“The most common estimate [for the first use of guns] has been the late 13th Century, probably about 1360. The who and what is irrelevant, except to point out that the first “gonnes” were little more than metal vases. In fact, the first name for a gun was “vase.
Of course, human ingenuity being what it is, that situation did not last long. The price of a gun began to come down almost immediately, wooden stocks against the shoulder instead of sticks under the arm, much better sights, and suddenly the gun became an effective meat getter as well as somewhat effective battlefield weapon.
“By 1450 guns were affordable by wealthy merchants, and by 1500 even a wealthy peasant could afford a gun.
“By 1500 even a wealthy peasant could afford guns, and hunting became popular with those in the middle classes of Renaissance society. But two very interesting things happened. Hunters quickly found over-hunting depleted game – so laws encouraging “cropping” wild game numbers to maintain those populations at the maximum safe carrying capacity of the range became common.
“The second was the sharp decline in the murder and violent crime rates as guns became more accessible to the common folk. The chart below shows the maximum and minimum European murder rates as guns became generally affordable:
“England’s murder rate, which generally ran close to 50 murders per 100,000 population when John Plantagenet became King John “Lackland,” in 1166, before guns, ascended the throne, sank to just 0.7, 7/10ths of a murder per 100,000 population, when Queen Victoria took the throne in 1837. By the end of her reign, one Englishman in four carried – and the police sometimes borrowed guns from passersby.
“On the continent, the situation was much the same. Before guns, knife and club wielding criminals, often members of the army, had their own way with the people.
“Yet those States with relaxed gun laws, France for one, had murder and violent crime rates hardly higher than England. Yet States like the Austro-Hungarian Empire, with relatively restrictive gun laws, had very much higher murder and violent crime rates.
“In a very real sense, the gun, which “renders the weakest woman the equal of the strongest man” is civilization. where guns are common, a citizen can sleep soundly, confident that he or she will not be molested. Where guns are banned, even the strongest locks are insufficient to insure personal safety.(1)
Gun Control In Japan
“Guns arrived in Japan along with the first trading ships from Portugal in 1542 or 1543.
“Despite some initial problems, the Japanese rapidly improved firearms technology. They invented a device to make matchlocks fire in the rain (the Europeans never figured out how to do this), refined the matchlock trigger and spring, developed a serial firing technique, and increased the matchlock’s calibre.
“By 1560, only 17 years after being introduced in Japan, firearms were being used effectively in large battles. Less than three decades after Japan saw its first gun, there were more guns in Japan than any other nation on the planet. Several Japanese feudal lords had more guns than the whole British army.
“Yet as Japan grew more pre-eminent in firearms manufacture and warfare, she moved closer to the day when firearms would disappear from society. The engineer of Japan’s greatest armed victories, and of the abolition of guns in Japan, would be a peasant named Hidéyoshi. Starting out as a groom for Lord Nobunaga, Hidéyoshi rose through the ranks to take control of Nobunaga’s army after Nobunaga died. A brilliant strategist, Hidéyoshi finished the job that Nobunaga began, and re-unified Japan’s feudal states under a strong central government.
“Having conquered the Japanese, Hidéyoshi meant to keep them under control. On 29 August 1588, Hidéyoshi announced ‘the Sword Hunt’ (taiko no katanagari) and banned possession of swords and firearms by the non-noble classes. He decreed:
The people in the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, short swords, bows, spears, firearms or other arms. The possession of unnecessary implements makes difficult the collection of taxes and tends to foment uprisings… Therefore the heads of provinces, official agents and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the Government.
“The historian Stephen Turnbull writes:
Hidéyoshi’s resources were such that the edict was carried out to the letter. The growing social mobility of peasants was thus flung suddenly into reverse. The ikki, the warrior-monks, became figures of the past…Hidéyoshi had deprived the peasants of their weapons. Iéyasu [the next ruler] now began to deprive them of their self respect. If a peasant offended a samurai he might be cut down on the spot by the samurai’s sword.
“The inferior status of the peasantry having been affirmed by civil disarmament, the Samurai enjoyed kiri-sute gomen, permission to kill and depart. Any disrespectful member of the lower class could be executed by a Samurai’s sword.”(3)
Are we starting to see a pattern here?
“Hidéyoshi forbade peasants to leave their land without their superior’s permission and required that warriors, peasants, and merchants all remain in their current post. After Hidéyoshi died, Iéyasu founded the Tokugawa Shogunate, which would rule Japan for the next two-and-a-half centuries.
“The total abolition of firearms never took place by a formal decree. Hidéyoshi had taken the first step, by disarming the peasants. In 1607, the Tokugawa Shogunate took the second step by dictating that all gun and powder production take place in Nagahama. Permission from the central Government was required to engage in the business.
“The Japanese paid a price for their order. Freedom was an alien concept. Interclass, social, and geographic mobility were extinguished. Indeed, as Turnbull points out, (p.35)Hidéyoshi’s hunt for swords and firearms marked the end of social freedom in Japan. The abolition of firearms probably would not have succeeded if Japan had a free economy or a free political system.
“The Japanese historian, Nobutaka Ike, observes in modern Japan a ‘preference for paternalism’. An American historian writes: ‘Never conquered by or directly confronted with external forms of political rule (except for the MacArthur occupation), they remained unaware of the relative, fallible nature of authority. Authority was a “given”, taken for granted as an unalienable part of the natural order’. A Tokyo University historian describes ‘an assumption that the state is a prior and self-justifying entity, sufficient in itself. This results in a belief that…the state should take precedence over the goals of other individuals and associations…
“The differing meanings of the phrase ‘rule of law’ highlight the contrast between American and Japanese views of authority. In America, observes Noriho Urabe, ‘rule of law’ expresses the subordination of Government to the law. In Japan, the ‘rule of law’ refers to the people’s obligation to obey the Government, and is thus ‘an ideology to legitimize domination’.
“The Japanese individual’s desires are ‘absorbed in the interest of the collectivity to which he belongs’, whether that collectivity be the nation, the school, or the family. There is no theory of ‘social contract’, and no theory that individuals pre-exist society and have rights superior to society. The strongest sanctions are not American-style punishments, but exclusion from the community. When Japanese parents punish their children, they do not make the children stay inside the house, as American parents do. Punishment for a Japanese child means being put outside. The sublimation of individual desires to the greater good, the pressure to conform, and internalised willingness to do so are much stronger in Japan than in America.
“More than gun control, more than the lack of criminal procedure safeguards, more than the authority of the police, it is the pervasive social controls of Japan that best explain the low crime rate. Other nations, such as the former Soviet Union, have had severe gun control, less criminal justice safeguards, and more unconstrained police forces than Japan. But the Soviets’ crime rate was high and Japan’s minuscule because Japan has the socially-accepted and internalised restraints on individual behaviour which the Soviets lack. While social controls fell and crime rose everywhere in the English-speaking world in the 1960s, social controls remained and crime fell in Japan.
“More than the people of any other democracy, the Japanese accept the authority of their police and trust their government. In this cultural context, it is easy to see why gun control has succeeded in Japan, the people accept gun control with the same readiness that they accept other Government controls. Further, they have little incentive to disobey gun controls, since they have hardly any cultural heritage of gun ownership.
“Firearms prohibition in Japan is part of a culture that subordinates the individual to society. When the individual finds himself not fitting into social expectations, self-destruction may often seem appropriate, since in a conflict between the individual and society, society is, by definition, always right. It is interesting to note that the overall violent death rates (counting both murders and suicides) in many of the developed countries are approximately the same. America has a high murder rate, but a relatively low suicide rate. Japan and Switzerland have very low murder rates, but suicide rates twice the American level.
“The claim that fewer guns correlates with less violence is plainly wrong. America experienced falling crime and homicide rates in the 1940s, 1950s, and early 1980s, all periods during which per capita gun ownership, especially handgun ownership, rose. And Japan, with its severe gun control, suffers no less murder than Switzerland, one of the most gun-intensive societies on earth.
“Japan’s gun control does play an important role in the low Japanese crime rate, but not because of some simple relation between gun density and crime. Japan’s gun control is one inseparable part of a vast mosaic of social control. Gun control underscores the pervasive cultural theme that the individual is subordinate to society and to the Government. The same theme is reflected in the absence of protection against Government searches and prosecutions. The police are the most powerful on earth, partly because of the lack of legal constraints and particularly because of their social authority.
“Powerful social authorities, beginning with the father and reaching up to the state, create a strict climate for obeying both the criminal laws and the gun control laws. The voluntary disarmament of the Japanese Government reinforces this climate. Ethnic homogeneity and economic equality remove some of the causes of criminality.
“While many persons may admire Japan’s near prohibition of gun ownership, it is not necessarily true that other nations, such as the United States, could easily replicate the Japanese model. Japan’s gun laws grow out of a culture premised on voluntary submission to authority, a cultural norm that is not necessarily replicated in Western democracies.”(3)
Gun Control in England and the American Colonies
Revolutionary Gun Control
Boston Port Act (June 1, 1774)
Quartering Act (June 2, 1774)
Administration of Justice Act (May 20, 1774)
Massachusetts Government Act (May 20, 1774)
“The British realized that they could not control the people with only 2,000 troops in Boston. So what did they do? They sought to eliminate the people’s ability to own firearms and gun powder.
“Remember, at one time it was law in the colonies for militiamen to own their own firearms and have a minimum quantity of gunpowder on hand, though all could not afford it. Remember too, that this powder was not stable like that we use today.
“On September 1, 1774, just before dawn, General Gage sent approximately 260 Redcoats up the Mystic River to seize several hundred barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house and this became known as the “Powder Alarm.”
“The militia at the time produced 20,000 men who mobilized and began marching towards Boston. American colonists believed that if the British were going to use force or violence to seize arms or powder, it was an act of war and they would respond in kind. This is what happened the following year.
“The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.
“Governor Gage directed the Redcoats to begin general, warrantless searches for arms and ammunition. According to the Boston Gazette, of all General Gage’s offenses, “what most irritated the People” was “seizing their Arms and Ammunition.”
“The document was drafted after England sent soldiers to “restore order” in the Colonies and the Second Continental Congress thought it necessary to raise an army and justify its actions.
“It also underscored the necessity to bear arms against tyranny – a concept that is almost entirely lost today as the United Nations conspires to register and confiscate the firearms of Americans and ill-informed citizens defend the Second Amendment as the right to own a gun for hunting.
“Two days later, on July 8, 1775, the Olive Branch Petition was issued. It proposed a final peace deal with England and promised loyalty to the British government if it repealed the Coercive Acts and ended its taxation without representation policies.
“The Olive Branch Petition was summarily dismissed by King George’s official, stating that the Colonies were in a state of rebellion. The English Parliament then passed the American Prohibitory Act, which forbid any further trade with the Colonies. In other words, they imposed what we call today sanctions, which became a further act of war against the colonies.(7)
The rest, as they say is history.
The Racist Roots of Gun Control
“The historical record provides compelling evidence that racism underlies gun control laws — and not in any subtle way. Throughout much of American history, gun control was openly stated as a method for keeping blacks and Hispanics “in their place,” and to quiet the racial fears of whites.
“Racist arms laws predate the establishment of the United States. Starting in 1751, the French Black Code required Louisiana colonists to stop any blacks, and if necessary, beat “any black carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane.” If a black refused to stop on demand, and was on horseback, the colonist was authorized to “shoot to kill.” Slave possession of firearms was a necessity at times in a frontier society, yet laws continued to be passed in an attempt to prohibit slaves or free blacks from possessing firearms, except under very restrictively controlled conditions. Similarly, in the sixteenth century the colony of New Spain, terrified of black slave revolts, prohibited all blacks, free and slave, from carrying arms.
“It is not surprising that the first North American English colonies, then the states of the new republic, remained in dread fear of armed blacks, for slave revolts against slave owners often degenerated into less selective forms of racial warfare. The perception that free blacks were sympathetic to the plight of their enslaved brothers, and the dangerous example that “a Negro could be free” also caused the slave states to pass laws designed to disarm all blacks, both slave and free. Unlike the gun control laws passed after the Civil War, these antebellum statutes were for blacks alone.
“A number of decisions during the antebellum period were unambiguous about the importance of race. In State v. Huntly (1843), the North Carolina Supreme Court had recognized that there was a right to carry arms guaranteed under the North Carolina Constitution, as long as such arms were carried in a manner not likely to frighten people. The following year, the North Carolina Supreme Court made one of those decisions whose full significance would not appear until after the Civil War and passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. An 1840 statute provided:
- That if any free negro, mulatto, or free person of color, shall wear or carry about his or her person, or keep in his or her house, any shot gun, musket, rifle, pistol, sword, dagger or bowie-knife, unless he or she shall have obtained a license therefor from the Court of Pleas and Quarter Sessions of his or her county, within one year preceding the wearing, keeping or carrying therefor, he or she shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and may be indicted therefor.
Of course, white residents were not required to ‘obtain a license’.
Are we seeing a pattern here also?
“While settled parts of the South were in great fear of armed blacks, on the frontier, the concerns about Indian attack often forced relaxation of these rules, just as they were in colonial times. The 1798 Kentucky Comprehensive Act allowed slaves and free blacks on frontier plantations “to keep and use guns, powder, shot, and weapons, offensive and defensive.” Unlike whites, however, a license was required for free blacks or slaves to carry weapons.
“The need for blacks to carry arms for self-defense included not only the problem of Indian attack, and the normal criminal attacks that anyone might worry about, but he additional hazard that free blacks were in danger of being kidnapped and sold into slavery.  A number of states, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, passed laws specifically to prohibit kidnapping of free blacks, out of concern that the federal Fugitive Slave Laws would be used as cover for re-enslavement.
“The end of slavery in 1865 did not eliminate the problems of racist gun control laws; the various Black Codes adopted after the Civil War required blacks to obtain a license before carrying or possessing firearms or Bowie knives; these are sufficiently well-known that any reasonably complete history of the Reconstruction period mentions them. These restrictive gun laws played a part in the efforts of the Republicans to get the Fourteenth Amendment ratified, because it was difficult for night riders to generate the correct level of terror in a victim who was returning fire. It does appear, however, that the requirement to treat blacks and whites equally before the law led to the adoption of restrictive firearms laws in the South that were equal in the letter of the law, but unequally enforced.
“Gun control advocates today are not so foolish as to openly promote racist laws, and so the question might be asked what relevance the racist past of gun control laws has. One concern is that the motivations for disarming blacks in the past are really not so different from the motivations for disarming law-abiding citizens today. In the last century, the official rhetoric in support of such laws was that “they” were too violent, too untrustworthy, to be allowed weapons. Today, the same elitist rhetoric regards law-abiding Americans in the same way, as child-like creatures in need of guidance from the government. In the last century, while never openly admitted, one of the goals of disarming blacks was to make them more willing to accept various forms of economic oppression, including the sharecropping system, in which free blacks were reduced to an economic state not dramatically superior to the conditions of slavery.
“In the seventeenth century, the aristocratic power structure of colonial Virginia found itself confronting a similar challenge from lower class whites. These poor whites resented how the men who controlled the government used that power to concentrate wealth into a small number of hands. These wealthy feeders at the government trough would have disarmed poor whites if they could, but the threat of both Indian and pirate attack made this impractical; for all white men “were armed and had to be armed…” Instead, blacks, who had occupied a poorly defined status between indentured servant and slave, were reduced to hereditary chattel slavery, so that poor whites could be economically advantaged, without the upper class having to give up its privileges.
“Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it.
“In much the same way, gun control has historically been a tool of racism, and associated with racist attitudes about black violence. Similarly, many gun control laws impinge on that most fundamental of rights: self-defense. Racism is so intimately tied to the history of gun control in America that we should regard gun control aimed at law-abiding people as a “suspect idea,” and require that the courts use the same demanding standards when reviewing the constitutionality of a gun control law, that they would use with respect to a law that discriminated based on race.(8)
Gun Control Genocide
“Throughout the history of the world there have been despots, tyrants, dictators and kings who have imposed their will over those they conquered. After defeating rival armies in battle, many of these rulers went on to lead cruel, ruthless and abusive regimes largely by keeping the subjugated powerless to resist.(2)
“Men like Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia; Genghis Khan, who founded and ruled the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his demise; the Caesars of the Roman empire; and the pharaohs of the Egyptian empire all conquered, then kept power, by ruling with iron fists over people who were powerless to resist because they did not have the means to do so. In feudal England, British subjects in Scotland, Ireland and elsewhere were forbidden to bear arms, and as such were forced to remain loyal to the crown (until they won their independence by force of arms).
“In more recent times the invention and mass production of the firearm made conquering – and then controlling – entire populations much more difficult, which is why the most heinous despots in the last 150 years have moved to limit or ban access to guns.(2)
Following is a review of some of the most heinous documented genocidal recent history of gun control around the world, and the carnage visited upon the innocent by gun-grabbing tyrants.
“The Ottoman Empire – 1911 — The Ottoman Empire, the origins of which were in Turkey, implemented full gun control in 1911. A few years later, beginning in 1915 and lasting until 1917, some 1.5 million Armenians (out of a total of 2.5 million) living within the empire were rounded up and murdered by the “Young Turks” of the ruling class. In what has since been called the Armenian Holocaust, “Armenians all over the world commemorate this great tragedy on April 24, because it was on that day in 1915 when 300 Armenian leaders, writers, thinkers and professionals in Constantinople (present day Istanbul) were rounded up, deported and killed,” says a short history of the slaughter by the University of Michigan. “Also on that day in Constantinople, 5,000 of the poorest Armenians were butchered in the streets and in their homes.”
“The Ottoman government established “butcher battalions” which consisted primarily of violent criminals who had been released from prison just to kill ethnic Armenians. Those who were members of the army (which was currently fighting the Allies in World War I) “were disarmed, placed into labor battalions, and then killed,” said the university history.
“Soviet Union – 1929 — Soviet Russia was established following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when ruling Czar Nicholas II tossed 11 million Russian peasants into World War I. Frustrated and angered by the loss of life, scores of armed Russians – many current or former Russian soldiers who were led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin – rebelled against a ruling regime that was already teetering on the edge of collapse.
“Firearms were allowed to remain in the hands of Soviet citizens until 1929, when private gun ownership was abolished – a time which saw the rise of one of the world’s most repressive regimes, that was led by Soviet Premier Joseph Stalin (he ruled from 1941-1953 but was entrenched in the country’s leadership by 1928).
“From 1929 to the year Stalin died, tens of millions of Soviet dissidents or anyone the country’s leadership believed were a threat, were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camp/prisons and forced to work, sometimes to their deaths. Early in Stalin’s political career, he launched two national collectivization campaigns in order to transform the country into an industrial power. Both campaigns, however, were rife with murder on a massive scale.
“China – 1935 — The Nationalist Chinese government established gun control in 1935, just two years before Japan invaded in 1937. In the period from 1935 to 1952, some 20 million citizens and political dissidents were murdered. The Chinese Cultural Revolution, which was launched by the country’s supreme ruler, Mao Zedong, took place from 1966-1976, and “claimed the lives of several million people and inflicted cruel and inhuman treatments on hundreds of million people,” says MassViolence.org. “However, 40 years after it ended, the total number of victims of the Cultural Revolution and especially the death toll of mass killings still remain a mystery both in China and overseas.” The actual figures remain a highly-classified state secret.
“Regarding gun control, Mao once said: “War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.”(2)
“Cambodia – 1956 — The year this Asian nation issued its total gun control edict was in 1956, but the real carnage did not begin until several years later, during the regime of the demonic Pol Pot. Between 1975 and 1977, his regime murdered as many as 1 million “educated” people whom he believed represented a threat to his power in “killing fields” that were later depicted in a movie by the same name.”(2)
Gun Control in Germany
Germany – 1919 to 1945 –And, of course, it’s expected that there be some mention of the revised history of the National Socialists and their application of gun control along with the millions killed.
“Quite often, uninformed bloggers, patriotic Americans, and the mainstream media draw sensationalist parallels between the political climate of Hitler’s Germany and that of the United States at present. Though there are disturbing similarities, the context in which those policies are rooted could not be more at odds; while Nazi Germany was a fascist, police-state dictatorship, similar to what the U.S. is descending toward today, it is quite clear that the ideology driving the politics in Hitler’s Germany was intended to avoid the same sort of tyranny, corruption and moral erosion which the people of the U.S. and elsewhere find themselves battling today.
“A popular example of one such parallel asks us to compare gun control laws in the U.S. with those of Nazi Germany. Here we are often led to believe that Hitler disarmed all German citizens, resulting in the slaughter of millions on his way toward world domination. Those who have researched Germany’s role in World War II beyond the history that our mainstream institutions have provided however, are likely to reach very different conclusions regarding Hitler, the supposed genocide of millions, and our subject of focus here: the gun control laws in Hitler’s Germany.
“Many are aware of the depth to which corruption is embedded in all levels of government and how our mainstream media falsifies, minimizes or simply omits many subjects of importance. We know that officials cannot be blindly trusted and that our history books do not always portray an accurate account of historical events, yet many still subscribe without question to the official narrative regarding Germany’s role in the war, never bothering to question whether those that wrote the history may have had an agenda that would best be served by altering it.
The victors always write the history books.
“The Treaty of Versailles after World War I, which erroneously laid the blame for the war entirely upon Germany, was heavily influenced by powerful businessmen and politicians. The treaty succeed not only in robbing the German people of their dignity, but also in gutting her financially and militarily and dividing large portions of her land among the victors.
“The erosion of German values and corruption of its political system continued as politicians, foreign lawyers and businessmen took up residence in Germany where they undermined the government and spread Marxist propaganda through the radio and print networks under their influence. German culture and morals were further assaulted by the pornography that came with these foreigners, who were prominent in the industry then as they are today.(9)
Adolf Hitler had a solid insight regarding the effects that these foreigners and their central banks had upon German culture, politics and economics. The German public also became increasingly aware of the all pervasive economic control and cultural damage from these business and political interests. The result was rising distrust and protest against these foreign interests.
“In March of 1933, less than a month after Hitler was appointed chancellor and prior to his order to boycott Jewish businesses and Kristallnacht, international Jewry declared economic war upon Germany in the form of a world-wide call to boycott German businesses. The achieved goal was the complete economic destruction of the country. This declaration of war occurred well before the German government began restricting the rights of Germany’s Jews.
“Upon economic warfare having been declared by world Jewry, the German government had the legal right, according to international law, to confiscate the arms of a self-established enemy residing within its borders, however this confiscation of firearms would not take place for another five years when, in November of 1938, Herschel Grynszpan, a Polish Jew, assassinated Ernst vom Rath, a German diplomat.
“Thus the numerous claims that all Germans were disarmed, or that Jews were illegally disarmed, are factually incorrect. While the somewhat restrictive gun control law from 1928 was left in place for the first five years after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the revised firearms law enacted by Hitler’s government in 1938 actually removed or relaxed many restrictions regarding firearm ownership. Following is a summary of the gun control laws in Germany by date:
- 1919: Gun ownership is restricted to persons possessing a weapon or hunting license. Arrangements are made by the allies to confiscate all privately owned firearms under the threat of sanctions.
- 1920: The German population is to be disarmed with severe penalties for violates.
- 1927: Production of handguns with a barrel length of 98mm or greater and a bore of 8mm or larger is banned.
- 1928: The general prohibition on the acquisition of firearms is lifted, however strict provisions are made requiring separate permits to own, sell, carry and manufacture firearms and ammunition. A license is still required to own long guns.
- 1931: Due to the rising political crises, the acquisition of firearms and ammunition is subject to further restrictions.
- 1933: National Socialists seize power.
- 1938: A weapon permit or hunting license is required for handguns only, the permit restriction for long guns is removed. The acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns, as well as the possession of ammunition is deregulated. The age limit for purchasing firearms is lowered from 20 to 18. Firearms permits are valid for three years instead of one. Holders of annual hunting permits, government workers and NSDAP members are no longer subject to firearm ownership restrictions. Jews are prohibited from manufacturing, dealing, possessing and carrying firearms and ammunition (violators are subject to imprisonment for up to five years).
- 1945: Legislative power is transferred to the Allied Military Commission.
- 1945-1946: All of Germany is disarmed, including the military, police and civilians. All firearms must be turned over to the nearest Allied Commander within 10 days. The maximum punishment for possession of a firearm is death.
“The relaxing of the German gun laws of 1938 by Hitler’s government sits in stark contrast to what we are experiencing today in the United States where there is an obvious effort to circumvent the 2nd amendment to our constitution by what many see as a criminal and tyrannical government which is hell-bent on increasing its scope of power in general and its control over the people.”(9)
The Australian Gun Control Fallacy
“After any mass shooting someone will invoke the name “Australia” and raise the question, “Can Australia’s gun-control laws be a model for the United States?”(13)
“Australia’s current gun-control laws and outlines their provisions. The laws were passed after the Port Arthur massacre, a 1996 mass shooting in which one man killed 35 people. Australia outlawed semi-automatic rifles, certain categories of shotgun, and implemented strict licensing and registration requirements. The cornerstone of its new gun-control scheme, however, was a massive gun buyback program. The Australian government purchased 650,000 to one million guns with funds raised via a special tax.
“The Australian paradigm became popular in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut, school shootings in 2012. USA Today, ABC News, Slate, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor were among the outlets that published articles urging Americans to look closely at the actions their antipodean cousins took after a similar tragedy. Nor are Americans the only ones who think we should heed the Australian example. These articles all point to the reduction in the rate of gun deaths in Australia after the new system was established as its main achievement.”(13)
But did the purchase of 650,000 guns serve to reduce homicide rates?
“Not according to a long-term study that was released in 2007 titled, “Gun Laws and Sudden Death: Did the Australian Firearms legislation of 1996 Make a Difference?” authors Jeanine Baker and Samara McPhedran examined homicide rates in Australia from 1980 until 2004. What is clear from their study is that homicide rates dropped steadily from 1980 until 1996, when a shooting prompted the legislation. According to Baker and McPhedran, the buyback program and stricter legislation had, “no influence on homicide in Australia.”(14)
“But it was the buyback policy that allowed that system to be established which holds the writers’ and consequently the reader’s attention. That policy is the gun buyback program, which removed up to one million weapons from Australians’ hands and homes. This was, depending on the estimate, a fifth to a third of Australia’s gun stock. The statistic does not seem remarkable as a raw number, but it is quite so when expressed as a percentage. No wonder commentators fixate on it. The problem is the way most of them tell that tale: when they describe Australia’s gun buyback program, almost none of them tell the truth about it.”
“The crucial fact they omit is that the buyback program was mandatory. Australia’s vaunted gun buyback program was in fact a sweeping program of gun confiscation. It’s the most important detail about the main provision of Australia’s gun laws, and pundits ignore it.
“Yet when American gun control advocates and politicians praise Australia’s gun laws, that’s just what they’re doing. Charles Cooke of the National Review shredded the rhetorical conceit of bellowing “Australia!” last year after President Obama expressed his admiration for gun control à la Oz:
You simply cannot praise Australia’s gun-laws without praising the country’s mass confiscation program. That is Australia’s law. When the Left says that we should respond to shootings as Australia did, they don’t mean that we should institute background checks on private sales; they mean that they we should ban and confiscate guns. No amount of wooly words can change this. Again, one doesn’t bring up countries that have confiscated firearms as a shining example unless one wishes to push the conversation toward confiscation.
“Cooke, of course, is right. When gun control advocates say they want Australian gun control laws in the United States, what they are really saying is that they want gun confiscation in the United States.
Gun Confiscation Confessions
“Not all gun control proponents prevaricate. Some are forthright about their intentions. After Sandy Hook, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) stated she was considering legislation to institute a mandatory national buyback program. New York , also expressed an interest in confiscation, at least for assault weapons. “Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it.” Ultimately, New York did not institute confiscation, but did require registration of existing assault weapons and banned all sales of new and existing ones within the state.(13)
Then there’s that tired old line that goes “Seriously, no one wants to take your guns.”
Well here’s some folks that have no qualms about saying what they really want:
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D – CA):
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” – Associated Press, 18 November, 1993.
“If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them; “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,” I would have done it.” – 60 Minutes on CBS, 5 February, 1995.
“The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.”
Senator Frank Launtenberg (D – NJ):
“We have other legislation that all of you are aware that I have been so active on, with my colleagues here, and that is to shut down the gun shows.”
Fmr. Senator Howard Metzenbaum (D – OH):
“No, we’re not looking at how to control criminals … we’re talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.” – Constitution Subcommittee, 2 February, 1989
Fmr. Representative Charles Pashayan (R – CA):
“All of this has to be understood as part of a process leading ultimately to a treaty
that will give an international body power over our domestic laws.” – United Nations Small Arms Conference, 2001
Fmr. Senator John Chafee (R – RI):
“I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs)… . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!” – Minneapolis Star Tribune pg. 31A, 15 June, 1992.
Then-Senator Joe “Buckshot” Biden (D – DE):
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” – Associated Press, 11 November, 1993
Representative Jan Schakowski (D – IL):
“I believe…..this is my final word……I believe that I’m supporting the Constitution of the United States which does not give the right for any individual to own a handgun….” – Recorded 25 June, 2000 by Matt Beauchamp
Fmr. Representative Major Owens (D – NY):
“We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose.”
New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo (D):
” …confiscation could be an option…”
Sarah Brady, fmr. Chairman of Handgun Control Inc. (now The Brady Campaign):
“…I don’t believe gun owners have rights.” – Hearst Newspapers, October 1997
“The House passage of our bill is a victory for this country! Common sense wins out. I’m just so thrilled and excited. The sale of guns must stop. Halfway measures are not enough.” – 1 July, 1988
Fmr. United States Attorney General Janet “Waco” Reno:
“The most effective means of fighting crime in the United States is to outlaw the possession of any type of firearm by the civilian populace.” – Written affidavit by Fred Diamond, 1984 B’nai B’rith meeting in Coral Gables, Florida
The American Civil Liberties Union:
“We urge passage of federal legislation … to prohibit … the private ownership and possession of handguns.” – National ACLU Policy #47
I could go on literally for days and days, listing pages upon pages of people saying exactly how and why they’re coming for our guns. Not a single bit of it could ever be supported, defended, or refuted by them, either.
Gun Buyback Scam
“Gun buybacks remain a popular policy with the Left because it is the only way of achieving what the Left regards as the only acceptable gun-control solution: reducing the number of guns in America. Matt Miller of the Center for American Progress proposed such a program after Sandy Hook. Conceding that anything mandatory was unlikely to pass Congress, he pitched a gun buyback program as a form of economic stimulus: give people cash for guns, which they can then spend on other things.
“Voluntary buyback initiatives are a waste of time and money. So those hostile to gun rights continue to demand mandatory confiscation.
Gun Registration Rises Again
“Both New York and Connecticut imposed strict new rules on the possession and sale of guns after Sandy Hook. Among these were requirements for the registration of so-called assault rifles in both states and in New York a ban on “high-capacity” magazines regardless of when they were manufactured or purchased. Compliance with the registration requirement has been modest at best, as hundreds of thousands of gun owners in both states refused to register their weapons. So far, then, the laws have been most successful in creating hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers who feel obligated to break the law.
“New York and Connecticut are two of the “bluest” states in the Union, states with staunchly liberal Democratic governors and legislatures dominated by Democrats and Northeastern Republicans who vote for gun control. Yet the residents of these states have refused to go along with the kinds of laws that gun-control advocates view as a minimum for what they would like to see adopted at the federal level. If New York and Connecticut won’t go along, what do they expect would happen in “red” states? Progressives will not answer that question because they never ask it, not even to themselves, lest somehow they say it out loud. On guns, the Left is incoherent, even insincere. It won’t say what it wants because what it wants is “a nonstarter politically, unfeasible in reality, and, by the way, completely unconstitutional”—that is, confiscation on the Australian model.
“Liberals refuse to confront the implications of their Australian dream because doing so would force them to give that dream up. Those implications are easy to spell out, though. A national gun buyback law would turn a significant portion of the American people into criminals. Residents of New York and Connecticut snubbed their new laws. The other 48 states are not New York and Connecticut. Civil disobedience on a national scale would ensue.
“Australian-style gun control, in other words, would require government force and coercion on a massive scale. Now, progressives don’t understand the nature of coercion, so maybe they would not see police action to enforce gun confiscation as coercion. Or, perhaps, they actually do understand that their ideal form of gun control requires it, which is why they keep speaking in code and talk about “Australia” and not “wholesale confiscation.”
“Many on the Left—and for this they are to be commended—have voiced their opposition to the increasing militarization of America’s police. Yet only a militarized police could enforce an Australian gun-control scheme in the United States. To take arms from men requires men with arms. There’s no other way to do it.
“Yet because of the numbers of guns and men with guns in this country, any policy to remove those guns will inevitably depend on some measure of coercion, quite possibly a heavy measure. Does anyone honestly believe this country has the will or resources to seize 60 to 105 million firearms from 105 to 160 million Americans? “Progressives believe it,” I hear you answer. Yes, but the ones who do, believe this dishonestly.
“When someone says the United States ought to adopt Australia’s gun laws as its own, he is really saying the cause of gun control is so important that he is willing to impose these laws even at the cost of violent insurrection. Make no mistake, armed rebellion would be the consequence. Armed men would be dispatched to confiscate guns, they would be met by armed men, and blood would be shed. Australia is a valid example for America only if you are willing for that blood to be spilled in torrents and rivers. To choose Australia is to choose civil war.
‘Leave aside that Australia had—and has—far fewer guns and people than we do. Forget the bits about the gun lobby or Australia’s greater urbanization. The crucial point is the final one: Australia does not have a bill of rights, and that, ultimately, is the reason it was able to confiscate guns. Australians have no constitutional right to bear arms, so seizing their weapons did not violate their constitutional rights. Gun confiscation in the United States would require violating not only the Second Amendment, but the fourth and fifth as well, and possibly even the first. Progressives generally have no compunction about breaching the Second Amendment, but one wonders how many others they would be eager to violate in their quest to nullify the second. Civil war and a tattered Constitution: such are the consequences of invoking “Australia.” It is not a model; it is a mirage.(13)
Gun Control in the United States
So let’s take a further look at gun control in the United States of America, the good old USA.
Many people who see or here news reports about the critical need for gun control in the US, are under the mistaken impression that in the U.S. there is no gun control.
For people in the U.S. who believe this, the obvious reason is ignorance about the existing laws.
For many of the people outside the U.S. who believe this, there is a high likelihood that they have been indoctrinated into associating ‘gun control’ with the actual ban of gun ownership, except in some countries where hunting rifles are permitted to be owned with a state issued license.
The following list is for those interested in an overview of gun control in the U.S.:
United States– 1775 – 2010 – As described above, the British attempted to ban gun ownership in the colonies and ended up having to withdraw their direct physical control once the Revolutionary War was over.
“Fresh off of gaining their independence from Britain, the individual states were worried about a tyrannical central government that would grow too powerful. The first 10 Amendments, or Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791 being added to the Constitution to allay those fears of which the “right to keep and bear arms” was included.”(10)
The 2nd amendment reads:
‘A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.’
Late 1800’s – Reconstruction and Jim Crow Laws
“As described above, after the Civil War, gun laws were enacted in many Southern states that essentially prevented newly freed slaves from possessing firearms. This includes prohibiting cheaper firearms to allowing only certain firearms possession in order to indirectly keep firearms out of the hands of blacks.
1934 – National Firearms Act
Crafted in response to Prohibition era violence, this legislation served to tax and regulate automatic firearms as well as certain firearms components that were commonly used by organized crime at the time.
1938 – Federal Firearms Act
This legislation established Federal Firearms Licensing for dealers as well as introduced record keeping for firearms transactions.
1939 – United States v. Miller
The Supreme Court upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934, but clarified that the Second Amendment applies to the right to bear military arms as well as arms that the military may use. The Court ruled against Miller in this case though citing that a short barreled shotgun could be regulated. It was deemed not useful for military purposes and would fall under the National Firearms Act.
1968 – Gun Control Act
The initial act was a response to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The legislation expanded licensing dealers, made it illegal to to mail order long guns, and it also established that convicted felons, drug users, and the mentally ill can be prohibited from possessing firearms.
This amendment to existing law made it illegal to sell automatic firearms made after May 19, 1986 to civilians. Any automatic firearms already in civilian hands could still be transferred, but would continue to fall under the regulation of the National Firearms Act of 1934.
Take a look a the following video to see the demonstrated difference between automatic and semi-automatic:
1990 – Crime Control Act
Among other things this act established gun-free school zones and penalties for those carrying or discharging firearms in these zones.
This established a five day waiting period and mandatory background check for handgun purchases as well as setting up the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) that is used today for every purchase performed through an FFL dealer.
Also referred to as the “Assault Weapons Ban” this act served to ban specific semiautomatic firearms and other firearms based on outward appearance rather than functional characteristics. This legislation expired in 2004 and studies have concluded that it was ineffective.
2007 – NICS Improvement Act
This was passed in response to the Virginia Tech shooting. The purpose was to expand funding for NICS and to encourage states to submit mental health records to the NICS index. So far, NICS has been underfunded, receiving less than 6% of the alotted funding in the past few years, and a vast majority of the states have not been sufficiently providing mental health records.
The Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban, and upheld the the individual right to bear arms, and clarified that it extends to arms that are in “common use at the time” but did not cover “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
2010 – McDonald v. Chicago
The Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s handgun ban as unconstitutional, further building off of the Heller decision and extended the Second Amendment to individual states.”(10)
The following video demonstrates the difference between a rifle and a gun:
Should Some Americans Be Denied Gun Rights?
“The gun control advocates have made it clear. They believe anyone with as much as an overtime parking ticket should e denied the right to possess or carry a gun. They seem to believe that a parking ticket is the equivalent of murder when it comes to access to a firearm.
“However, most of the crimes “That may be punished by one year or more in prison” that disqualify an American from owning a gun are non-violent crimes, and for the most part do not indicate there is any risk that the individual will graduate to violent crimes.
“The cohort of people who will, at some time during their lifetime, commit a violent crime is very much smaller than the ten million who have lost their gun rights. While the number is not known with exactitude the most common number I hear is one in twenty, or five percent – 500,000 – of ten million who have lost their gun rights..
“So we have a pool of 500,000 individuals who may commit another violent crime during their lifetimes – and 322 million of us who are very unlikely to collect anything more serious than a traffic ticket.
“Limiting anyone’s God given right of self defense is an extremely serious matter. To take a person’s rights to defend themselves because they have committed a non-violent crime is clearly an injustice.
“Crime and homicide numbers dating back 25 years before there were regularly enforced gun control in the United States show just how little risk there was in letting anyone with the money buy, possess, and carry a gun:
“Clearly, the homicide rate when anyone with money could buy and carry a gun was far lower than today’s rate.
“The presence of armed members of the “victim class” severely inhibits violent crime. so limiting firearms access is far less successful than one might think, even with numbers at hand.
“So the question should be whether or not to relax gun laws. Given the very much lower homicide and violent crime rates when such laws are relaxed or repealed, the answer to that becomes obvious.
“More guns mean less crime, and we need less crime.(11)
Gun Control Motivated Shooting Hoaxes
“A “hoax” or “false flag” is an elaborate pre-planned scheme and action introduced to deceive either the few or the many. Government contrived propaganda and / or violence events are intended to deceive the masses. Whatever these contrived practices are called, they are fraudulent in nature and are criminal.”
“A “hoax” may include fake or real blood; fake or real deaths. The common denominator in these “event happenings” is the perpetrated coordinated deception, motive, planning and purpose.
“It is very helpful to realize what is meant by “false flag” and especially “hoax.” What the two have in common is the fraud which both are intended to convey. False flags and hoaxes are designed to deceive the public. They are “smoke screens” to draw attention (away) from the goals and objectives of those initiating the fraud.
“Government (sponsored) contrived events, whether they are purely propaganda in nature or violence events, are hoaxes. Hoaxes can and do have various characteristics. Some are (real) bloody hoaxes. Many are not, as theatrical blood is put into place. Regardless, the goal of hoaxes, always remain the same. They are elaborate pre-planned fraudulent affairs designed to trick and deceive the public.(12)
During recent years there a been a number of gun control related hoaxes perpetrated by government agents and assisted by contractors, with crisis actors having shown up at all of these staged events. The same crisis actors have also shown up at different hoaxes utilizing slightly different stage makeup and costumes.
Shooting Hoaxes to Advance Gun Control
Following is a list of some of these hoaxes (in no particular order) with some highlights from each.
Note:There is much more evidence that each of these is a hoax :
The Orlando Pulse Shooting hoax
Here’s a link to a previous post with much more detail:
Sandy Hook Shooting Hoax
San Bernardino Shooting Hoax
Charleston Shooting Hoax
Virginia News Reporter Shooting Hoax
Oregon Umpqua Shooting Hoax
Boston Bombing Hoax
This hoax wasn’t focused on gun control, but it was focused on the often used Islamic terrorist fear porn meme:
National Hoax Crisis Actor Awards
Why all the recent Gun Control Mania?
Let’s take one last look at a key driver behind the current gun control hoaxes and the mania that’s being pushed by the controlled media:
“Pretend you’re the Regime.
Like Godzilla grabbing high-voltage lines, the Regime needs energy to grow. That means cash. Money for payoffs and pork.
You’ve got 3 sources for this cash: (i) Taxes, (ii) Chinese loans, and (iii) Printing. But lately, taxes are dwindling, since GDP is shrinking and there’s less to tax.
So normally, you’d just borrow more from China. But after watching your terrible management of the USA, China cuts you off.
But you have a secret weapon – the printing press. You order the Treasury, “Start printing. Print $84 Billion a month.” Printing money is great, but soon you’ll hit hyperinflation and collapse the dollar – like Germany did in the 1920’s. Like Venezuela is doing. You know it. China knows it.
So where do you turn? You turn back to China – and make them an offer.
Think of America’s natural resources as gold.
Our waterways, minerals, oil, and land are “gold.” The continental USA is the bank surrounding that gold.
To enter the bank and steal that gold, you must get past the guards. But there’s not a couple guards. There’s 300 MILLION guards. And 80 million of them are packing heat.
Americans have shotguns and rifles. They’ve got old guns, they’ve got custom guns with their name engraved, they’ve got pink guns for their daughter’s birthday. And they’re watching for someone to try robbing their gold.
Senators make a living by grabbing control of this gold (land; docks; oil) and doling it out to cronies in exchange for kickbacks and campaign money. Typically, this scheme was financed by Chinese loans. But recently, China cut off Congress, since Congress is running the USA into the ground. After all, what if McCain collapses the dollar and can’t pay China back?
So to keep the gravy train rolling, Senator (pretend it’s McCain) tells China, “We’ll attach land to this deal – so if we DO bankrupt the USA, China (or a local Chinese company) can take possession of these 40,000 acres in Nevada.”
In other words, McCain attaches collateral (Nevada land) to new Chinese loans. This reassures China that if McCain crashes the dollar, China can recover some hard value. This sounds good, until China spots a problem.
That problem is “Billy Bob’s shotgun.”
Standing on top of China’s collateral (40,000 acres in Nevada) is Billy Bob and his neighbors. Most own shotguns. Most have good aim. They don’t care what McCain promised China. They’ll start shooting if China or DHS – or anyone – shows up and tries to take their land.
Upset about this, China says: “What good is that collateral to us? Sure, it’s 40,000 acres in Nevada – but nobody can take that land with Billy Bob living there!”
“Gee, you have a point,” McCain tells China. “Would you feel better if Billy Bob didn’t have guns?”
At this, China perks up. 40,000 acres of DISARMED land could be occupied, no problem. Especially if McCain’s army (DHS) pushes Billy Bob out.
But before the Regime makes a move, they always do a test-run. To weed out mistakes. To gauge your reaction – will it fool you? Before Sandy Hook, their test run was Dunblane (Scotland) – same gun-hoax storyline, different school.
So before the Regime seizes land from Americans, they check your reaction – at Bundy Ranch.
BLM shows up and tries to kick folks off some land. Will townsfolk open fire? This time, the standoff might turn into a gunfight.
Since the shortcut (land grabs) will get ugly, the Regime chooses the long road. Instead of opening fire (and getting clobbered by armed citizens), the Regime hops aboard the Gun Grab Roadshow – fake shootings across the USA. Promoting these Fake Shootings are (Bloomberg-funded) front groups like Everytown For Gun Safety, MAIG (Mayors Against Illegal Guns), and Moms Demand Action:
So, instead of going to war with 80 Million gun owners (and watching DHS lose), the Regime will demonize guns at the state/city level, and remove them from society – step by step.
It will take a while – but as we’ll see, it’s well worth it.
The China Syndrome
Communist China already banned guns – so they’re working on knives. The Chenpeng Village Primary School “stabbing” happened the SAME DAY as Newtown – so Communists could restrict knife purchases:
After those same-day “massacres,” China cracked down on knife purchases while Governor Malloy pimped gun-grab laws:
Immediately, China jumped on Sandy Hook — demanding that US citizens be disarmed without delay.
Has the USA joined China in a Communist plot to disarm citizens? Did Globalist bankers tell both countries (USA/China), “Disarm your citizens if you want more money?” Is that why both the USA and China staged twin “massacres” the same day?
Is that why Obama sent $2.5 Million of hush money to CT Police followed by $2.9 Million of “overtime?” To seize Federal control of local police – just like China does?
Why are politicians risking Treason charges to disarm you?
Because the USA – today, with armed citizens – is worth a lot.
But DISARMED, the USA is worth 1,000 times more. Since politicians can break it up, pledge it out, sell off the pieces – without millions of gun owners stopping them.
A disarmed population can’t stop Congress from annexing land, giving seaports to China, handing chunks of America to Soros:
We can barely stop them now – but at least there’s a limit, since we have guns. Without those guns, there’s no limit to the looting. Without those guns, the value of our land (to traitors) skyrockets.
Does that sound paranoid? WND reports that Chinese government economists proposed “A plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up ‘development zones’ in the United States…… to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. debt owned by the Chinese government. The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration began allowing China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA.”
But was BLM’s Bundy Ranch stunt more than a test? Harry Reid and his son “Rory, are both involved in an effort by Chinese energy giant, ENN Energy Group, to build a $5 billion solar farm and manufacturing plant in the southern Nevada desert.” Was Harry Reid trying to seize Bundy Ranch for the Red Chinese? Some say “Absolutely.”
The Regime has robbed us as far as they can – while we still possess firearms. They’ve taken our doctors. They’ve stolen our health plans. They’ve sent jobs and factories overseas, leaving 94 million Americans out of work. Our remaining jobs got downgraded from full-time (40 hours/week) to part-time (28 hours/week).
Our GDP shrinks, year after year. Companies that speak against the Regime get sabotaged by IRS.
In short, there’s nothing left to steal. The Uniparty picked us clean.
The only move left is slicing up the USA. Selling parts to the highest bidder.
And the only thing stopping that is Billy Bob’s shotgun.
That’s why the Regime needs your guns – ASAP.”(15)
Here’s how the change/control process works over and over and over:
(3) Japanese Gun Control
David B. Kopel 1993
(4) Gun Control in Colonial New England
(5) Gun Control in Colonial New England, Part II
(6) Gun Control in the Middle & Southern Colonies
(7) The British Banned Guns On Our Founding Fathers & It Brought About A Revolution
Tim Brown January 22, 2013
(8) The Racist Roots of Gun Control
(12) “Hoax:” Definition