that he would be the only one wielding weapons.  Like the Arab terrorists, he planned to get away before police could respond.

2.  PELHAM, ALA. -- Alan Eugene Miller knew that, when he walked into the company from which he had recently been fired, he would be the only one "packing heat".  Boy, would he have been surprised if some co-worker had pulled out a concealed handgun and accurately returned fire.

3.  ATLANTA, GA. -- Mark Barton knew that, when he walked into the Day Trading office, he would be the only one armed and firing.  Had someone in that first office been able to pull out a gun, return fire, and kill Barton, he likely would not only have saved lives there, but would have physically prevented Barton from walking over to the second building as he did, killing five more people.

4.  LITTLETON, COLORADO -- Had Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold known that school administrators kept rifles and shotguns behind a locked case, and that teachers and administrators were trained in how to use them, they probably would have not attacked that school.  However, if they did decide to still attack, they would have had to target that cache of weapons first instead of vulnerable classmates.  They might very well have never gotten past the cache of school weapons before the police and Swat Teams arrived.

As it was, evidence since this shooting has come to light that these two kids did not act alone, but were supported by others in their infamous Trench Coat gang.  Together, this gang had produced many homemade bombs, some of which were large enough to bring the structure down.  They seemed to be planning on killing most of the people inside the school, and then blow up the entire building to entomb everyone murdered inside.

Perhaps the reason they did not succeed in this larger plan of murder was because they unexpectedly encountered an armed security guard in the school that day.  This security guard opened fire, forcing Dylan and Eric to retreat to the Library.  This one armed security guard was never treated as the hero he was, and I can never figure out why.  He likely prevented a much larger number of murdered victims. 

5.  SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH -- Sergei Babarin knew the peacefulness and the lack of armed security guards around and in the Mormon Family History Library.  He knew the security guard on duty was not armed.  All his victims were vulnerable and helpless because they were not armed.

6.  SPRINGFIELD, OREGON; JONESBORO, ARKANSAS; PADUCAH KENTUCKY; AND PEARL, MISSISSIPPI.  All the student shooters at each of these public schools knew that they were going to be the only ones armed and dangerous when they opened fire,. They knew they would not have to worry one bit about anyone returning fire.

I think I have made my point. In all the handwringing over all these shootings, no one has ever thought about the difference an armed citizenry might have made in at least limiting the numbers of casualties, if not preventing the shooter from every carrying out his attack in the first place.

LAW ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS TELL THE STORY -- IS ANYONE EVER GOING TO LISTEN?

John Lott quotes FBI and other law enforcement statistics to demonstrate that armed citizens already prevent a huge number of crimes.  Listen:

1.  "... the probability of serious injury from an attack is 2.5 times greater for women offering no serious resistance than for women resisting with a gun." [Ibid., p. 4]

2.  "In contrast, the probability of women being seriously injured was almost 4 times greater resisting without a gun than when resisting with a gun." [Ibid]

3.  "Philip Van Cleve, a former reserve deputy sheriff in Texas, wrote: 'Are criminals afraid of a law-abiding citizen with a gun?  You bet.  Most cases of a criminal being scared off by an armed citizen are probably not reported.  But I have seen a criminal who was so frightened of an armed, seventy-year-old woman that, in his panic to get away, he turned and ran right into a wall!' (He was busy trying to kick down her door, when she opened a curtain and pointed a gun at him)." [Ibid., p.2]

4.  "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack ... Yet the cases covered by the news media are hardly typical; most of the encounters reported involve a shooting that ends in a fatality." [Ibid., p.3]

If defensive gun use is so effective in stopping an attack before it can get in full swing, do we have any idea as to the nationwide numbers involved?  Indeed, we do, and our source is the U.S. Department of Justice.  Their National Crime Victimization Survey reports that, each year, "only" 80,000 - 82,000 defensive uses of guns prevents assaults and robberies and violent crimes.  I find their use of the word "only" laughable, but it does show the hidden agenda of Gun Seizure that lies beneath the surface of our government.  This statistic means that 225 average American citizens per day prevent crimes from being successfully carried out against them because they carry a gun.  In fact, Lott reports that the major reason the crime rate is decreasing in this decade is that more and more cities and states are enabling their law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.

However, the actual numbers of prevented crimes is much higher than the 82,000 the Federal Government admits.   "Fifteen national polls, including those by organizations such as the Los Angeles Times, Gallup, and Peter Hart Research Associates, imply that there are 760,000 to 3.6 million defensive uses of guns per year." [Ibid., p.11]  These numbers means that between 2,082 to 9,863 average American citizens per day thwart crime in progress by brandishing a gun.  The reason the estimates vary so widely is that these cases of thwarted crime never are reported because they involve no loss of property or life.

Therefore, this entire debate on Gun Control and Gun Seizure is much more important to your life and security on an everyday basis than you would have believed.  Even if the dictatorial New World Order were not bearing down upon us, we should demand that we be allowed to arm ourselves if we thought it necessary.

UNARMED CITIZENS ARE TOTALLY DEPENDENT UPON POLICE DEPARTMENTS TO PROTECT THEM

Most people in this debate do not even stop to think about this fact:  if they are disarmed, they have to totally depend upon local or state authorities for protection against an intruder or a criminal accosting them on the street.  At first glance, people will say, "That is what we pay police for, to protect me". 

While this is true, it is also terribly misleading if not examined carefully.  At the moment an intruder steps into a home, no police officer is as yet aware of his intrusion.  If an intruder unexpectedly encounters a person living in the home, a police officer could not possibly prevent a split-second murder as the intruder fires his weapon.  However, if the person living in the home had a gun of his own in his hand, he could possibly wound or kill the intruder before he had a chance to kill him.

You see, criminals know that police departments are subject to several important inhibiting factors that dramatically decrease their odds of getting caught, or getting killed by the police.

1.  Police cannot feasibly protect everybody all the time in every location in this country.  We cannot have a policeman on every .  Americans own 200 million guns because we cannot have 200 million policemen to protect us.  If we did have that number of policemen, we would probably be enslaved by a dictatorship already.

2.  Police have a REACTION TIME with which they have to contend.  How quickly they can react once they know a crime has been committed depends upon how busy they currently are, and how close the nearest police cruiser is to the scene of the crime.  Most people would admit that a reaction time of less than 10 minutes is very fast.  Yet, in that 10 minutes, a murderer could have killed all members of a family in a house, and escaped.

3.  Criminals gleefully know that budget cuts in many cities and towns has resulted in cutbacks of police on duty on the street.  "Nor are rural, low-crime areas immune from these concerns.  Illinois State Representative Terry Deering (Democrat) noted that 'we live in areas where if we have a state trooper on duty at any given time in a whole county, we feel very fortunate.  Some counties don't even have 24-hour police protection.' " [Ibid., p.13]

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.  And, you will be totally dependent upon police protection at all times.  We can only hope and pray that all of you who support more stringent gun controls and confiscation, will never be confronted by an armed criminal intent upon doing you or your family harm.  If you ever are, you will be terrified by the sudden realization that your local police will, at that moment in time, be unable to protect you from assault or murder.

CONCLUSIONS IN LIGHT OF THE COMING GLOBAL DICTATORSHIP

I have learned that, when the arguments for societal change make no sense, then I should look for a hidden sense underlying the nonsensical debate.  In this case, the emotional proposals coming out of Washington, D.C., that supposedly will solve this problem of the shooting sprees make no sense on the surface.  Each and every argument proposed can be shown to be so deeply flawed that we should not, and cannot, enact them.

Therefore, we must look at the possibility of a hidden agenda .  This agenda is the New World Order Plan, of disarming the American people so their freedoms can be taken away.  Since almost one-half of all the American adult citizenry owns guns, the Plan must focus upon the other 50%+ of the population that does not own guns.  This part of the population must be moved to the point where they absolutely hate guns with all their passion.  Once this goal is achieved, it will be much easier to persuade most of the group that owns guns to give them up. 

Then , once the dictatorship is being implemented, you may have no more than 10% of the original gun owners which will have to be moved upon militarily to remove their guns.  This is the true rationale behind the "Gun Buyback" programs.  Even though these programs are shown to have little effect on the actual numbers of guns on the street, they do have an enormous effect on propagandizing the 50%+ of the population that do not own guns.

THE REAL REASON PEOPLE MURDER

We Christians know exactly what causes people to murder and to hate enough to murder.  God has told us, in Jeremiah 17:9.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and it is exceedingly perverse and corrupt and severely, mortally sick!  Who can know it [perceive, understand be acquainted with his own heart and mind?]" [Parallel Bible, KJV/Amplified Bible Commentary]

Physical assault, theft, murder, and other violent crimes occurred in large measure before guns were invented.  Knives, hammers, axes, metal bars, swords and spears have historically been used by criminals against their victims.  The first recorded murder was Cain murdering Abel, using either his hands and fists, or a rock, or a piece of wood, out in the fields.

The basic reason for crime is that man is born intrinsically evil .  The Christian looks at man's basic nature realistically and is better able to prepare against it.  The Humanist of today -- which includes almost all our political leaders -- are truly at a quandary.  Since they teach that man is inherently born good, they are truly at a loss to explain all the violence and murder in the world today. To avoid having to agree with the Bible that man is inherently evil and is in need of a personal Saviour, they teach the Illuminist/Communist doctrine that "good" man is corrupted by his past environment.  That environment might include Bill Clinton's mother and grandmother, or it might include those nasty inanimate objects called guns.

The final fact to consider is that, since we are living in the Last Days' of time, wickedness and the active outgrowth of it [crime, murder] is foretold to dramatically increase. Listen to the prophecy:

"This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.  For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." [2 Timothy 3:1-5]

If you thoughtfully contemplate all of the characteristics of people living at the end of the age contained in this portion of Scripture, you will find the specific characteristics of the shooters highlighted in this article.  Truly, we are living at the End of the Age. 

But for now, before our society actually moves into the Kingdom of Antichrist known as the New World Order, we Americans need to be able to carry concealed weapons to protect ourselves from the increasing numbers of lawless people living today.

We need to be active on this issue, writing our elected representatives at every level, and voting for candidates that are on the right side of this issue.  The day we lose our guns, is the last day of our freedoms.  The Kingdom of Antichrist can then appear.

Are you spiritually ready? Is your family? Are you adequately protecting your loved ones? This is the reason for this ministry, to enable you to first understand the peril facing you, and then help you develop strategies to warn and protect your loved ones. Once you have been thoroughly trained, you can also use your knowledge as a means to open the door of discussion with an unsaved person. I have been able to use it many times, and have seen people come to Jesus Christ as a result. These perilous times are also a time when we can reach many souls for Jesus Christ, making an eternal difference.