UR2BFree

Message to the Church

2013-11-05T22:59:00.001-08:00

Why are the only people God has sent into the world also the only people sitting around thinking what they can and cannot say publicly? We are the light why are we hiding the truth. The following are a number messages I have given to the Church in the last few months.

It is past the time for the Church to be the Church. Let me know what you think and share them with others.

Mason Weaver's MESSAGE TO THE BLACK CHURCH

Attacks on Liberty and Freedoms!

2013-06-11T09:15:00.000-07:00

The attacks on our liberty and freedoms are coming everyday now. The enemy is no longer hiding nor is he afraid of our knowledge. They believe we are asleep, I believe we are just lazy and afraid. No one wants to step up and be unpopular. No one wants to be out casted. Everyone is trying to be with the cool kids like it we are still in High School.

If you Christian, Conservative, Freedom Loving, Americans who are proud of our heritage do not stand up YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! Everyday we are told our beliefs are second class, ridiculed, outlawed and marginalized. We allow our Bibles to be subjected to restrictions, our Constitution to be ignored and our freedoms trampled on.

We have been convinced that it is a sin to be trouble makers, argumentative or opinionated. We are tolerant, open minded and even take pride in accepting un-Godly, anti-American, hate filled cultures. When will we return to the American values we want, desire and believe in? When will we get enough of allowing this continue war on our culture?

Here are just a few stories THIS WEEK on the continued war on America and our values. Stand up when you have had enough.

Join www.JesusCaucus.org and lets organize.

Obama allows Morning after pills for any child. Any age without Parental notification, doctors consultation or prescription. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/11/plan-b-morning-after-pill?guni=Network%20front:network-front%20main-3%20Main%20trailblock:Network%20front%20-%20main%20trailblock:Position1

IRS tells Americans to keep their faith to themselves.

US Military forbidden from reading certain "Conservative" news.

Criticizing Islam in a hate crime in America.

It goes on everyday with more and more Christian, conservatives surrendering everyday. From the Boy Scouts allowing Homosexual members to seduce your children at camp, to the pollution of the Church with gay ministries and preachers of darkness. It will end when you get enough.

Racist Origins of Gun Control Laws

2013-03-03T09:03:00.001-08:00

AUTHORS NOTE! This data is very old but the updated information continue to point to the facts outlined here. I was researching data to write a book on the subject but came across so much information it would have made the book either very long or so full of statistics to be boring. So I stored the information and used it over the years in speeches and other writings. One of the most important findings were the collection of past Gun Control Laws dating back to the 1600s outlining a consistent effort to disarm slaves, indians and the poor.

If you do nothing else, scan down to the list of Gun Control Laws and the intended results. Read through this and join other free people.

Clarence Mason

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

GUN CONTROL OR CRIMINAL CONTROL?

I have written often about gun control and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Often I am asked what do I have to fear. Should not the government license and verify the safe uses of fire arms? Some people believe government involvement creates safety and fairness. I think it creates oppression and dominance.

A recent General Accounting Office (GAO) study shows why so many Americans are fearful of their government. According to this study, the federal government has 60,000 employees carrying guns to enforce their regulations.

The era of big government may be over for President Clinton but armed federal employees grew by 2,436 last year. Why would we need so many armed bureaucrats? With every agency free to develop their own laws, regulations and penalties, they all need a police force to enforce their will on us.

The number of federally armed employees has raisin 20% in the last ten years, do you feel safer? I am not writing about the US Marshals, Secret Service, or the Federal Bureau of Investigations, of coarse they must be armed. But why would the Small Business Administration, NASA, the Department of Education, the US fish and Wildlife Service and the Department of Veteran Affairs need armed special agents?

There are 45 federal agencies with armed personnel, many with access to high tech powerful weapons. The GAO survey states the Department of Energy has access to machine guns, other agencies can bring tanks and military helicopters to aid them. In a free country, why would our National Park Service and Department of Health & Human Services need their own SWAT team?

They would only need this weaponry because they fear us. They have such fear and contempt for the citizenry that they must be armed behind barred doors to feel safe. Not only has Congress passed thousands of criminal laws but agencies have created thousands more regulations that have criminal penalties.

Of course the more federal laws we have the more need for federal police to enforce them. Big government breeds large law enforcement power. Congress has delegated their constitutional requirements to make laws. They have given it to the different agencies who over burden the citizens with foolish regulations and duplication of actions. Now we are under the crushing threat of armed federal officers from the Veterans Affairs checking on that monthly disability check.

So, after long thought and deliberation, I have decided to alter my views on gun control. I believe there is a need for registration and a waiting period and the control of the number of guns in use. Restrictions on the federal government’s use of guns, that is. Why not have the government submit a request to arm their employees to us for approval at the polls? Why not do a background check on the agency before permission to carry and conceal a weapon is issued?

I believe gun control on the federal level is needed to keep guns out of the hands of bureaucrats. After all, bureaucrats have already proven to be power hungry, why arm them without careful consideration? Has anyone every dealt with some frustrated city clerk, would you want that person armed as well? What’s next, armed metermaids and street sweepers?

The government lives on crisis, I fully expect to see an “El Nino security team” formed to make sure every safety precaution is in place. We will need armed federal nannies to make sure we come in out of the rain.

If the government did not try to micro manage our lives through over regulations, we would not need so many armed government employees. But do not expect the government to be self regulating, we should do that at the polls.

“WITH NO INFRINGEMENTS”

The second amendment to the United States Constitution 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.” This simple twenty seven-word sentence has confounded the wise and baffled the simple. There seems to be constant on going debate over this amendment. I do not understand the controversy, either we have a second amendment right or we do not.

I have debated this issue over and over again and it seems like there is a confusion over what the amendment says and what it implies. I do not think there is a difference, it implies what it says and means what it says. Some people honestly think this amendment speaks to the States right to maintain a well regulated militia. I understand the point of view but am still concern with the word “people” in the amendment. So I will not debate whether the amendment pertains to States rights or individual rights. Let us first agree that the second amendment to the United States Constitution gives SOMEBODY the right to keep and bear arms with no infringement.

If we can agree on that then we can back up and observe society and look for that group. I have looked and can find no group or individual in this nation with that recognized right. There is no one that the State recognizes as having the right to keep and bear arms with NO infringement. Not the national guard, militia, hunters, home owners or even the police. All have some government restrictions (infringements) over their weapons.

Therefore it can be argued that no one has a second amendment right to keep and bear arms today. The second amendment right of all of us has been surrendered and no longer exist.

While we are debating the details of who is covered and who is not, we find that none are covered. Because we failed to defend the rights of others, we have lost the right ourselves. Will we ever learn? No one is free until all of us are free.

I may be wrong, perhaps I have missed it somewhere. It would be appreciated if some of you can write and tell me which group, in this nation, has the constitutionally recognized right to keep and bear arms with no government regulation. The national guard cannot take their M16 guns home with them, the police must surrender his weapon upon demand from superiors so where is the right? Even hunters and home owners need licenses and permits to own, sell and carry their weapons. We have been asleep.

This is not the only right we have lost. The tax codes have stolen our “pursuit of happiness” as the government becomes our senior business partner. Home owners and property owners must seek government permission to use their property. Parents have little or no control over their children’s education. Parents are expected by the state to be “perfect” or the state will remove the child from the home.

But there is hope, we are awakening from our slumber and beginning to stir. Americans have recognized the government’s infringement on their religious, economic and social freedoms. We are aware the First Amendment protection of the free exercise of religion, have been thwarted by restricting individual prayer in schools and elsewhere. The Fourth Amendments security in our “persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures “ has been eliminated with zero tolerance seizures of drug uses properties with no arrest or trial and IRS and Social Security access to your private records without warrants. Even the Congress has “expanded” the Fourth Amendment requirement of a warrant to make it easier for police to act without such warrant.

The Constitution of the United States is a great document that has maintained this country because of its protection of individual freedoms. But now we have government schools that do not teach the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights to our children. Even some law schools have little or no emphases on the Constitution. Those of us that disagree with our government are finding fewer freedoms to do so.

However, with more of us under the burdens of government regulation and control we are beginning to see the problem. There is one Constitutional right that has not been eliminated, the right to vote. We can still elect our representative and hold them accountable. Yes, big money has a lot to say about who is elected but we do not have to fall for it. Become aware and selective with your vote, it is the only weapon you have. Stay alert and stay free. Vote and support candidates that will protect your individual rights not your group rights. Not African American, women, poor, business, Hispanic or party rights. But the right of the individual to pursuit happiness and prosperity, this is the freedom that is America.

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Simple enough right? Then why are federal, state, county and city governments so concern about “gun control? ”Everywhere you look your government has tried to protect you from yourself. I want to live safely and want my neighbor to be secure in his home as well. But, what is true protection? I have heard many arguments for government controlling access to fire arms. I have looked into many of them and analysis have convinced me that gun control laws will not make us safer.

I would like to discuss some arguments for more gun control over law-abiding citizens. Some notions are so obviously wrong I will not take the time in this space for analysis. Let us look at some buzz words and emotional phrases used to convince us to surrender our rights.

The idea that guns are only used for killing has been around for a long time. Of course guns can be used for killing but compare the 35,000 deaths by guns each year to the 2.5 million citizens who use guns to protect themselves, their families and property. About 1/2 million Americans have saved lives using guns.

We are told there is an epidemic of gun violence and the claims appear to be false. The US Bureau of Justice Statistics suggest that guns are the safest means of defense. The use of a gun for protection means fewer injuries to the defender compared to any other means. Why are the murder rates in “easy purchase” states like North Dakota (1.1), South Dakota (1.7), Maine (1.2), Idaho (1.8), Iowa (2.0), Montana (2.6), so low? The highest murder rates can be found in states with restrictive gun laws on law-abiding citizens: District of Columbia (80.6), New York (14.2), California (12.7), Illinois (11.3), and Maryland (11.7).

Clearly one-third of Americans live in the 22 states that allow good citizens to carry weapons in public. It is important to understand that in these states’ crime rates in every category, are lower. Using the FBI Uniform Crime Report, the rate for homicide, assault, and overall violent crime is 40% lower. Armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower and property crimes are 10% lower. Despite the rhetoric, whining and emotional outbursts, the evidence clearly shows that more guns on the streets in the hands of good citizens will reduce crime.

Even a restrictive state like California, the highest rate of murder can be traced to counties that have the lowest rates of concealed license issuances. The fear mongrels paint horrible pictures of life with every citizen armed with licensed hand guns. But the facts point in a different direction. In Florida, as of 12/31/94, 188,106 licenses have been issued to citizens without a single innocent person killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the six years post-reform period. Of this total only 0.0001% (that is 17 people) have been revoked for misuse of a firearm. None of these revocations was because of any injury. Despite the fear that everyone will carry a gun if permitted, only 2% of the population of most states have been licensed.

The crime rate is down where criminals have to wonder if their intended victim is armed. The reason so many tourists in Florida were being targeted was the assurance for criminals that those visiting the state would not have carry permits. When word went out that tourists could get a “visitors permit”, even those attacks decline.

The second amendment also states the well-armed citizen is necessary “to the security of a free state”. It seems they were right after all.

At the end of this book I have added the raw data on gun control. We can either be motivated by emotions or by facts, look at the facts for yourself.

GOVERNING FROM FEAR

The story out from Arizona of bounty hunters breaking into someone’s home at 4: a.m., should be a wake up call for most of us. They were dressed in “Nenji” clothing, wearing body armor and ski-masks and also at the wrong house. After holding young children at gun point they broke down the locked bed room door of the home owner.

Do not forget, it’s four o’clock in the morning and his front door has just been kicked in, naturally, the man of the house started firing. He managed to wound two of the bounty hunters before they killed him and his girlfriend. These bounty hunters were supposedly looking for a bail jumper from California but there was no evidence that he was ever at this home. Later investigations indicated they were burglars pretending to be bail agents. That is the problem, as long as we do not know our rights against such invasion. NO ONE has the right to kick in my front door at 4 a.m. not bounty hunters, police or even the judge that issued the warrant. Citizens have the right to protect there homes even against the police.

I was curious to know about the power and authority of bounty hunters so I called a local Bail Bondsman and spoke to a bounty hunting. That was the beginning of real confusion. Apparently, these people think the law gives them the right to “use what ever force is necessary” to bring a bail jumper to justice. They believe the “warrant” issued by the bail bondsmen, not the courts, give them the right to enter your home by force.

They quote legal rulings and court cases to verify their understanding. One bounty hunter said, if he saw a person entering my home and recognized him as a fugitive, he could force his way into my residence. Let us not even consider mistaking identity, or what the local law reads, lets talk about the good old US Constitution. The fourth Amendment recognizes certain rights of your person, property and papers.

It reads in part....”no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath of affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Let us be clear, you must have a warrant before you force your way into my home. That warrant must be specific to my home and exactly what you are searching for.

This is not superseded by some court ruling or Bail Bondsmen orders, it is the right of every citizen to be safe and secure in their home. In Arizona, the man of the house died defending his woman, children and home against armed invaders. The bounty hunters are either under arrest for second degree murder or fugitives and hunted themselves.

The real tragedy is the allowance of private companies, not connected with the courts to issue arrest warrants for citizens without a judge’s signature. Then to dispatch unlicensed, often untrained civilians to search and seize the subject without respect of the constitution.

If we are not aware of our rights how are we to know when to enforce them? If you think that civilians can enter your home because they “think” someone is there, you are not secure in your home. Even the judge cannot force his way into your home without due process. The police have limited authority to forcibly enter your home, why would a civilian think he could walk up to the door and demand entrance? If those bounty hunters understood the constitution and respected the rights of that home owner, no one would have been hurt.

But no one is teaching the constitutional rights of citizens and our rights are trampled daily because of lack of knowledge. I received a fax from “official” sources saying many home invasion burglars are using the “bounty hunter” excuse to gain entrance into homes. They will claim to have a warrant and force their way into the home to rob the occupants. You are safe when your rights are secure.

The fear needed for a society to voluntarily and peacefully give up their weapons is growing. Even within the black community we have a call for more gun control out of fear of each other. I wonder, if we really knew our history would we eagerly invite the old slave master to take away our weapons.

If we understood the racist origins of gun control we would not be so eager to depend upon master for protections. I have researched the gun control history of America and it is plainly used to control minorities. This book is a result of that research. I truly hope we learn from the pass and not allow fear to rule. We are safe when we can defend ourselves.

This series on “The truth, right between their lies!” examines the facts and provides the hard data for your verifications. Education is freedom, learning is power, take the power.

THE RAW DATA

A Division of the National Rifle Association

Laws Designed To Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And

African-Americans

OVERVIEW

Before the Civil War ended, State “Slave Codes” prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed “Black Codes.” They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment,” 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to “facially neutral” business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia’s official university law review called for a “prohibitive tax...on the privilege” of selling handguns as a way of disarming “the son of Ham,” whose “cowardly practice of ‘toting’ guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights.” [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, “Gun Control and Racism,” Stefan Tahmassebi,

1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

In the 1990s, “gun control” laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among “unpopular” populations.

Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.

“Gun sweeps” by police in “high crime neighborhoods” whereby vehicles and “pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon” are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as “Operation Ceasefire.”

Laws Designed To

Disarm Slaves, Freedmen, And African-Americans

OVERVIEW

Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the

Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was

adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under

laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The

legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the

Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal

access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral"

business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in

Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of

disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime....Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to

price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

In the 1990s, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning

guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.

Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.

"Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific

profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."

Sample Slave Codes, Black Codes,

Economic-Based Gun Bans Used To Prevent The Arming Of African Americans,

1640-1995

YEAR JURISDICTION STATUTE

1640 Virginia Race-based total gun and self-defense ban. “Prohibiting negroes, slave and free, from carrying weapons including clubs.” (The Los Angeles Times, “To Fight Crime, Some Blacks Attack Gun Control,” January 19, 1992)

1640 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. “That all such free Mulattoes, Negroes and Indians...shall appear without arms.” [7 The Statues at Large; Being a Collection of all the Laws of Virginia, from the First Session of the Legislature, in the Year 1619, p. 95 (W.W. Henning ed. 1823).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 67)

1712 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. “An Act for Preventing Negroes Insurrections.” (Henning, p. 481) (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1712 South Carolina Race-based total gun ban. “An act for the better ordering and governing of Negroes and slaves.” [7 Statutes at Large of South Carolina, p. 353-54 (D.J. McCord ed. 1836-1873).] (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1791 United States 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ratified. 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.”

1792 United States Blacks excluded from the militia, i.e. law-abiding males thus instilled with the right to own guns. Uniform Militia Act of 1792 “called for the enrollment of every free, able-bodied white male citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five” to be in the militia, and specified that every militia member was to “provide himself with a musket or firelock, a bayonet, and ammunition.” [1 Stat. 271 (Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 80, No. 2, “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration,” Robert Cottrol and Raymond Diamond, 1991, p. 331)]

1806 Louisiana Complete gun and self-defense ban for slaves. Black Code, ch. 33, Sec. 19, Laws of La. 150, 160 (1806) provided that a slave was denied the use of firearms and all other offensive weapons. (GLJ, p. 337)

1811 Louisiana Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of April 8, 1811, ch.14, 1811 Laws of La. 50, 53-54, forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (Id.)

1819 South Carolina Master’s permission required for gun possession by slave. Act of Dec. 18, 1819, 1819 Acts of S.C. 28, 31, prohibited slaves outside the company of whites or without written permission from their master from using or carrying firearms unless they were hunting or guarding the master’s plantation. (Id.)

1825 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. “An Act to Govern Patrols,” 1825 Acts of Fla. 52, 55 - Section 8 provided that white citizen patrols “shall enter into all negro houses and suspected places, and search for arms and other offensive or improper weapons, and may lawfully seize and take away all such arms, weapons, and ammunition....” Section 9 provided that a slave might carry a firearm under this statute either by means of the weekly renewable license or if “in the presence of some white person.” (Id.)

1828 Florida Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. Act of Nov. 17, 1828 Sec. 9, 1828 Fla. Laws 174, 177; Act of Jan. 12, 1828, Sec. 9, 1827 Fla. Laws 97, 100 - Florida went back and forth on the question of

licenses for free blacks; twice in 1828, Florida enacted provisions providing for free blacks to carry and use firearms upon obtaining a license from a justice of the peace. (Id.)

1831 Florida Race-based total gun ban. Act of Jan. 1831, 1831 Fla. Laws 30 - Florida repealed all provision for firearm licenses for free blacks. (Id. p. 337-38)

1831 Delaware Free blacks permitted to carry guns if court approval. In the December 1831 legislative session, Delaware required free blacks desiring to carry firearms to obtain a license from a justice of the peace. [(Herbert Aptheker, Nat Turner’s Slave Rebellion, p.74-75 (1966).] (GLJ, p. 338)

1831 Maryland Race-based total gun ban. In the December 1831 legislative session, Maryland entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 75) (Id., p. 338)

1831 Virginia Race-based total gun ban. In the December

1831 legislative session, Virginia entirely prohibited free blacks from carrying arms. (Aptheker, p. 81) (Id., p. 338)

1833 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Feb. 17, 1833, ch. 671, Sec. 15, 17, 1833 Fla. Laws 26, 29 authorized white citizen patrols to seize arms found in the homes of slaves and free blacks, and provided that blacks without a proper explanation for the presence of the firearms be summarily punished, without benefit of a judicial tribunal. (Id. p. 338)

1833 Georgia Race-based total gun ban. Act of Dec. 23, 1833, Sec. 7, 1833 Ga. Laws 226, 228 declared that “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever.” (Id.)

1840 Florida Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Feb. 25, 1840, no. 20, Sec. 1, 1840 Acts of Fla. 22-23 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (Id. p. 337)

1840 Texas Complete gun ban for slaves. “An Act Concerning Slaves,” Sec. 6, 1840 Laws of Tex. 171, 172, ch. 58 of the Texas Acts of 1850 prohibited slaves from using firearms altogether from 1842-1850. (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University, Vol. 85, No. 3, “Gun Control and Economic Discrimination: The Melting-Point Case-In-Point,” T. Markus Funk, 1995, p. 797)

1844 North Carolina Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In State v. Newsom, 27 N.C. 250 (1844), the Supreme Court of North Carolina upheld a Slave Code law prohibiting free blacks from carrying firearms on the grounds that they were not citizens. (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1845 North Carolina Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Jan. 1, 1845, ch. 87, Sec. 1, 2, 1845 Acts of N.C. 124 made sale or delivery of firearms to slaves forbidden. (GLJ, p.337)

1847 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Jan. 6, 1847, ch. 87 Sec. 11, 1846 Fla. Laws 42, 44 provided that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)

1848 Georgia Race-based gun ban upheld because free blacks “not citizens.” In Cooper v. Savannah, 4 Ga. 68, 72 (1848), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled “free persons of color have never been recognized here as citizens; they are not entitled to bear arms, vote for members of the legislature, or to hold any civil office.” (GMU CR LJ, p. 70)

1852 Mississippi Race-based complete gun ban. Act of Mar. 15, 1852, ch. 206, 1852 Laws of Miss. 328 forbade ownership of firearms by both free blacks and slaves. (JCLC NWU, p. 797)

1857 United States High Court upholds slavery since blacks “not citizens.” In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney argued if members of the African race were “citizens” they would be exempt from the special “police regulations” applicable to them. “It would give to persons of the negro race...full liberty of speech...to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” (Id. p. 417) U.S. Supreme Court held that descendants of Africans who were imported into this country and sold as slaves were not included nor intended to be included under the word “citizens” in the Constitution, whether emancipated or not, and remained without rights or privileges except such as those which the government might grant them, thereby upholding slavery. Also held that a slave did not become free when taken into a free state; that Congress cannot bar slavery in any territory; and that blacks could not be citizens.

1860 Georgia Complete gun ban for slaves. Act of Dec. 19, 1860, no. 64, Sec. 1, 1860 Acts of Ga. 561 forbade sale or delivery of firearms to slaves. (GLJ, p. 337)

1861 United States Civil War begins.

1861 Florida Slave and free black homes searched for guns for confiscation. Act of Dec. 17, 1861, ch. 1291, Sec. 11, 1861 Fla. Laws 38, 40 provided once again that white citizen patrols might search the homes of blacks, both free and slave, and confiscate arms held therein. (Id. p. 338)

1863 United States Emancipation Proclamation — President Lincoln issued proclamation “freeing all slaves in areas still in rebellion.”

1865 Mississippi Blacks require police approval to own guns, unless in military. Mississippi Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military “and not licensed so to do by the board of police of his or her county” from keeping or carrying “fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife.” [reprinted in 1 Documentary History of Reconstruction: Political, Military, Social, Religious, Educational and Industrial, 1865 to the Present Time, p. 291, (Walter L. Fleming, ed., 1960.)] (GLJ, p. 344)

1865 Louisiana Blacks require police and employer approval to own guns, unless serving in military. Louisiana Statute of 1865 prohibited blacks, not in the military service, from “carrying fire-arms, or any kind of weapons...without the special permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.” (Fleming, p. 280)(GLJ, p. 344) 1865 United States Civil War ends May 26.

1865 United States Slavery abolished as of Dec. 18, 1865. 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was ratified. Reads: Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or in any place subject to their jurisdiction. Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

1866 Alabama Race-based total gun ban. Black Code of Alabama in January 1866 prohibited blacks to own or carry firearms or other deadly weapons and prohibited “any person to sell, give, or lend fire-arms or ammunition of any description whatever” to any black. [The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates, p. 209, (Alfred Avins ed., 1967)] (GLJ, p. 345)

1866 North Carolina Rights of blacks can be changed by legislature. North Carolina Black Code, ch. 40, 1866 N.C. Sess. Laws 99 stated “All persons of color who are now inhabitants of this state shall be entitled to the same privileges, and are subject to the same burdens and disabilities, as by the laws of the state were conferred on, or were attached to, free persons of color, prior to the ordinance of emancipation, except as the same may be changed by law.” (Avins, p. 291.) (GLJ, p. 344)

1866 United States Civil Rights Act of 1866 enacted. CRA of 1866 did away with badges of slavery embodied in the “Black Codes,” including those provisions which “prohibit any negro or mulatto from having fire-arms.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 1, 474 (29 Jan. 1866)] Senator William Saulsbury (D- Del) added “In my State for many years...there has existed a law...which declares that free negroes shall not have the possession of firearms or ammunition. This bill proposes to take away from the States this police power...” and thus voted against the bill. CRA of 1866 was a precursor to today’s 42 USC Sec.1982, a portion of which still reads: “All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every state and territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold and convey real and personal property.”

1866 United States Proposed 14th Amendment to U.S. Constitution debated. Opponents of the 14th Amendment objected to its adoption because they opposed federal enforcement of the freedoms in the bill of rights. Sen. Thomas A. Hendricks (D-Ind.) said “if this amendment be adopted we will then carry the title [of citizenship] and enjoy its advantages in common with the negroes, the coolies, and the Indians.” [CONG. GLOBE, 39th Congress, 1st Session, pt. 3, 2939 (4 June 1866)]. Sen. Reverdy Johnson, counsel for the slave owner in Dred Scott, opposed the amendment because “it is quite objectionable to provide that ‘no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States’.” Thus, the 14th Amendment was viewed as necessary to buttress the Civil Rights Act of 1866, especially since the act “is pronounced void by the jurists and courts of the South,” e.g. Florida has as

“a misdemeanor for colored men to carry weapons...and

the punishment...is whipping...” [CONG GLOBE, 39th Con., 1st Session, 504, pt. 4, 3210 (16 June 1866)].

1866 United States Klu Klux Klan formed. Purpose was to terrorize blacks who voted; temporarily disbanded in 1871;

reestablished in 1915. In debating what would become 42 USC Sec. 1983, today’s federal civil rights statute, Representative Butler explained “This provision seemed to your committee to be necessary, because they had observed that, before these midnight marauders [the KKK] made attacks upon graceful citizens, there were very many instances in the South where the sheriff of the county had preceded them and taken away the arms of their victims. This was especially noticeable in Union County, where all the negro population were disarmed by the sheriff only a few months ago under the order of the judge...; and then, the sheriff having disarmed the citizens, the five hundred masked men rode at nights and murdered and otherwise maltreated the ten persons who were in jail in that county.” [1464 H.R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]

1867 United States The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867. Report noted with particular emphasis that under the Black Codes, blacks were “forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assaults.” (Reprinted in H. Hyman, The Radical Republicans and Reconstruction, p. 219, 1967.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 71)

1868 United States 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution adopted, conveying citizenship to blacks. Reads, in part: “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. “Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

1870 Tennessee First “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. In the first legislative session in which they gained control, white supremacists passed “An Act to Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide,” which banned the sale of all handguns except the expensive “Army and Navy model handgun” which whites already owned or could afford to buy, and blacks could not. (“Gun Control: White Man’s Law,” William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) Upheld in Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. (3 Heisk.) 165, 172 (1871) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74) “The cheap revolvers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were referred to as ‘Suicide Specials,’ the ‘Saturday Night Special’ label not becoming widespread until reformers and politicians took up the gun control cause during the 1960s. The source of this recent

concern about cheap revolvers, as their new label suggest, has much in common with the concerns of the gun-law initiators of the post-Civil War South. As B. Bruce-Briggs has written in the Public Interest, ‘It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the ‘Saturday Night Special’ is emphasized because it is

cheap and being sold to a particular class of people. The name is sufficient evidence — the reference is to ‘niggertown Saturday night.”(“Gun Control: White Man’s Law,” William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1871 United States Anti-KKK Bill debated in response to race-motivated violence in South. A report on violence in the South resulted in an anti-KKK bill that stated “That whoever

shall, without due process of law, by violence, intimidation, or threats, take away or deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property, shall be deemed guilty of a larceny thereof, and be punished as provided in this act for a felony.” [1464 H.R. REP. No. 37, 41st Cong., 3rd Sess. p. 7-8 (20 Feb. 1871)]. Since Congress doesn’t have jurisdiction over simple larceny, the language was removed from the anti-KKK bill, but this section survives today as 42 USC Sec. 1983: “That any person who, under color of any law,...of any State, shall subject, or cause to be subjected, any person... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities to which...he is entitled under the Constitution...shall be liable...in any action at law...for redress...”.

1875 United States High Court rules has no power to stop KKK members from disarming blacks. In United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. at 548-59 (1875) A member of the KKK, Cruikshank had been charged with violating the ights of two black men to peaceably assemble and to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government had no power to protect citizens against private action (not committed by federal or state government authorities) that deprived them of their constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. The

Court held that for protection against private criminal action, individuals are required to look to state governments. “The doctrine in Cruikshank, that blacks would have to look to state government for protection against criminal conspiracies gave the green light to private forces, often with the assistance of state and local governments, that sought to subjugate the former slaves and their descendants... With the protective arm of the federal government withdrawn, protection of black lives and property was left to largely hostile state governments.” (GLJ, p. 348.)

1879 Tennessee Second “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passed. Tennessee revamped its economic handgun ban nine years later, passing “An Act to Prevent the Sale of Pistols,” which was upheld in State v. Burgoyne, 75Tenn. 173, 174 (1881). (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)

1882 Arkansas Third “Saturday Night Special” economic gun ban passed. Arkansas followed Tennessee’s lead by enacting a virtually identical “Saturday Night Special” law banning the sale of any pistols other than expensive “army or navy” model revolvers, which most whites had or could afford, thereby disarming blacks. Statute was upheld in Dabbs v. State, 39 Ark. 353 (1882) (GMU CR LJ, p. 74)

1893 Alabama First all-gun economic ban passed. Alabama placed “extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes” on the sale of handguns in an attempt “to put handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.” (“Gun Control: White Man’s Law,” William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1902 South Carolina First total civilian handgun ban. The state banned all pistol sales except to sheriffs and their special

deputies, which included the KKK and company strongmen. (Kates, “Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States” in Restricting Handguns: The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out, p. 15, 1979.) (GMU CR LJ, p. 76)

1906 Mississippi Race-based confiscation through record-keeping. Mississippi enacted the first registration law for

retailers in 1906, requiring them to maintain records of all pistol and pistol ammunition sales, and to make such records available for inspection on demand. (Kates, p. 14) (GMU CR LJ, p. 75)

1907 Texas Fourth “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban. Placed “extremely heavy business and/or transactional taxes” on the sale of handguns in an attempt “to put

handguns out of the reach of blacks and poor whites.” (“Gun Control: White Man’s Law,” William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985)

1911 New York Police choose who can own guns lawfully. “Sullivan Law” enacted, requiring police permission, via a permit issued at their discretion, to own a handgun. Unpopular minorities were and are routinely denied permits. (“Gun Control: White Man’s Law,” William R. Tonso, Reason, December 1985) “(T)here are only about 3,000 permits in New York City, and 25,000 carry permits. If you’re a street-corner grocer in Manhattan, good luck getting a gun permit. But among those who have been able to wrangle a precious carry permit out of the city’s bureaucracy are Donald Trump,

Arthur Ochs Sulzburger, William Buckley, Jr., and David, John, Lawrence and Winthrop Rockefeller. Surprise.” (Terrance Moran, “Racism and the Firearms Firestorm,” Legal Times)

1934 United States Gun Control Act of 1934 (National Firearms Act) passed.

1941 Florida Judge admits gun law passed to disarm black laborers. In concurring opinion narrowly construing a Florida gun control law passed in 1893, Justice Buford state the 1893 law “was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State....The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers....The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied...”. Watson v. Stone, 148 Fla. 516, 524, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (GMU CR LJ, p. 69)

The Following Historical Events Are Included as Context for Passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

1954 - U.S. Supreme Court held racial segregation of schools violates 14th Amendment.

1955 - Alabama bus segregation ordinance held unconstitutional after boycott and NAACP protest.

1956 - Massive resistance to Supreme Court desegregation ruling called for by 101 Southern congressmen.

1957 - Congress approved first civil rights law for blacks. Governor ordered National Guard troops to prevent nine blacks from entering all-white high school in Little Rock; President Eisenhower had to send federal military troops to enforce court order that Guardsman be removed.

1960 - Sit-ins began February 1 when four black college students in Greensboro, N.C., refused to move from a lunch counter after being denied service; by 1961, more than 700,000 students, black and white, had participated in sit-ins.

1962 - 3,000 troops were required to quell riots after University of Mississippi accepted first black student.

1963 - 200,000 people participated in March on Washington, at which Dr. Martin Luther King gave his famous “I have a

dream” speech.

1963 - President John F. Kennedy assassinated in November.

1964 - Omnibus civil rights bill barring discrimination in voting, jobs, discrimination, etc.; three civil rights workers reported missing in Mississippi, found buried two months later, 21 white men arrested, seven of whom an all-white federal court jury convicted of conspiracy only.

1965 - 34 dead in race riot in Watts area of Los Angeles.

1966 - First black U.S. senator in 85 years elected (Edward Brook, R-MA)

1967 - Race riots in Newark, N.J., kill 26, injure 1,500, with over 1,000 arrested. Race riots in Detroit killed at least 40,

injured 2,000 and left 5,000 homeless; was quelled by 4,700 federal paratroopers and 8,000 National Guardsmen. Thurgood Marshall sworn in Oct. 2 as first black justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

1968 - Martin Luther King assassinated in April. Robert F. Kennedy assassinated in June.

1968 United States Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the Gun Control Act of 1968 was “passed not to control guns but to control Blacks.” [R. Sherrill, The Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CR LJ, p.80) “The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a majority of Congress did not want to do the former but were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter, the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law, the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one piece but was a combination of two laws. The original 1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include the control of rifles and shotguns after the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a handgun.... The moralists of our federal legislature as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird memorial, as can be seen not merely by the handgun/long-gun shellgame, but from the inapplicability of the law to their deaths.” (The Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)

1988 Maryland Fifth “Saturday Night Special” economic handgun ban passes. Ban on “Saturday Night Specials,” i.e.

inexpensive handguns, passes.

1988 Illinois Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Illinois.

Starting in late 1988, the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) and the Chicago Police Dept. (CPD) enacted and enforced an official policy, Operation Clean Sweep, which applied to all housing units owned and operated by the CHA. The purpose was the confiscation of firearms and illegal narcotics and consisted of warrantless searches and of a visitor exclusion policy severely limiting the right of CHA tenants to associate in their residences with family members and other guests, tenants had to sign in and out of the building, producing to the police or CHA officials photo Id. Relatives, including children and grandchildren, were not allowed to stay over, even on holidays. CHA tenants who objected or attempted to

interfere with these warrantless searches were arrested. The ACLU filed a lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of the CHA tenants against the enforcement of Operation Clean Sweep. The complaint was filed in the United Sates District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, on Dec. 16, 1988, as Case No.

88C10566 and is styled as Rose Summeries, et al. v. Chicago Housing Authority, et al. A consent decree was entered on Nov. 30, 1989 in which the CHA and CPD agreed to abide by certain standards and in which the scope and purposes of such “emergency housing inspections” were limited. (GMU, p. 98) 1990 Virginia Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Virginia. U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of

Virginia upheld a ban imposed by the Richmond Housing

Authority on the possession of all firearms, whether operable or not, in public housing projects. The Richmond Tenants Organization had challenged the ban, arguing that such requirement had made the city’s 14,000 public housing residents second-class citizens.[Richmond Tenants Org. v. Richmond Dev. & Hous. Auth., No. C.A. 3:90CV00576 (E.D.Va. Dec. 3, 1990).] (GMU, p. 97)

1994 United States President seeks to single out all poor citizens residing in federal housing for gun ban. The Clinton

Administration introduced H.R. 3838 in 1994 to ban guns in federal public housing, but the House Banking Committee rejected it. Similar legislation was filed in 1994 in the Oregon and Washington state legislatures.

1995 Maine Poor citizens singled out for gun ban in Maine. Portland, ME, gun ban in public housing struck down on April 5, 1995.

For More Information Call 1-800-868-4411

Re-printed by Mason Media Company with premission of the National Rifle Association.

“To know your history is to control your

future!” Clarence Mason

Nine Myths

Gun Control

Myth #1 “Guns are only used for killing”

Compared to about 35,000 gun deaths every year, 2.5 million good Americans use guns to protect themselves, their families,

and their livelihoods - there are 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun - five lives are protected per minute -

and, of those 2.5 million protective uses of guns, about 1/2 million are believed to have saved lives.[2]

Myth #2 “Guns are dangerous when used for protection”

US Bureau of Justice Statistics show that guns are the safest and most effective means of defense. Using a gun for protection results in fewer injuries to the defender than using any other means of defense and is safer than not resisting at all.[3] The myth that “guns are only used for killing” and the myth that “guns are dangerous when used for protection” melt when exposed to scientific examination and data. The myths persist because they are repeated so frequently and dogmatically that few think to question the myths by examining the mountains of data available. Let us examine the other common myths.

Myth #3 “There is an epidemic of gun violence”

Even their claim of an “epidemic” of violence is false. That claim, like so many other of their claims, has been so often

dogmatically repeated that few think to question the claim by checking the FBI and other data. Homicide rates have been

stable to slightly declining for decades except for inner city teens and young adults involved with illicit drug trafficking. We have noticed that, if one subtracts the inner city contribution to violence, American homicide rates are lower than in Britain and the other paragons of gun control.[2]

The actual causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership. In the

inner city, poverty is so severe that crime has become a rational career choice for those with no hope of decent job

opportunities.[4]

Myth #4 “Guns cause violence”

Homicide

For over twenty years it has been illegal for teens to buy guns and, despite such gun control, the African-American teenage

male homicide rate in Washington, DC is 227 per 100,000 - 20 times the US average![5] The US group for whom legal gun ownership has the highest prevalence, middle-aged white men, has a homicide rate of less than 7 per 100,000 - about half of the US average.[6] If the “guns-cause-violence” theory is correct why does Virginia, the alleged “easy purchase” source of all those illegal Washington, DC guns, have a murder rate of 9.3 per 100,000, one-ninth of DC’s overall homicide rate of 80.6?[7 ]Why are homicide rates lowest in states with loose gun control (North Dakota 1.1, Maine 1.2, South Dakota 1.7, Idaho 1.8, Iowa 2.0, Montana 2.6) and highest in states and the district with draconian gun controls and bans (District of Columbia 80.6, New York 14.2, California 12.7, Illinois 11.3, Maryland 11.7)?[7] The “guns-cause-violence” and “guns exacerbate violence” theories founder. Again, the causes of inner city violence are family disruption, media violence, and abject poverty, not gun ownership.

Accidents

National Safety Council data show that accidental gun deaths have been falling steadily since the beginning of this century and now hover at an all time low. This means that about 200 tragic accidental gun deaths occur annually, a far cry from the familiar false imagery of “thousands of innocent children.”[8]

Suicide

Gun bans result in lower gun suicide rates, but a compensatory increase in suicide from other accessible and lethal means of suicide (hanging, leaping, auto exhaust, etc.). The net result of gun bans? No reduction in total suicide rates.[3] People who are intent in killing themselves find the means to do so. Are other means of suicide so much more politically correct that we should focus on measures that decrease gun suicide, but do nothing to reduce total suicide deaths?

Myth #5 The “Friends and Family” fallacy

It is common for the “public health” advocates of gun bans to claim that most murders are of “friends and family.” The medical literature includes many such false claims, that “most [murderers] would be considered law abiding citizens prior to their pulling the trigger”[9 ]and “most shootings are not committed by felons or mentally ill people, but are acts of passion that are committed using a handgun that is owned for protection.”[10]

Not only do the data show that acquaintance and domestic homicide are a minority of homicides,[11] but the FBI’s definition of acquaintance and domestic homicide requires only that the murderer knew or was related to the decedent. That dueling drug dealers are acquainted does not make them “friends.” Over three-quarters of murderers have long histories of violence against not only their enemies and other “acquaintances,” but also against their relatives.[12,13,14,15] Oddly, medical authors have no difficulty recognizing the violent histories of murderers when the topic is not gun control - “A history of violence is the best predictor of violence.”[16] The perpetrators of acquaintance and domestic homicide are overwhelmingly vicious aberrants with long histories of violence inflicted upon those close to them. This reality belies the imagery of “friends and family” murdering

each other in fits of passion simply because a gun was present “in the home.”

Myth #6 “A homeowner is 43 times as likely to be killed or kill a family member as an intruder”

To suggest that science has proven that defending oneself or one’s family with a gun is dangerous, gun prohibitionists repeat Dr. Kellermann’s long-discredited claim: “a gun owner is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder.”[17] This fallacy , fabricated using tax dollars, is one of the most misused slogans of the anti-self-defense lobby.

The honest measure of the protective benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved, and the property protected not Kellermann’s burglar or rapist body count. Only 0.1% (1 in a thousand) of the defensive uses of guns results in the death of the predator.[3] Any study, such as Kellermann’ “43 times” fallacy, that only counts bodies will

expectedly underestimate the benefits of gun a thousand-fold. Think for a minute. Would anyone suggest that the only measure of the benefit of law enforcement is the number of people killed by police? Of course not. The honest measure of the benefits of guns are the lives saved, the injuries prevented, the medical costs saved by deaths and injuries averted, and the property protected. 65 lives protected by guns for every life lost to a gun.[2]

Kellermann recently downgraded his estimate to “2.7 times,”[18] but he persisted in discredited methodology. He used a method that cannot distinguish between “cause” and “effect.” His method would be like finding more diet drinks in the refrigerators of fat people and then concluding that diet drinks “cause” obesity.

Also, he studied groups with high rates of violent criminality, alcoholism, drug addiction, abject poverty, and domestic abuse. From such a poor and violent study group he attempted to generalize his findings to normal homes. Interestingly, when Dr. Kellermann was interviewed he stated that, if his wife were attacked, he would want her to have a gun for protection.[19] Apparently, Dr. Kellermann doesn’t even believe his own studies.

Myth #7 “The costs of gun violence are high”

The actual economic cost of medical care for gun violence is approximately $1.5-billion per year[20]- less than 0.2% of

America’s $800-billion annual health care costs. To exaggerate the costs of gun violence, the advocates of gun prohibition

routinely include estimates of “lost lifetime earnings” or “years of productive life lost” - assuming that gangsters, drug dealers, and rapists would be as socially productive as teachers, factory workers, and other good Americans - to generate inflated claims of $20-billion or more in “costs.”[20] One recent study went so far as to claim the “costs” of work lost because workers might gossip about gun violence.[21]

What fraction of homicide victims are actually “innocent children” who strayed into gunfire? Far from being pillars of society, it has been noted that more than two-thirds of gun homicide “victims” are drug traffickers or their customers.[22,23] In one study, 67% of 1990 homicide “victims” had a criminal record, averaging 4 arrests for 11 offenses.[23] These active criminals cost society not only untold human suffering, but also an average economic toll of $400,000 per criminal per year before apprehension and $25,000 per criminal per year while in prison.[24] Because the anti-self-defense lobby repeatedly forces us to examine the issue of “costs,” we are forced to notice that, in cutting their violent “careers” short, the gun deaths of those predators and criminals may actually represent an economic savings to society on the order of $4.5 billion annually - three times the declared “costs” of guns. Those annual cost savings are only a small fraction of the total economic savings from guns, because the $4.5 billion does not include the additional savings from innocent lives saved, injuries prevented, medical costs averted, and property protected by guns.

Whether by human or economic measure, we conclude that guns offer a substantial net benefit to our society. Other benefits, such as the feeling of security and self-determination that accompany protective gun ownership, are less easily quantified. There is no competent research that suggests making good citizens’ access to guns more difficult (whether by bureaucratic “red tape,” taxation, or outright bans) will reduce violence. It is only good citizens who comply with gun laws, so it is only good citizens who are disarmed by gun laws. As evidenced by jurisdictions with the most draconian gun laws (e.g. New York City, Washington, DC, etc.), disarming these good citizens before violence is reduced causes more harm than good. Disarming these good citizens costs more - not fewer - lives.

Myth #8 “Gun control will keep guns ‘off the street’ “

Vicious predators who ignore laws against murder, mayhem, and drug trafficking routinely ignore those existent American gun laws. No amount of well-meaning, wishful thinking will cause these criminals to honor additional gun laws.

Advocates of gun control rarely discuss the enforceability of their proposals, an understandable lapse, since even police-state tactics cannot effectively enforce gun bans. As evidence, in Communist China, a country whose human rights record we dare not emulate, 120,000 banned civilian guns were confiscated in one month in 1994.[25]

Existent gun laws impact only those willing to comply with such laws, good people who already honor the laws of common decency. Placing further impediments in the path of good citizens will further disproportionately disarm those good people -especially disarming good, poor people, the people who live in the areas of highest risk.

If “better” data are forthcoming, we are ready to reassess the public policy implications. Until such time, the data suggest that victim disarmament is not a policy that saves lives.

What does save lives is allowing adult, mentally-competent, law-abiding citizen access to the safest and most effective means of protection - guns.[26,27]

Brady I and Brady II

The extremists at Handgun Control Inc. boast that “23,000 potential felons”[28] [emphasis added] were prevented from retail gun purchases in the first month of the Brady Law. Several jurisdictions have reviewed the preliminary Brady Law data which resulted in the initial Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) overestimated appraisal[29] of the “success” of the Brady Law.

The Virginia State Police, Phoenix Police Department, and other jurisdictions have shown that almost every one of those

“potential” felons were not felons or otherwise disqualified from gun ownership. Many were innocents whose names were similar to felons. Misdemeanor traffic convictions, citations for fishing without a license, and failure to license dogs were the types of trivial crimes that resulted in a computer tag that labeled the others as “potential” felons.[30] In transparent “governmentese,” BATF Spokesperson Susan McCarron avers, “we feel [the Brady Law has] been a success, even though we don’t have a whole lot of numbers. Anecdotally, we can find some effect.”[31]

Even if the preliminary data had been accurate, that data only showed about 6.3% of retail sales were “possible” felons -

consistent with repeated studies showing how few crime guns are obtained in retail transactions. A minuscule number of actual felons has been identified by Brady Law background checks, but the US Department of Justice is unable to identify even one prosecution of those felons.[32 ] In such circumstance, the minimal expected benefit of the Brady Law diminishes to no benefit at all. The National Institute of Justice has shown that very few crime guns are purchased from gun dealers. 93% of crime guns are obtained as black market, stolen guns, or from similar non-retail sources.[28] Since none of Handgun Control Inc.’s Brady I or Brady II suggestions impact on the source of 93% of crime guns, their symbolic nostrums cannot be expected to do anything to reduce crime or violence.

Residential gun dealers

The press and broadcast media have vilified low-volume gun dealers, pejoratively named “kitchen table” dealers, yet the claim that such dealers are the source of a “proliferation of guns on our streets” is contradicted by data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF). Those data show that 43% of gun dealers had no inventory and sold no guns at all.[33 ]In fact, Congressional testimony before enactment of the Firearms Owner Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) documented that the large number of low-volume gun dealers is a direct result of BATF policy. Prior to FOPA the BATF prosecuted gun collectors who sold as few as three guns per year at gun shows, claiming that they were unlicensed, and therefore illegal, gun dealers. To avoid such harassment and prosecution, thousands of American gun collectors became, at least on paper, licensed gun dealers. Now the BATF and the anti-self-defense lobby claim BATF does not have the resources to audit the paperwork monster it created. Reducing the number of gun dealers will only ensure that guns are more expensive - unaffordable to the poor who are at greatest risk from violence, ensuring that gun ownership becomes a privilege of only the politically connected and the affluent.

Instead of heaping more onerous restrictions upon good citizens or law-abiding gun dealers who are not the source of crime guns, is it not more reasonable - though admittedly more difficult - to target the real source of crime guns? It is time to admit the futility of attacking the supply of legal guns to interdict the less than 1% of the American gun stock that is used criminally. Instead, we believe effort should focus on targeting the actual “black market” in stolen guns. It is equally important to reduce the demand for illicit guns and drugs, most particularly by presenting attractive life opportunities and career alternatives to the inner-city youth that are overwhelmingly and disproportionately the perpetrators and victims of violence in our society.

Myth #9 “Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection”

Nationally good citizens use guns about seven to ten times as frequently as the police to repel crime and apprehend criminals and they do it with a better safety record than the police.[3] About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are loss than 1 in 26,000.[27] Citizens intervening in crime are less likely to be wounded than the police.

We can explain why the civilian record is better than the police, but the simple truth remains - citizens have an excellent record of protecting themselves and their communities and NOT ONE of the fear mongering fantasies of the gun control lobby has come true.

“Treat cars like guns”

Advocates of increased gun restrictions have promoted the automobile model of gun ownership, however, the analogy is

selectively and incompletely applied. It is routinely overlooked that no license or registration is needed to “own and operate”

any kind of automobile on private property. No proof of “need” is required for automobile registration or drivers’ licensure. Once licensed and registered, automobiles may be driven on any public road and every state’s licenses are given “full faith and credit” by other states. There are no waiting periods, background checks, or age restrictions for the purchase of automobiles. It is only their use - and misuse - that is regulated.

Although the toll of motor vehicle tragedies is many times that of guns, no “arsenal permit” equivalent is asked of automobile

collectors or motorcycle racing enthusiasts. Neither has anyone suggested that automobile manufacturers be sued when

automobiles are frequently misused by criminals in bank robberies, drive-by shootings, and all manner of crime and terrorism. No one has suggested banning motor vehicles because they “might” be used illegally or are capable of exceeding the 55 mph speed limit, even though we know “speed kills.” Who needs a car capable of three times the national speed limit? “But cars have good uses” is the usual response. So too do guns have good uses, the protection of as many as 2.5-million good Americans every year.

Progressive reform

Complete, consistent, and constitutional application of the automobile model of gun ownership could provide a rational solution to the debate and enhance public safety. Reasonable compromise on licensing and training is possible. Where state laws have

been reformed to license and train good citizens to carry concealed handguns for protection, violence and homicide have fallen.[11,26,27] Even unarmed citizens who abhor guns benefit from such policies because predators cannot determine in advance who is carrying a concealed weapon.

Fear mongering and the gun control lobby

In opposing progressive reforms that restore our rights to self-protection, the anti-self-defense lobby has claimed that reform

would cause blood to run in the streets, that inconsequential family arguments would turn into murderous incidents, that the economic base of communities would collapse, and that many innocent people would be killed[26,27] In Florida, the

anti-self-defense lobby claimed that blood would run in the streets of “Dodge City East,” the “Gunshine State” — but we do not have to rely on irrational propaganda, imaginative imagery, or political histrionics. We can examine the data.

Data, not histrionics

One-third of Americans live in the 22 progressive states that have reformed laws to allow good citizens to readily protect

themselves outside their homes.[26,27] In those states crime rates are lower for every category of crime indexed by the FBI

Uniform Crime Reports.[11] Homicide, assault, and overall violent crime are each 40% lower, armed robbery is 50% lower, rape is 30% lower, and property crimes are 10% power.[11] The reasonable reform of concealed weapon laws resulted in none of the mayhem prophesied by the anti-self-defense lobby. In fact, the data suggest that, providing they are in the hands of good citizens, more guns “on the street” offer a considerable benefit to society - saving lives, a deterrent to crime, and an adjunct to the concept of community policing.

As of 12/31/94, Florida had issued 188,106 licenses and not one innocent person had been killed or injured by a licensed gun owner in the 6 years post-reform. Of the 188,106 licenses, 17 (0.0001%) were revoked for misuse of the firearm. Not one of those revocations were associated with any injury whatsoever.[27] In opposing reform, fear is often expressed that “everyone would be packing guns,” but, after reform, most states have licensed fewer than 2% (and in no state more than 4%) of qualified citizens.[27]

Notwithstanding gun control extremists’ unprophetic histrionics , the observed reality was that crime fell, in part, because

vicious predators fear an unpredictable encounter with an armed citizen even more than they fear apprehension by police[34] or fear our timid and porous criminal justice system. It is no mystery why Florida’s tourists are targeted by predators -predators are guaranteed that, unlike Florida’s citizens, tourists are unarmed.

Those who advocate restricting gun rights often justify their proposals “if it saves only one lifeI.” There have been matched state pair analyses, crime trend studies, and California county-by-county research[27] demonstrating that licensing law-abiding, mentally-competent adults to carry concealed weapons for protection outside their homes saves many lives, so gun prohibitionists should support such reforms, if saving lives is truly their motivation.

The right

Importantly, the proponents of the automobile model of gun ownership fail to note that controls appropriate to a privilege

(driving) are inappropriate to a constitutional right (gun ownership and use). Let there be no doubt. The Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged an individual right to keep and bear arms.[35] It is specifically the “weapons of war” - militia

weapons - that are protected. The intent of the Second Amendment was to ensure that, by guaranteeing the individual right to arms, a citizen militia could always oppose a tyrannical federal government. That the Supreme Court has acknowledged the right, but done little to protect that right, is reminiscent of the sluggishness of the Supreme Court in protecting other civil rights before those rights became politically fashionable. Need we be reminded that it has taken over a century for the Supreme Court to meaningfully protect civil rights guaranteed to African-Americans in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Besides Second Amendment guarantees of the pre-existent right to keep and bear arms, there are Ninth,[36] Tenth,[35] and Fourteenth Amendment,[37] as well as “natural right”[38] guarantees to self-protection.

Since 1980, of thirty-nine law review articles addressing the Supreme Court case law and history of the right to keep and bear arms, thirty-five support the individual right view and only four support the “collective right only” view[39] (and three of these four are authored or co-authored by employees of the antiselfdefense lobby). One would never guess such a legal and scholarly mismatch from the casual misinterpretations of the right in the medical literature and popular press. The error of the gun prohibitionist view is also evident from the fact that their “collective right only” theory is exclusively an invention of the twentieth century “gun control” debate - a concept of which neither the Founding Fathers nor any pre-1900 case or commentary seems to have had any inkling.

California and Concealed Weapons

California has been studied and we discover that the counties that have the lowest rates of concealed weapon licensees have

the highest rates of murder and the counties with the highest rates of concealed license issuance have the lowest rates of

murder.[27]

It has also been noted that current California law gives considerable discretion to police chiefs and county sheriffs regarding the issuance of Concealed Weapon Licenses. Particularly in urban jurisdictions, abuse of that discretion is common. The result? In many jurisdictions only the affluent and politically connected are issued such licenses. In California few women and virtually no minorities are so licensed, even though poor minorities are the Californians at greatest risk from violence.

Conclusion

The police do not have a crystal ball. Murderers, rapists, and robbers do not schedule their crimes or notify the police in

advance, so the police cannot be where they are needed in time to prevent death and injury. They can only arrive later to count the bodies and, hopefully, apprehend the predators.

There have been state-by-state analyses, county-by-county research, and crime trend studies. All the research shows that

allowing good citizens to protect themselves outside their homes is a policy that saves lives. The anti-self defense lobby

advances many proposals in hopes that it will “save only one life.” Reform of concealed carry laws is a policy that saves many lives, so it is a policy that should be supported by the gun control lobby, if saving lives is really their interest.

Will Stockton base its policy on experience and sound data? or will Stockton fall prey to misinformation, fear, prejudice, and imaginative false imagery?[40]

We beg you. Let Stockton’s good citizens protect themselves, their loved ones, and their livelihoods. The ordinance before

you costs no money and it will save many lives.

[1] Leape LL. “Error in Medicine.” JAMA. 1994; 272(23): 1851-57.

[2] Suter E. “Guns in the Medical Literature - A Failure of Peer Review.” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. March 1994; 83: 133-48.

[3] Kleck G. Point Blank: Guns and

Violence in America. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 1991.

[4] Suter EA, Waters WC, Murray GB, et al. “Violence in America - Effective Solutions.” Journal of the Medical Association of Georgia. Spring 1995, forthcoming.

[5] Fingerhut LA, Ingram DD, Feldman JJ. “Firearm Homicide Among Black Teenage Males in Metropolitan Counties:

Comparison of Death Rates in Two Periods, 1983 through 1985 and 1987 through 1989.” JAMA. 1992; 267:3054-8.

[6] Hammett M, Powell KE, O’Carroll PW, Clanton ST. “Homicide Surveillance - United States, 1987 through 1989.”

MMWR. 41/SS-3. May 29,1992.

[7] FBI. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1991. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1992

[8] National Safety Council. Accident Facts 1992. Chicago: National Safety Council. 1993.

[9] Webster D, Chaulk, Teret S, and Wintemute G. “Reducing Firearm Injuries.” Issues in Science and Technology. Spring

1991: 73-9.

[10] Christoffel KK. “Towards Reducing Pediatric Injuries From Firearms: Charting a Legislative and Regulatory Course.” Pediatrics. 1992; 88:294-300.

[11] Federal Bureau of Investigation, US Department of Justice. Uniform Crime Reports Crime in the United States 1993.

Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. 1994. Table 5.

[12] Dawson JB aand Langan PA, US Bureau of Justice Statistics statisticians. “Murder in Families.” Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, US Department of Justice. 1994. p. 5, Table 7.

[13] US Bureau of Justice Statistics. “Murder in Large Urban Counties, 1988.” Washington DC: US Department of Justice.

1993.

[14] Narloch R. Criminal Homicide in California. Sacramento CA: California Bureau of Criminal Statistics. 1973. pp 53-4.

[15] Mulvihill D et al. Crimes of Violence: Report of the Task Force on Individual Acts of Violence.” Washington DC: US

Government Printing Office. 1969. p 532.

[16] Wheeler ED and Baron SA. Violence in Our Schools, Hospitals and Public Places: A Prevention and Management

Guide.” Ventura CA: Pathfinder. 1993.

[17] Kellermann AL. and Reay DT. “Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearms-Related Deaths in the Home.” N Engl J.

Med 1986. 314: 1557-60.

[18] Kellermann AL, Rivara FP, Rushforth NB et al. “Gun ownership as a risk factor for homicide in the home.” N Engl J Med. 1993; 329(15): 1084-91.

[19] Japenga A. “Gun Crazy.” San Francisco Examiner. This World supplement. April 3, 1994. p. 7-13 at 11.

[20] Max W and Rice DP. “Shooting in the Dark: Estimating the Cost of Firearm Injuries.” Health Affairs. 1993; 12(4):

171-85.

[21] Nieto M, Dunstan R, and Koehler GA. “Firearm-Related Violence in California: Incidence and Economic Costs.”

Sacramento CA: California Research Bureau, California State Library. October 1994.

[22] McGonigal MD, Cole J, Schwab W, Kauder DR, Rotondo MF, and Angood PB. “Urban Firearms Deaths: A Five-Year Perspective.” J Trauma. 1993; 35(4): 532-36.

[23] Hutson HR, Anglin D, and Pratss MJ. “Adolescents and Children Injured or Killed in Drive-By Shootings in Los

Angeles.” N Engl J Med. 1994; 330: 324-27.

[24] Zedlewski EW. Making Confinement Decisions - Research in Brief. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. July 1987.

[25] United Press. “China seizes 120,000 guns.” October 21, 1994.

[26] Cramer C and Kopel D. Concealed Handgun Permits for Licensed Trained Citizens: A Policy that is Saving Lives.

Golden CO: Independence Institute Issue Paper #14-93. 1993.

[27] Cramer C and Kopel D. “Shall Issue”: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws. Golden CO: Independence

Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994.

[28] Aborn R, President of Handgun Control Inc. Letter to the Editor. Washington Post. September 30, 1994.

[29] Thomson Charles, Associate Director for Law Enforcement, Bureau of alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Department of the Treasury. Statement before the Subcommitttee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee of the Judiciary, US House of Representatives. September 20, 1994.

[30] Halbrook SP. “Another Look at the Brady Law.” Washington Post. October 8, 1994. p A-18.

[31] Howlett D. “Jury Still Out on Success of the Bardy Law.” USA Today. December 28, 1994. p A-2.

[32] Harris J, Assistant Attorney General, US Department of Justice. Statement to the Subcommittee on Crime and Criminal Justice, Committee on the Judiciary, US Gouse of Representatives concerning Federal Firearms Prosecutions. September 20, 1994.

[33] Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, US Department of the Treasury. ATF News.. Washington DC: Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. FY-93-38. 1993.

[34] Wright JD and Rossi PH. Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. 1986.

[35] Suter EA, Morgan RE, Cottrol RJ, et al. “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms - A Primer for Physicians.” Kansas Journal of Law & Public Policy. Spring 1995, forthcoming.

[36] Johnson NJ. “Beyond the Second Amendment: An Individual Right to Arms Viewed through the Ninth Amendment.” Rutgers Law Journal. Fall 1992; 24 (1): 1-81.

[37] Amar AR. “The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.;

[38] Kates D. “The Second Amendment and the Ideology of Self-Protection.” Constitutional Commentary. Winter 1992; 9:

87-104.

[39] Articles supportive of the individual rights view include: Van Alstyne W. “The Second Amendment and the Personal Right to Arms.” Duke Law Journal. 1994; 43: 6.; Amar AR. “The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Yale Law Journal. 1992; 101: 1193-1284.; Winter 1992; 9: 87-104.; Scarry E. “War and the Social Contract: The Right to Bear Arms.” Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 1991; 139(5): 1257-1316.; Williams DL. “Civic Republicanism and the Citizen Militia: The Terrifying Second Amendment” Yale Law Journal. 1991; 101:551-616.; Cottrol RJ and Diamond RT. “The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration.” The Georgetown Law Journal. December 1991: 80; 309-61.; Amar AR. “The Bill of Rights as a Constitution” Yale Law Journal. 1991; 100 (5): 1131-1210.; Levinson S. “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” Yale Law Journal. 1989; 99:637-659.; Kates D. “The Second Amendment: A Dialogue.” Law and Contemporary Problems.

1986; 49:143.; Malcolm JL. Essay Review. George Washington U. Law Review. 1986; 54: 452-464.; Fussner FS. Essay

Review. Constitutional Commentary. 1986; 3: 582-8.; Shalhope RE. “The Armed Citizen in the Early Republic.” Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:125-141.; Halbrook S. “What the Framers Intended: A Linguistic Interpretation of the Second Amendment.” Law and Contemporary Problems. 1986; 49:151-162.; Kates D. “Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment.” Michigan Law Review. 1983; 82:203-73. Halbrook S. “The Right to Bear Arms in the First State Bills of Rights: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Vermont, and Massachusetts.” Vermont Law Review 1985; 10: 255-320.; Halbrook S. “The Right of the People or the Power of the State: Bearing Arms, Arming Militias, and the Second Amendment.” Valparaiso Law Review. 1991; 26:131-207.; Tahmassebi SB. “Gun Control and Racism.” George Mason Univ. Civil Rights Law Journal. Winter 1991; 2(1):67-99.; Reynolds. “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Under the Tennessee Constitution.” Tennessee Law Review. Winter 1994; 61:2. Bordenet TM. “The Right to Possess Arms: the Intent of the Framers of the Second Amendment.” U.W.L.A. L. Review. 1990; 21:1.-30.; Moncure T. “Who is the Militia - The Virginia Ratifying Convention and the Right to Bear Arms.” Lincoln Law Review. 1990; 19:1-25.; Lund N. “The Second Amendment, Political Liberty and the Right to Self-Preservation.” Alabama Law Review 1987; 39:103.-130.; Morgan E “Assault Rifle Legislation: Unwise and Unconstitutional.” American Journal of Criminal Law. 1990; 17:143-174.; Dowlut, R. “Federal and State Constitutional Guarantees to Arms.” Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989.; 15(1):59-89.; Halbrook SP. “Encroachments of the Crown on the Liberty of the Subject: Pre-Revolutionary Origins of the Second Amendment.” Univ. Dayton Law Review. 1989; 15(1):91-124.; Hardy DT. “The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights.” Journal of Law and Politics. Summer 1987; 4(1):1-62.; Hardy DT. “Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies: Toward a Jurisprudence

of the Second Amendment.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. 1986; 9:559-638.; Dowlut R. “The Current

Relevancy of Keeping and Bearing Arms.” Univ. Baltimore Law Forum. 1984; 15:30-32.; Malcolm JL. “The Right of the

People to Keep and Bear Arms: The Common Law Tradition.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. Winter 1983;

10(2):285-314.; Dowlut R. “The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign?” Oklahoma Law Review. 1983; 36:65-105.; Caplan DI. “The Right of the Individual to Keep and Bear Arms: A Recent Judicial Trend.”

Detroit College of Law Review. 1982; 789-823.; Halbrook SP. “To Keep and Bear ‘Their Private Arms’” Northern Kentucky

Law Review. 1982; 10(1):13-39.; Gottlieb A. “Gun Ownership: A Constitutional Right.” Northern Kentucky Law Review 1982; 10:113-40.; Gardiner R. “To Preserve Liberty — A Look at the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1):63-96.; Kluin KF. Note. “Gun Control: Is It A Legal and Effective Means of Controlling Firearms in the United States?” Washburn Law Journal 1982; 21:244-264.; Halbrook S. “The Jurisprudence of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” George Mason U. Civil Rights Law Review. 1981; 4:1-69. Wagner JR. “Comment: Gun Control Legislation and the Intent of the Second Amendment: To What Extent is there an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms?”

Villanova Law Review. 1992; 37:1407-1459. The following treatments in book form also conclude that the individual right

position is correct: Malcolm JL. To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right. Cambridge MA: Harvard U. Press. 1994.; Cottrol R. Gun Control and the Constitution (3 volume set). New York City: Garland. 1993.; Cottrol R and Diamond R. “Public Safety and the Right to Bear Arms” in Bodenhamer D and Ely J. After 200 Years; The Bill of Rights in Modern America. Indiana U. Press. 1993.; Oxford Companion to the United States Supreme Court. Oxford U. Press. 1992. (entry on the Second Amendment); Cramer CE. For the Defense of Themselves and the State: The Original Intent and Judicial Interpretation of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Westport CT: Praeger Publishers. 1994. Foner E and Garrity J. Reader’s Companion to American History. Houghton Mifflin. 1991. 477-78. (entry on “Guns and Gun Control”); Kates D. “Minimalist Interpretation of the Second Amendment” in E. Hickok (ed.), The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding.

Univ. Virginia Press. 1991.; Halbrook S. “The Original Understanding of the Second Amendment.” in Hickok E (editor) The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding. Charlottesville: U. Press of Virginia. 1991. 117-129.; Young DE. The Origin of the Second Amendment. Golden Oak Books. 1991.; Halbrook S. A Right to Bear Arms: State and Federal Bills of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees. Greenwood. 1989.; Levy LW. Original Intent and the Framers’ Constitution. Macmillan. 1988.; Hardy D. Origins and Development of the Second Amendment. Blacksmith. 1986.; Levy LW, Karst KL, and Mahoney DJ. Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. New York: Macmillan. 1986. (entry on the Second Amendment); Halbrook S. That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right. Albuquerque, NM: U. New Mexico Press. 1984.; Marina. “Weapons, Technology and Legitimacy: The Second Amendment in Global Perspective.” and Halbrook S. “The Second Amendment as a Phenomenon of Classical Political Philosophy.” — both in Kates D (ed.). Firearms and Violence. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute. 1984.; U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bear Arms: Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary. United States Congress. 97th. Congress. 2nd. Session. February 1982. regarding incorporation of the Second Amendment: Aynes RL. “On

Misreading John Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment.” Yale Law Journal. 1993; 103:57-104.; The minority supporting a collective right only view: Ehrman K and Henigan D. “The Second Amendment in the 20th Century: Have You Seen Your Militia Lately?” Univ. Dayton LawJReview. 1989; 15:5-58 and Henigan DA. “Arms, Anarchy and the Second Amendment.” Valparaiso U. Law Review. Fall 1991; 26: 107-129. — both written by paid general counsel of Handgun Control, Inc.; Fields S. “Guns, Crime and the Negligent Gun Owner.” Northern Kentucky Law Review. 1982; 10(1): 141-162. (article by non-lawyer lobbyist for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns); and Spannaus W. “State Firearms Regulation and the Second Amendment.” Hamline Law Review. 1983; 6:383-408. In addition, see: Beschle. “Reconsidering the Second Amendment: Constitutional Protection for a Right of Security.” Hamline Law Review. 1986; 9:69. (conceding that the Amendment does guarantee a right of personal security, but arguing that personal security can constitutionally be implemented by banning and confiscating all guns). Though not in the legal literature, for arguably the most scholarly treatment supporting the “collective right only” view, see: Cress LD. “An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms.” J. Am. History 1984; 71:22-42.

[40] Kates DB. “Bigotry, Symbolism and Ideology in the Battle over Gun Control” in Eastland, T. The Public Interest Law Review 1992. Carolina Academic Press. 1992.

EXPOSED! Black Leaders and White Racist United.

2011-01-04T13:36:00.000-08:00

Image via Wikipedia

Tribal Chiefs!
Are we being misled?

Black Americans are the only citizens in this nation who recognize spokespersons that ‘lead’ them based on racial politics. Is this kind of ‘leadership’ necessary? If you are capable of leading yourself, why do “black leaders”, or, as I like to call them, “tribal chiefs”, tell you that you need them to think for you and tell you how to react to society? Why does America refuse to challenge the tribal chiefs and their real motives?

Would it surprise you to learn that white supremacists and black leaders work together? What if your most respected black leaders were receiving financial and moral support from Nazis, white supremacist groups, and former Klansmen? What if you found out black tribal chiefs were working with and accepting money from groups dedicated to the destruction of the Black Community?

WHAT??? How does that make sense?

Don’t black leaders oppose white supremacists? These two “opposing” sides actually have a common objective; keeping black Americans in line. But why would black leaders want to work with racists who believe in oppressing black people? This is the new plantation: it is spiritual, it is mental, it is emotional, and it is economic. The behavioral plantation will always be enslaving those who refuse to think for themselves. And in case you didn’t know it, America’s “tribal chief” black leaders are the new masters working with the protégés of the old masters to do what slavery does; turn a profit at the expense of the slaves.

Metzger and Mason, KOGO Radio

Mason Weaver interviews Racist Tom Metzger

A few years ago I interviewed Tom Metzger, the white supremacist who founded the White Aryan Resistance (WAR) and a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan on my radio program. Tom Metzger was on stage when Geraldo Rivera interviewed the Klan and Roy Ennis of CORE in 1985. Tom Metzger's son threw the chair that broke Geraldo's nose (see the Video) that day. Tom Metzger was also the target of a lawsuit in the racially-motivated murder of a black man. He lost that lawsuit and his fortune to the victim’s family. I tell you the history of Tom Metzger to illustrate that he is far from a friend to black people. That is why it was such a shock when he admitted on my radio program giving financial support to Louis Farrakhan.

Why would a white racist contribute to The Nation of Islam and why would they accept his support? They both desire the same thing; a separate country. They both want white people against black people, all scared of “the system,” and all angry, looking to their respective groups for guidance. They share the delusion of dividing the nation up into white and black nations. While they keep you in non-performing public schools, high unemployment, and the penal system, they also tell you how to think and how to vote. Master has always done that.

When I first asked Metzger the question about his financial support to Louis Farrakhan he was shocked. His bodyguard tensed up, the control room went silent, and you could feel the pressure in the air. He was actually surprised that I would even ask the question. Tom knew my radio show; I was the only black talk show host on in his county. He also knew that I only asked questions I already had the answers to. I knew that Tom Metzger had been invited by Louis Farrakhan to attend a Nation of Islam event. Metzger had voiced his support and maintained contact with them. I had done my homework. The October 12, 1985 New York Times had a story about a white supremacist meeting. The article quoted Metzger as saying to the Klan and neo-Nazi audience, “America is like a rotting carcass. The Jews are living off the carcass like the parasites they are. Farrakhan understands this.”

Years later, Metzger addressed a meeting of the NEW BLACK PANTHERS (see the VIDEO) who were situating themselves as the new protectors of the black community. Why would they invite and greet a racist, past Klan Leader, founder of WAR (White Aryan Resistance,) and convicted murder of a black man to speak to them? Who are the real Uncle Toms?

Metzger knew I had more information on his financial support and past meetings so he just admitted that he has supported Farrakhan in the past. Now I know the knee jerk reactions from the black community whenever someone dares criticize the tribal chiefs in public. But it is time we pull our heads out of the sand and look around. Know your enemy; most are visible if you look. Then you can tell the invisible ones by looking at who supports your enemy. The slave master has always told us our friends are our enemies and our enemies are our friends. Stop looking for leadership and start looking for victory. Victory will be an individual accomplishment.

This was not the first time nor the last time that fascist, racist, anti-black groups have worked with black leadership to harm and mislead. The Founder of the American Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell, also met and shared the stage with black Muslim leader Elijah Muhammad, and his protégé Malcolm X in 1961.

On February 25, 1962, this openly and proud racist stood on stage at a black muslim convention led by Elijah Muhammad. When Muhammad finished his speech, Rockwell was invited to speak. Dressed in full Nazi uniform, flanked by two storm trooper bodyguards, he told the audience he was proud to stand before them and that he considered Elijah Muhammad “the Adolf Hitler of the black man.” Over 10,000 black Muslims sat there and listen as this white racist said, “You know that we call you niggers. But wouldn’t you rather be confronted by honest white men who tell you to your face what the others all say behind your back?” Notice Rockwell thought he was "confronting" this audience of black people. He was not coming as a friend but in "confrontation." In ‘tribalism’ it doesn’t matter what they call you as long as they praise your tribal chiefs. There have always been smiling faces in the black community working for their own personal goals and not ours.

Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell
at the Nation of Islam meeting.

It is time for black Americans to wake up and start leading themselves. The idea of someone else speaking for you, leading you, or fighting for your rights are foolish. You should be speaking for yourself, leading yourself and fighting for your own rights. We have a long history in this country with victories and defeats. A careful look at the defeats will show that most of them came at the hands of our gatekeepers.

No one will take care of you. You are not a child of the government. You are not an endangered species needing protection from the superior humans. You are not some kind of permanent debtor class judging success on how much you can get from the permanent creditor class. Wake up black America; you are being played like pawns on a chess board. It’s time to leave the tribal chiefs and poverty managers that prey on the black community and develop groups that will pray for the black community.

Excerpts from Mason's new upcoming book "It really is OK!"

www.MasonWeaver.com

Mason Weaver

2010-10-24T19:19:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

BEHOLD, A NEW MAN!

By Mason Weaver

INTRODUCTION

Manhood should be celebrated! It was created and ordained by God! The office of manhood was established and sanctioned by God! Men of
God should show honor and pride in their manhood.

I know that male honor and pride are not popular traits in today's
world. I hear women criticizing and some men apologizing for "male
pride" or "male egos", etc. Well I am male, if I have an ego it will be a
male ego and if I am to have any pride at all, it will surely be male pride.
I make no apologies! I do not have to become less of a man so my wife
can become more of a woman.

God has a perfect plan that includes men and women. His plan is
suitable for both male and female. As a teacher and lecturer, I have seen
the confusion and misunderstanding by men and women on this matter.
I have found a massive mis-educating of Christian young people about
what the role of men and women are.

It is the intent of this blog to outline what the Bible teaches
concerning man and his relationship with woman. This is strictly a
biblical study and has no space for traditional views or predetermined
conclusions.

Genesis Chapter 2, vs 15 through 18 (King James Version)..... "and
the Lord God took man and put him in the Garden of Eden to dress it
and to keep it."

The work "keep" in Hebrew is "Shamar", it means to put a hedge
about, to preserve it, to keep it from all intruders. God placed man in the
garden to protect it and to keep it from all intruders. Man's position in
the Garden was that of the ruler.. It was his kingdom. God would not
have given him a kingdom to protect against all intruders if man was not
capable of defending it against all intruders, including Satan!
Genesis Chapter 2, vs 16-17 "and the Lord God commanded the
man saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat, (17)
But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shall not eat of it;
for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shall surely die."

I would like to point out that so far God has given man a kingdom to
protect and keep, also some privileges and restrictions in the Garden.
However, have you ever noticed that woman had not been created yet?
We do not know if God also told Eve not to eat from the tree. Of course,
she knew God's word. She quoted it fairly accurately to the serpent while
being tempted. However, did God tell her or did Adam repeat God's
warning?

God's Gift To Man

Genesis Chapter 2 vs 18 "and the Lord God said, it is not good that
the man should be alone, I will make a help meet (mate) for him."

God looked at man and determined that for our own good he would
create Eve. It is not good for man to be alone , God has determined that.
Today we can see that married men live longer and healthier lives than
single men because God has said it is not good for man to be alone. We
do not know if it is good for woman to be alone, but truly, man needs
female companionship in his life.

Genesis Chapter 2 vs. 21 "and the Lord God caused a deep sleep to
fall upon Adam and he slept; and he took one of his ribs and closed
up the ﬂesh instead thereof."

God's solution to man's problem was to take one (1) rib, not two (2) or
three (3) ribs to make us two (2) or three (3) women, but one rib. We can
ﬁnd all we could ever want in a female, in one woman. However, there is
something else special about her creation most men do not understand.
Woman's creation was much different from the creation of Adam. With
the creation of Adam God put his hand into the dust, and formed man.
Eve was not made from the dirt, she was created from the very part of a
man that protects his heart. If modern man could understand this,
perhaps he would treat his woman with more respect.

Genesis Chapter 2 vs. 22 "and the rib which the Lord God had taken
from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."

The purpose for man was to have dominion over God's kingdom, to
protect it and keep it. God then determined man's condition was not
complete, it was not good for man to be alone. So for the good of man,
God created Eve and God brought her to man. Notice, God did not bring
Adam to Eve but Eve was presented to Adam, a gift from God.

Women were created especially for men by God. She is a gift from
God to man. I know many men that believe they are God's gift to women.
She is precious and fragile, the only one of God's creations men will
instinctively give their lives to protect. God created her to be sexually
attractive, verbally soothing and physically desirable to men.
However, how do we accept God's gift? How do we acknowledge or
give thanks to God for what he has done? To men I say, if you have a
woman in your life and you believe God sent her to you, how are you
showing thanks unto God? Are you living with her without marriage? Are
you dating her for sexual pleasures? Christian men need to understand ,
if God placed that woman in your life it is for a purpose. GOD DOES
NOT GIVE GROWN MEN GIRLFRIENDS! Because God does not tempt us.
God will give wives to grown men. Show your thanks to God by honoring
his gift....give her your name and make her the most important part of
your life. Give honor, glory and praise to God for what he has done for
you by accepting his gift properly.

''THE FALL: Genesis Chapter 3 vs 6 "she took of the fruit thereof ,
and did eat , and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did
eat."

I hear all of the comments about the original sin. I am truly tired of
women being blamed for the fall of man. Let me state here and now for
scholarly review, the sins of Eve was insigniﬁcant to the fall of creation.
Need I state it more clearly, Eve could have sinned all she wanted to and
still man's kingdom would have stood.

Read Genesis Chapter 3 vs 6 again and ask yourself a question. Where
was Adam when his wife was being tempted? Wherever he was , he was
supposed to be protecting his kingdom , especially his personal gift from
God. God had determined that it was not good for man to be alone, if
God said something is not good for us men , it is not! As a gift to man ,
for our own good , God created and presented to Adam a special gift ,
Eve.

Man was placed in the garden to keep it and protect it from all
intruders,(see Genesis chapter 2 vs 15 through 18 ) long before Eve
was created. Well, we have a serious intruder here in vs 6 and where is
the protector Adam? His woman is being led into sin and vs 6 tells us
Adam "was with her." He was not somewhere else and did not get there in
time, he was not tricked into partaking, Adam failed to keep God's law ,
and Adam failed the earth as its protector. Was the earth cursed because
of the sins of Adam or Eve? Adam failed to protect his kingdom and God's
gift to him. He dishonored God by not protecting God's gift. Man not
only let the woman down but Adam let God down also. Adam failed to
do God's will but did Eve's instead. After Eve took of the fruit she
persuaded Adam to go against Gods word, that was the ﬁrst
mistake...taking the fruit was his second mistake.

Adam should have rebuked her and / or Satan and defended his
kingdom with the word of God. This is how Jesus (the second Adam)
defended himself against Satan and this is what modern man must do
when tempted by Satan... use the word of God. Nevertheless, Adam
harkened unto the voice of his wife, becoming the ﬁrst henpecked
husband, and lost his kingdom and our inheritance for it.

THE EXCUSE....GENESIS CHAPTER 3 VS 12 ..."and the man said the
woman thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree ,and I did
eat."

We have been trying to blame women ever since that day. Adam was
saying , "God , you and I were getting along very well until you brought
that woman in here and now I am in trouble." First Adam was saying it
was God's fought for bringing that woman into the garden , then it was
the woman's fought for giving him the fruit , sound familiar? God was
looking then like he is looking now, for confessions of sin , repentance
( turning away) and seeking forgiveness. Instead Adam not only tried to
appear blameless before God , but also in the process left his wife alone
to face the wrath of God by herself. I ﬁnd it sad that Adam tried to give
God excuses instead of obedience.

God is still looking for that uncommon man willing to do the will of
God. We men , owe women a heart-felt apology for our actions. We have
been falsely blaming her for the fall of man , but lets see whom God
blamed.

THE PUNISHMENT...GENESIS 3 VS 17..."and unto Adam he ,said ,
because thou hast harken unto the voice of thou wife , and hast
eaten of the tree , of which I commanded thee , saying , thou shalt
not eat: cursed is the ground for thy sake..."

A careful reading of Genesis chapter 3 points out the punishment of
Satan , the serpent , woman and man. However, the punishment of Adam
was different and unique. God warns Satan of his pending fall by
promising to use the woman to bruise his head , the serpent's
punishment was very personal and addressed only its existence. Eve is
not even told why she is being punished and again her punishment is a
very personal one , no one else but women must bear the burdens of
Eve's punishment.

But Old Adam, verse 6 points out , the ﬁrst reason he is being
punished..."because you harken unto the voice of thy wife..." that's the
ﬁrst reason , doing Eve's will and not Gods , for falling to keep God's
commandment. Sometimes men will do things just to keep peace in the
family. However, if we do God’s will, he will bring peace and make it apart
of our families. What do you think Abraham would say about Sarah and
her maid Haggar? How about Solomon the wise King still allowing his
wives to bring in false gods and build alters to them? What would Ahab’s
advice be after the terror of Jezebel? The world still blames Jezebel for all
the trouble , what did she do wrong? She married a man with a different
religion and tried to bring him to the "true god ", her god.

Ahab was King his faith in the God almighty was weaker than Jezebel's
faith in a false god. She convinced the King to do her will in order to keep
peace in the family. Ahab should have informed her who the king was and
whose Kingdom it was to lose.

It is no different today, If you were to marry a person that was Hindu,
Buddhist ,Atheist or Moslem one of you would try to establish your
religion in the family. We, as God's people , must insist that as far as our
household, we will worship God. Sure, we will not be popular but by
honoring God , an making him our God , he will turn to us and be our
God! Job gave us a good example of how a "man of God" should handle
this situation. His wife told him to curse God and die, he told her to keep
quite and worship God for the good and the bad times. This is an
example of why God bragged on Job to Satan, this is why God called him
a righteous man.

Now the second reason God punished Adam is for actually eating the
forbidden fruit. However, what was his punishment and was it different
from that of the serpent, Satan or Eve's? "...cursed is the ground for thou
sake." The ground was cursed for Adams sake, not for Eve's. It was
Adam's kingdom and only the King could lose his Kingdom... As only the
King can reclaim a lost Kingdom. Why God cursed the ground for Adams
disobedience is another lesson , it is important to understand God
treated the sin of Adam much differently than the sin of Eve.

Lets not forget, God cursed the ground for Adams sake Man is not
under a curse from God! The earth is suffering because of the sin of
Adam...not Eves or the serpent or even Satan! And the earth will continue
to be cursed until Christ our redeemer returns.

What a testimony of Gods love for us that he would ﬁrst curse the
earth for our sake, then send his only son to die for man's sake. I will say
again , the sin of Eve had nothing to do with the earth being cursed and
the kingdom being lost. Eve was under man's protection and Adam lost
the kingdom. We owe women and apology for Adam's failure to protect
Eve and keep her from evil . It is time men fall on their faces and pray to
God for forgiveness . We must thank God for cursing the earth instead of
man and for giving his son to reclaim our kingdom for us.
The solution and Christian men's resolution!

It is time for men to stand up and fulﬁll our purpose ...protect our
kingdoms, and keep it from all intruders. It takes a real man to
acknowledge his kingship. Real men should take control over what God
has given them. What would happen if men decided, there would be no
more drugs sold illegally in their neighborhoods? What would happen if
men decided, we would not allow our mothers, sisters or daughter to be
sold on the streets of our kingdom? What would happen if men decided
to become examples to their sons, examples of true manhood, by being
responsible for our children? We would show our sons how a real man
treats a woman when he is in love with her...marriage and devotion.
What would happen if men decided their daughters would be raised to
know how to choose the father of their own children?

Men are responsible for all of these problems. We direct and proﬁt
from the drug trade, not women. We bring it in , sale it on the streets
and protect it. Men place women to work on the streets and proﬁt from
them. If men decided it was over , then it would be over. It is time for the
real men of God to stand up as David did and take God at his word.
Gather up your stones and your sling real men, the problems are gigantic
and Goliath is laughing at us as he rampages over our kingdom.

Most miracles in the bible required man to act ﬁrst on the word of
God. Act in spite of what they saw with their eyes but trusting on the
word of God. The Jordan River did not split until the priest feet touched
it. Goliath did not fall until someone went out against him. The walls of
Jerico did not fall until they marched around it and Gideon's army was not
victorious until they sounded the horn and let their little light shine!
Looking for a miracle? Every time man acts on the word of God, God
keeps his word...and we call that a miracle! Why do we call it a miracle
every time God keeps his word?

IT IS TIME!

Men have to be determined to be what God created them to be. We
must support each other in brotherhood and in honor. Men must realize
we cannot continue to have children we are not going to raise ourselves.
Not just support ﬁnancially but to be there in the home to assure proper
protection and attention. For some of us it is already too late for that ,
the problem begins when men fail to pick women qualiﬁed to be the
mother of their children and ﬁnd it impossible to be in the home. Let us
make better decisions.

When we raise up our children, we are not raising kids, we are raising
someone's Father, Mother, Boss ,etc. We are raising Adults... and it takes
both parents. No more having women in our kingdoms we aren't going
to grow old with, protect and cherish as God's gift to us. No more
blaming women for our unwillingness to do God's will.

It is time we choose women that are worthy to become our Queens
and the mother of our children. It is time we honor God by doing his will
and accepting our role in his creation. The reason the earth is in the
shape it is in can be put in very simple terms. Man left God , Man left his
family , his family fell apart and his Kingdom fell . If men stood up for
God , God will provide the strength and we will conquer our enemies. If
we stand up and act in faith God will give us strength to carry the load ,
give us compassion to comfort our own. He will give us abundant love to
cherish his gift to us.

Once we are honoring God by doing his will , God will give man the
eyes of Isaiah, able to see the Angels of the Lord encamped about our
enemies , assuring our victory. We will have the passion of David as he
came up against Goliath shouting "where is that uncircumcised Philistine
who dare come up against the people of God?" We will have the
determination of Gideon who led his kingdom to victory simply by letting
his light shine in faith that God was faithful to his word.

God's Holy Spirit will comfort us as his son Jesus saved us. We know
that through one man, sin entered the earth but we also know that
through one man sin was taken from the earth. God has showed us (in
Noah, Abraham, Lot, and the Gentile Cornelius) by the faith of one real
man of God, his whole family can be saved. Be determined to be real
men by giving all honor, glory and praise to God!

THE END. By Mason Weaver

Ready for the ten toes of Daniel?

2010-10-01T22:39:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

The ten toes prophesy of Daniel

by Mason

If you think God and Allah are the same, remember:

One died for you and the other requires you to die for him.

When I was a young child it seemed strange to read about the Bible and discover the rebellion still going on right after the rapture. Wouldn’t that event chill everyone to the bone? After preachers telling and foretelling the rapture you would think its appearance would convince the world the truth of Christianity.

Image via Wikipedia

The Dome of the Rock

However, we do not read about a world wide panic, depression, fear or even concern we see a celebration. We see the world unifying for a final push to bring about their dark, anti God view of themselves and their fake wisdom.

http://www.widdershins.org/vol5iss2/07.htm

Armies mount up against Israel and the final battle at Armageddon marches on towards disaster. Why? Would the event of the rapture shock the world into believing? Well some I guess but to unbelievers the rapture will be a confirmation of their own beliefs that Christians were just in the way of the utopia the world was seeking. They will fall into many camps but the unbelievers and the false believers will celebrate the rapture of the Church.

To the none believing, cosmos, visualizing world peace crowd, the rapture is the universe removing the stick in the mud Christians who have been interfering with the coming new age of peace and harmony. They believe the power of the Universe is building up strength against the Christian oppressive teachings and that power will one day break through and deliver the world from the clutches of the Christian oppression. In one flash of energy the Universe will find balance by snatching away the obstructive Christian...and the world will rejoice and seek its ruler.

To the False believers, many are looking for the rapture themselves as their god cannot control the universe while the Christians are here praying and healing. They will consider the rapture a call to arms and confirmation of their beliefs. They will then look forward of the second coming of Jesus...being led by their prophet.

The reason many Christians will still be here after the rapture is because they were sitting in Church close to the truth and believing enough of the truth to know about the rapture. They will see the rapture and immediately convert. This is why many people are confused of when the rapture will happen. They argue “Post Tribulation” “Mid” or “Pre-Tribulation” because they see Christians in all of there eras. That is because people will get converted by the rapture and will be here. Whether it will be too late is the subject for another book.

Another thought from my youth. Why do so many people hate the Jews? What had they done to be hated? If you were going to hate the Jews for owning businesses, managing money and a strong family culture, you certainly would hate all of the cultures whom waged war against each other. If you hate the Jews because you think they “funded” wars, then certainly you would hate the countries who fought them.

When did the Jews take the world to war? When did the Jews invade another country, pillage a continent or enslave millions? I could not understand the universal, historical and cross cultural hatred and mistrust of the Jews. That is until I read about Abraham and his children. God promised Abraham a child and Abraham's wife was old and laugh at God. She encouraged her husband to sleep with their servant because she was young and surely God did not mean Sara would have a child. Well, that maid had a son right before Sara and that son and his descendents are fighting Sarah and her children for Abraham's inheritance. They are fighting over their fathers land of Israel/Palestine and will never stop until the Kinsmen Redeemer shows up to settle the inheritance question.

Ishmael, the son of Hagar and Isaac, the son of Sarah both claim the inheritance of the first born. Ishmael was the first born but the promise was from God to Abraham and Sarah and God is keeping his covenant with Abraham.

Genesis 16:15

And Hagar bare Abraham a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael.

Genesis 21:2-3

For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son is his old age .... And Abraham called him Isaac.

To this day, both the Arabs and the Jews honor father Abraham and consider the same sites holy. The family feud has grown deeper and is clearly out of control. It cannot be negotiated nor compromised, but the Jews will continue to try. The Arabs and Jews are both looking for a savior, a KINSMEN who will pay the price to redeem their inheritance back to them. He can be the same person.

Since the Arabs and Jews are “Kin” they could have the same “Kinsmen Redeemer.” They could also have the same “Kinsmen Redeemer” impostor. Someone coming out of history looking like the Kinsmen Redeemer to both sides of the family. Not claiming any religious beliefs he will be considered a unifying force for peace. Israel will be isolated by the rapture and the lost of the Western Allies and a “Kinsmen” seeking true peace will be a welcome development to them.

Their long sought desire of rebuilding The Temple in Jerusalem will be accomplished when the Kinsmen negotiates the boundaries of the Temple so it will not violate or interfere with the Muslim Mosque nearby. The “Dome of the Rock Mosque has stood on this courtyard of The Temple since the 7th Century. It stands as a visual obstacle of the rebuilding of the Temple. Muslim fanatics riot with just the characterization of Mohammed in a cartoon, can you imagine their reaction if the Jewish State announces they will build The Temple on the grounds of the Dome of the Rock?

However, the “Kinsmen” will be a hero to both sides of the Abraham family. He will convince both sides of the need to rebuild the Temple. They will rebuild the Temple and the Jews will be able to return to their Ordinances and Sacrifices. After the Temple is rebuilt there will be a figure taking the seat of the “Holy of Holies” in that Temple and declare himself to be God. That declaration will set into motion a series of events as this Kinsmen breaks his 7 year treaty with the Jewish State and leads an army to crush Israel.

That army will run head on into a promise of God. (Zechariah 14:11) “It will be inhabited; never again will it be destroyed. Jerusalem will be secure.” Israel will be reestablished within her boundaries and will never be pushed out again. That promise of God will lead the Army of the Muslims to gather at a valley near the Mountain of Meggdo and the end of this family feud will happen there.

We are witnesses of prophesies being revealed. I have wondered how people could walk 40 years through the desert being provided a pillar of fire during the night and a pillar of smoke during the day for guidance. Seeing their clothes not wear out, getting water from a rock and receiving food from the sky for 40 years and still doubt the existence and power of God. How could they have that as a background and the protection of God for 40 years against all enemies, and then reach the banks of the Promise Land and be afraid of the giants occupying their land?

This may very well be the question our children will ask of us. Seeing Israel return from all over the world as a promise of God should be a clear message to believers and unbelievers alike. The fact of Israel being on the map today is nothing but a miracle.

Compare Israel with the history of the Africans slave trade. By most accounts the African slave trade began in the 1400s. In America it began with the settlers of 1619 and ended with the American Civil War of the 1860s. Lets look at the American Slave Trade over its 246 years history with the Africans being separated from the continent. In those years they lost their language, history, culture, traditions and national identity. When the African slaves came out of slavery they were lost to themselves and began searching for a self identity which lasts until today. There were no common bonds that connected them except the bonds master had bestowed upon them. The freed African had a slave culture and was completely separated from their past culture of free people. No nation spoke their language, no nation was a sanctuary and a depository of their history.

However, the Jews were separated from Israel for over 2,000 years. Existing on every continent, in every country, speaking every language and merging into every culture. The Jews spent 2,000 years separated from Israel with no nation speaking Hebrew, no culture kept the feast days and no culture kept their ordinances. Yet Jews descended on Tel Aviv in 1948 from all over the world. They flew in from Russia, Germany, Great Britain and America. They got off the planes from South America and Australia and they all arrived speaking Hebrew. They came from all over the world with their language, culture, history, and holidays still fully intact. They were gathered from all over the world as Jews. Although the Jews lived all over the world they remained Jews.

Never in the History of Mankind has a people accomplished this task. How could they come together as a complete body of people from all over the world? As it was predicted.

Daniel 2:31-45

King Nebuchadnessar had a troubling dream and it would not let him rest. Finally a Jewish man named Daniel describe the dream for the King and then offered him an interpretation. His interpretation has proven to be accurate from the history of the kingdoms he describe. Because of the reputation of Daniel’s accuracy perhaps we should take a look at the remaining prophesies and see if there are any more information we can find value in.

You must read Daniel 2:31-45 to understand the events leading up to todays headlines. Why are we in a struggle in the Middle East? Why does the world focus attention on this part of the world? It is not about the oil in the region. If the world wanted to it could replace the oil from other sources. We could increase productions in other parts of Africa, South America, Russia and America to offset oil from the Middle East.

So why are we so involved with this part of the world? God says to keep our eyes on Israel. Not America, Russia or Europe but Israel. God did not say keep your eyes on Africa or China. He said Israel. The one thing about Daniel's interpretation, all Kingdoms oppressed Israel. Those of Daniel's days as well as those which came after his times and so will be the case with those final nations he described.

The Interpretation

Head of Gold - Babylon (609-539 BC)

"This was the dream; now we will tell its interpretation before the king. "You, O king, are the king of kings, to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the strength and the glory; and wherever the sons of men dwell, or the beasts of the field, or the birds of the sky, He has given them into your hand and has caused you to rule over them all. You are the head of gold. (Daniel 2: 36-38)

Chest and Arms of Silver - Medo-Persia (539-331 BC)

"After you there will arise another kingdom inferior to you, then another third kingdom of bronze, which will rule over all the earth." (Daniel 2: 39)The Medes and Persians next conquered Babylon and King Cyrus returned the Jews to Israel. He also rebuilt the temple.

Legs of Iron - Rome (168 BC - 476 AD)

"Then there will be a fourth kingdom as strong as iron; just as iron crushes and shatters all things, so, like iron that breaks in pieces, it will crush and break all these in pieces. (Daniel 2: 40)

Where are the Toes?

Verse 41 says, "And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay."

I do not intend to get into a deep Biblical discussion with anyone but would like to suggest that we are now at the “Ten Toes” that Daniel spoke about. How can we determine who they are? How do we recognize these last Nations and people?

We certainly do have the luxury of 20/20 hindsight. We have the history of the world at our feet to look back and see the patterns of the past. This gives us a great advantage in seeking insight into the future.

All the past kingdoms oppressed Israel. Keep your eye on Israel. If all the past Kingdoms and Nations oppressed Israel why would the last Ten Toes not have the same characteristics? If God dealt with all the Kingdoms and people who has oppressed Israel except one, would those people be a good place to look? If these people have oppressed Israel longer than all of the other oppressors combined, would that make them a logical choice for the ten toes?

My logic leads me to believe the last Ten Toes of Daniel's interpretation must be the descendants of Hagar and the kinsmen to Israel. God has not dealt with this family feud yet and if He is consistent, he will deal with them as He has promised.

It will not be America, Great Britain or Russia! It has always been about Israel. The Europeans cannot believe the in time situations could possibly be brought about without their leadership. They look for the people mentioned in the Biblical prophesies and recognize they control the territories those people now live in. Out of natural arrogance and pride, they assume God must have meant the ruling nations, not a select group of people in those nations.

It would be like a prophesy of the last days stating the Apache and Navajo people will lead an invasion into Mexico. Well the Apache and Navajo people occupy the Southwestern United States and the European experts would conclude God must have meant the United States would invade Mexico from the lands of the Apache and Navajo.

This is the same problem with seeing God talk about Tubal, Magog, and the other tribes occupying Russia and the lands around the Black Sea and Caspian Sea. Surely God must mean the European nations not the Arab tribes living there. That is why so many Bible Scholars predict Russian will lead and Arab army with Syria, Egypt and other Arab nations against Israel. They cannot imagine God concluding history without a direct leadership role of Europe.

It is the same error with the “Revived” Roman Empire. They assume it must be the European nations including Italy leading the way. What if it mean “Revised” and not “Revived?” What if it was not the unconscious caucus of the dead Roman Empire being “Revived” like some drowning victim but a reconstituted “Reformation” of the spirt of the Roman Empire. A Revision not Revival! It would include the Arab occupiers of the Old Roman Empire east of Italy, not Europe. But again, the Europeans cannot imagine a scenario not including them in the leadership.

The Word of God to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 37: 1-14) as the world witnessed the dry bones of ancient, separated, dispersed Israel come back together, reunited as it once was.

The unique thing about the Jewish people is no matter where they settle they are still Jewish. They may live in Switzerland or Brazil but they are still Jewish. You can call them Spanish, Italians or Americans but you will still call them Jewish. "The people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned [numbered] among the nations (Numbers 23:9).

What we are witnessing is a battle between God and Satan. Satan's only goal is to make God a liar. If he can make God a liar, God stops becoming God because God cannot lie. So every promise of God will be attacked by Satan especially the prophesies. Have you noticed the Bible is the only Book of Prophesies? Where are the prophesies in the Koran? The Bible is full of prophesies so we can test the word of God.

God said Israel will come together as a Nation and will never be destroyed again. Satan first tried to disperse the Jews throughout the world and that did not work. He then tried to destroy them with the Nazis but that did not work and he will then bring his armies against Israel and Jerusalem in battle. That is the end time event we are looking for.

The enemies of God will push Israel to the breaking point. Surrounding Jerusalem and prepared to wipe out the nation. They will regather their troops to resupply and regroup at a place called the plains of Megiddo, near Mount Megiddo, west of Jerusalem. They are prepared to attack Israel and totally destroy the nation. This will make God a liar and Satan is eager for that.

The Bible never calls it a “battle” of Armageddon. It will not be a battle at all. God ALWAYS gets His people out before destruction. While they are surrounded, Jesus will descend to the very spot he ascended from, (which is now covered by a Mosque), and will split the mountain in two pieces. The Jews surrounded in Jerusalem will escape through the newly formed valley as their “Savior” descends the mountain. He speaks and the troops gathered at the foot of Mount Megiddo die. With just the word of God their flesh melts off their bodies and their blood flows away. It will not be a man made weapon like and Atomic Bomb, it will be the very Word of God!

(Ezekiel Chapter 37)

Who is Magod and Gog? Magog, Gomer, Togarmah, Meshech and Tubal in prophecy.

Ezekiel 38:1-6 "The word of the Lord came to me; Son of man, set your face against Gog, of the land of Magog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal; prophesy against him and say: 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against you, O Gog, chief prince of Meshech and Tubal. I will turn you around, put hooks in your jaws and bring you out with your whole army - your horsemen fully armed, and a great horde with large and small shields, all of them brandishing their swords. Persia, Cush and Put will be with them, all with shields and helmets, also Gomer with all its troops, and Beth Togarmah from the far north with all its troops - the many nations with you."

We can debate if Russia, Europe or even the Chinese are included in these last days prophesies but that is not the point. If you do not understand, that the Bible talks about people, families then nations, you may miss the entire meaning of this scripture. It is not about the countries they come from but the families they came from. It is not their nationalities but their family heritage. These are the descendants of Hagar and Abraham fighting the descendants of Sara and Abraham over Abraham's inheritance. It will not end until a person kin to both sides pays the price.

We should pay close attention to the interpretation King Nebuchadnessar’s dream by Daniel. If we follow closely we can see clearly the future. It will look like we are losing unless we understand the end.

*We are not called to be tolerant, we are called to be righteous.

*Only what offends God is offensive.

*How can I offend you with the truth?

*We are not called to lead the world, direct the world or impress the world,

We are to call the world to its Savior.

*We believe that God’s Holy Scriptures are infallible. If you disagree, we believe you are wrong.

Let them laugh at us. The wise will be dumbfounded.

Stuxnet malware is 'weapon' out to destroy ... Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant? - CSMonitor.com

2010-09-22T22:52:00.000-07:00

Stuxnet malware is 'weapon' out to destroy ... Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant? - CSMonitor.com
I have written my contacts in the defense industry to confirm any special concerns of this threat. However, judging by the buzz this one is a real problem. Imagine a computer program which can take over a factory to cause small but totally destructive changes. If the robotic functions of an automated factory could be program to accept minor variances in the tolerance of one small component, a military weapon could be made useless. If you could design such a program what would stop you from using it on the computer systems of the FAA or drug producers?

This article is about destroying the nuclear plant in Iran but I see other problems. Who developed it and for what purpose? The technical skills needed to develop Stuxnet suggests a national resource must be involved. If the Iran plant is the target it could be the United States or Israel. If the attack on Iran is only a test before aiming it at us, it could be China or North Korea. I will keep you informed of what my sources say about it. Stay tune.

GOP only cares about managing not winning!

2010-09-15T16:12:00.000-07:00

GOP only cares about managing not winning! by C. Mason Weaver

masonweaver@masonweaver.com

Image via Wikipedia

If you are not aware of the real deal in politics you may miss the real battle being played out on this matter. It is not rather O’Donnell can defeat the democrat, it is not about finding a North Eastern Republican to take Joe Bidens seat. This dispute goes much farther and much deeper.

The reason you see the Bush Chief of Staff Karl Rove spending so much equity in the defeat of O’Donnell is a hint. Karl Rove would never get another job in DC if Sarah Palin wins the nomination. Even after O’Donnell’s victory the normal “let’s come together” message was missing as the GOP pulled money and resources from the GOP nominee. The “Establishment” is not against her, the “Establishment” does not care about her. The “Establishment” also does not care about winning elections. It is a business to them and as with all business it is about profit, power, promotions and stability.

Even if they lose elections, they still stay in power. Even when the lose majorities they still handle the mailings, consultants, polling, committee jobs and a host of other cash flow opportunities. They love self funding candidates so they can spend money without having to go through the pesky, dirty job of raising it. They are like hookers on the corner looking for the sailor with the most money in their pockets.

The “Establishment” republican leadership does not care about winning elections, they only care about keeping their positions and their influence. You must understand, even if they lose elections and power they will not lose their positions within the party.

Even if they are the minority party, they will still manage the races, the lobbyist will still call them and they will still get that payroll. It really is that simple. It is not personal, it is just personal. They do not hate you, they just love their lifestyle. They want that job, power and influence.

If Mike Castle won the primary he would never defeat the democrats but the republicans “Moderates” will still keep their positions. If O’Donnell won she will be looking to replace the leadership with her own like minded people. This is why the establishment does not like Sarah Palin. They know if she gains power she will replace them.

Look at what the republican leadership has given us with the slogan “Only he can win.” Bush, Dole, Bush and McCain. Since Ronald Reagan we have only had these candidates who seem to take pride in their ability to find compromise.

When Ronald Reagan won the nomination he took his rival moderate George Bush as a running mate. Reagan was a true conservative and so was his administration. He filled the government with his appointments and filled the party with conservative activist. But do not forget, George Bush was his opponent and much more moderate. When Bush became president he replaced Reagan’s leaders with his own (as any president would do), and they remain in power today. They will remain in power until another conservative wins the nomination.

This is why you NEVER see the republican establishment saying “He is the only one who could win” while speaking about a conservative in the race. They will use Conservatives, but never truly support them. The republican party does not care about winning elections and if you do, you will support your candidate regardless of the party’s support.

Make up your mind America. Which is worst, losing with the candidate of your principles or winning without a candidate with principles?

HEY. Had Enough Yet?

Lookout! Government peering at you with X-rays on highway

2010-09-13T22:46:00.000-07:00

This is a search! Without a warrant! Without a cause! And without your permission. But don't worry, it is for your own good and the government is trying to help you. This is one reason they allow problems and stress, the solution is more government control and interference into your life.

What is next, X raying your home? Flying over your city? X-Ray machines at the malls and schools? If they have the authority to drive down your street with this machine they have the authority to place it anywhere. When will it stop? It will stop when you have had enough.

Lookout! Government peering at you with X-rays on highway

While you were watching the Koran burning: US-Saudi arms deal - Yahoo! News

2010-09-13T08:33:00.000-07:00

Do not be distracted, keep your eyes on the goal.

Congress to be told of 60-billion US-Saudi arms deal - Yahoo! News

It's official: We have lost our minds!

2010-09-10T13:47:00.000-07:00

NEVER FORGET. 9.11.01
Very "Spiritual" Muslim woman shoots up business in Philly!

From the past. Remember: Christians in Gaza Fear for Their Lives as Muslims Burn Bibles and Destroy Crosses - Associated Content - associatedcontent.com

General Petraeus should not comment on US Civilians

2010-09-07T08:42:00.000-07:00

US General Petraeus has waded in on the controversial Churches decision to burn copies of the Quran. The Generals intentions are probably honorable and maybe accurate however it is completely out of line. We are a civilian lead government. We do not have our military commenting on civilian matters. This is the reason our President is the head of the Military and the highest rank of the Armed forces is the civilian Secretary of Defense.

If the General thought burning the Quran was a danger to our troops he should have passed his opinion on to his civilian head, Secretary Gates. By commenting from the war zone, the General gives the impression he is trying to impose or influence the activities of the American Civilian population.

Fighting a war trying to make the enemy like us is new to Americans. I wonder if the General thinks hanging American contractors from a bridge in Fallujah would anger Americans? Would the beheading of Daniel Pearl, or the attempts to blow up Times Square make it harder for the peace? I do not see any attempts on the part of Islam to find peace with us. I do not see them worrying about their image with America.

We should never forget what we are fighting. It is a battle against a culture. It is not a battle against civilizations but a battle FOR civilization.

Mosques of Conquest from history

2010-09-01T06:31:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

A good friend of mine, William Federer brings evidence of Muslim past Mosques built over conquered lands.

William J. Federer is the author of "What Every American Needs to Know About the Quran: A History of Islam and the United States."

This is the best book on Islam I have ever read. Every American should get it, read it and study it. AH
____________________
From World Net Daily

Monday, August 23, 2010

Mosque of conquest?
Exclusive: William Federer shares many examples from Islam's history of subjugation

Posted: August 24, 2010
Muslim groups are proposing a 13-story $100 million mosque in the most prominent spot in America – the heart of downtown New York City near the World Trade Center site.
Is this mosque a sign of America's tolerance, or is it a sign of Muslim conquest?
The past may hold answers:

In 630, Muhammad led 10,000 Muslim soldiers into Mecca and turned the pagans' most prominent spot, the Ka'aba, into the Masjid al-Haram Mosque.

In 634, Rightly Guided Caliph Umar conquered Syria and turned the Christians' most prominent spot, the Church of Job, famous for being visited by Saint Silva in the fourth century, into the Mosque of Job.

In 637, Caliph Umar conquered Hebron and turned the second-most prominent spot in Judaism, the Cave of the Patriarchs, into the Ibrahimi Mosque. (This was repeated by Saladin in 1188.)

In 638, Muslim generals Amr ibn al-As and Khalid ibn al-Walid conquered Gaza and turned the prominent fifth-century Byzantine church into the Great Mosque of Gaza.

In 638, Caliph Umar conquered Jerusalem. In 691, Caliph Al-Malik ordered the Dome of the Rock built on the most prominent spot in Judaism, the Temple Mount, followed by Caliph Al-Walid building the Al-Aqsa Mosque there in 705.

In 651, Muslims conquered Persia and turned Zoroastrian temples in Bukhara and Istakhr into mosques.

In 706, after Muslims took Damascus from the Byzantine Empire, Caliph Al-Walid turned the prominent Orthodox Church of St. John the Baptist into the Umayyad Mosque.

In 710, Gen. Muhammad bin Qasim conquered Pakistan, defiled the prominent Sun Temple in Multan, which house the great idol "sanam," and erected a mosque.

Get this fascinating history of Islam and the United States: Bill Federer's "What Every American Needs to Know About the Quran"

In 784, after the conquest of Spain, Emir Abd ar-Rahman turned the prominent Visigothic Christian Church of Saint Vincent into the Great Aljama Mosque of Cordoba.

After the conquest of Egypt, Caliphs al-Mamun (813-833) and al-Hakim (996–1021) turned prominent Coptic Christian churches and Jewish synagogues in Cairo into mosques.

In 831, Muslims conquered Palermo, Sicily, and Asad ibn al-Furat turned the prominent Church of Saint Mary of the Assumption into the Great Mosque of Bal'harm.

In 1193, Muslims conquered Delhi, India, and Qutbuddin Aibak turned the Red Citadel in Dhillika, the most prominent spot of the last Hindu rulers, into the Qutb Minar Mosque.

From 1250-1517, Mamluk Muslims controlled the Golan Heights and used the ancient Synagogue of Katzrin as a mosque.

In 1387, Turkish Muslims conquered Thessaloniki and turned the Katholikon Monastery and the Church of Aghia Sophia, which housed the relics of Saint Gregorios Palamas, into mosques, as Symeon of Thessaloniki recorded: "The greatest number of the buildings of the churches fell to them, of which the first was the Holy Church of the Savior. … These were trampled underfoot and the infidels rejoiced in them. … Most of the religious buildings in the city were despoiled, while altars were demolished and sacred things profaned."

On May 29, 1453, Sultan Mehmet II conquered Constantinople and turned the great Byzantine church, Hagia Sophia, into the Ayasofya Mosque. The largest church in Christendom for a thousand years, the church's four acres of gold mosaics were covered with whitewash and Quran verses.

In 1458, Sultan Mehmet II conquered Athens and turned the Greeks' most prominent spot, the Parthenon on Acropolis hill, into a mosque. When Venetian Gen. Francesco Morosini drove the Muslims out in 1687, a cannonball hit the gunpowder stored in the mosque, blowing it up.

In the 15th century, Ottoman invaders turned Saint Clement's Macedonian Orthodox Monastery in Plaosnik, Balkans, into the Imater Mosque.

From 1519-1858, Muslim Mughal rulers gained control of India and turned over 2,000 Hindu temples into mosques, including demolishing the Temple of Ram Janmabhoomi in Ayodhya, the birthplace of Rama, and replacing it with the Babri Mosque.

India's Mughal Muslim ruler, Jahangir (1605-1627), wrote in Tujuk-i-Jahangiri:
"At the city of Banaras a temple. … I made it my plea for throwing down the temple … and on the spot, with the very same materials, I erected the great mosque."

In 1543, Hayreddin Barbarossa's 30,000 Muslim troops wintered in Toulon, France, and turned the prominent Toulon Cathedral into a mosque.

In 1570, under Sultan Selim II Khan, Muslims conquered Paphos, Cyprus, and Gov. Mehmet Bey Ebubkir turned the prominent Christian church into the Great Mosque of Paphos.

In 1571, Muslims invaded Famagusta, Cyprus, and turned Saint Nicolas Cathedral, a rare Gothic church, into the Lala Mustafa Pasha Mosque, and Saint Sophia Cathedral in Nicosia, constructed in 1228, into the Selimiye Mosque.

In 1588, Sultan Murat III turned the Eastern Orthodox Church of Saint John the Forerunner in Constantinople into the Hirami Ahmet Pasha Mosque.

In 1781, after having conquered the Old City of Acre, Ottoman Muslims turned the Roman Catholic church built by Crusaders into the Jezzar Ahmet Pasha Mosque, where a hair from Muhammad's beard is preserved.

In 1923, Muslims expelled Greeks from Turkey and turned Orthodox churches into mosques.
In World War II, Nazis allied with Bosnians and turned the prominent Artists' Gallery Museum in Zagreb, Croatia, into a mosque.

In the 1950s, Muslims expelled Jews from Arab lands and turned synagogues into mosques.

Algerian Muslims warred against French colonial rule till France pulled out in 1962, after which the Cathedral of St. Philippe was turned into the Ketchaoua Mosque. Violence against Jews caused 30,000 to flee and the Great Synagogue of Oran was turned into the Mosque Abdellah Ben Salem.

In 1974, Turkish Muslims invaded northern Cyprus, and prominent Greek Orthodox churches were turned into mosques.

In 1981, Muslim immigrants to the Netherlands converted Amsterdam's historic Catholic Sint-Ignatiuskerk into the Fatih Mosque, and a synagogue in The Hague into the Aksa Mosque.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Muslim terrorists attacked the most prominent spot in America, the World Trade Center. In less than 10 years, the number of mosques in New York City has skyrocketed to over 140.

In light of history, reasonable citizens have a right to question if the mosque proposed at Ground Zero is a sign of America's tolerance, or a sign of Muslim conquest?

William J. Federer is the author of "What Every American Needs to Know About the Quran: A History of Islam and the United States."

Giant Mecca clock seeks to call time on Greenwich - Telegraph

2010-08-12T05:58:00.000-07:00

Giant Mecca clock seeks to call time on Greenwich - Telegraph
Thanks America for the Billions given in oil revenues to build this. "Drill here and drill now!"

Someone tried to Kill Mason Weaver (39 years ago today)

2010-08-11T06:54:00.000-07:00

August 11, 1971 (39 years ago today) at 9:05 am someone tried to kill me by pushing 2,800 of metal plates on me. It was a racial attack which resulted in permanent injuries and constant pain. I had to work through the physical and psychological trauma. This video documentary of my life was produced by Dr. D. James Kennedy for his nationally syndicated television program "Coral Ridge Hour" and is offered to you as a possible solution for our racial tension today. THE POWER OF FORGIVENESS!
www.MasonWeaver.com
IF LINK DOES NOT WORK CLICK HERE

Democrats know poor people do not vote, union members do.

2010-08-11T06:17:00.000-07:00

FOXNews.com - Democrats, Advocacy Groups Blast Cuts to Food Stamps to Fund $26B Aid Bill

2010-08-10T18:05:00.000-07:00

WATCH THIS VIDEO! I am usually pretty good at figuring out magic tricks. But this one has me puzzled. A free subscription to the free UR2Bfree blog to anyone who can explain this video! Watch the whole video, especially the finish. Thanks.

Obama the uniter. Even Blacks turning away.

2010-08-05T05:53:00.000-07:00

Blacks and Whites Continue to Differ Sharply on Obama
Every racial group leaving Obama. The Nation awaken to the problem.

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial - SFGate

2010-08-04T15:38:00.000-07:00

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial - SFGate
The liberal Courts of San Francisco over turning the people is not news. That the judge who ruled against the ban on Same Sex Marriage is also homosexual, may be news to you. This is why the churches needs to stay engaged, the battle never ends.

Breitbart.tv » Mexican Flag Flies as Dozens Arrested at Illegal-Immigration Law Protests

2010-07-30T05:13:00.000-07:00

Breitbart.tv » Mexican Flag Flies as Dozens Arrested at Illegal-Immigration Law Protests
The real Patriotic Americans show up today. Lets support the Constitution!

YouTube - Anita MonCrief: I Am Filing FEC Charges Against Obama Administration

2010-07-29T15:10:00.000-07:00

YouTube - Anita MonCrief: I Am Filing FEC Charges Against Obama Administration
BREAKING NEWS!!! You know what this means don't you? Soon the press will give you the research. Soon we will have all of the information, action, embarrassing stories and even lies about...Anita MonCrief. They are going to interview her Kindergarden class, ex boyfriends and enemies. It will be worse for her than it was for Linda Tripp.

Was President Obama talking out of his White side or Black side?

2010-07-29T11:42:00.000-07:00

President Obama calls African-Americans a ‘mongrel people’ - TheHill.com
No Mr. President "African Americans" by definition are people or Africa. You may be preferring to "Mixed" races such as yourself.

illegal immigration

2010-07-23T00:28:00.000-07:00

Image by Getty Images via @daylife

A day without a Mexican?

So let me get this right, we are going to have to suffer through “A Day without a Mexican” to more appreciate those citizens of Mexico that have broken into our country? Ok I think I get it, it is ok for someone to break into your home as long as they do the dishes. I got it!

Will the organizers also demand we have a day without social services, education, health benefits and a day without filling our jails? Will we have a day of ordering our food to someone that speaks English? I wonder if they will then demand a “Day Back to Mexico” to really teach us a lesson. It is completely ungrateful for a people to demand respect from a culture that has sheltered, employed and educated them. All we get from the world is jealously and envy. Stop whining and go build your own country and stop crossing the desert into ours.

Demand respect from the Mexican President and fight for a nation worth staying in. You are poor because of Mexico not the United States. You have hope and opportunity because of America, and you are a guest in our home, EVEN THOUGH YOU WERE NOT INVITED.

You wish to leave the oppressive government of Mexico and try to import their corrupt culture to America! Sorry we would rather have a “Day without a Mexican” than a “Country like Mexico.” If you are proud of Mexico do not demand Spanish in our classroom demand a bus ticket to Mexico. Do not celebrate Cinco de Mayo in Las Angeles, celebrate it in Mexico City.

Mexico was colonized by the Europeans just like America. The only difference is that they spoke Spanish and English was spoken in America. The Europeans still dominate the Mexican Culture, language and jobs. That is why the “Indians” that are running across the border, speak Spanish and not Aztec or Mayan languages. As I have said many times, there are no “Mexicans” crossing the Border illegally. Mexicans are crossing at the Border at the checkpoints to work or visit as tourist. People you see crossing the Borders illegally are the “Indians” of Mexico being discriminated against by the Europeans dominating the Mexican culture.

If it is dignity you want, earn it. Do not demonstrate in Dallas, march in Tijuana, do not ask for equal rights from Washington DC, return to Mexico and demand it from Mexico City. You are being forced out of you country by a government that has always hated you. You want to take the Southwest United States back for the Aztecs? Great, start with Mexico. The Spaniards took it from the Indians and now their Europeans descendants are forcing them to march across the Desert to pick crops in America. Where is your anger? Where is your courage? Do not march and protest here where it is free, protest where the real problems are and the real fight exist?

America became a great country in part of how we faced discrimination. Indians, Black folks and their European counterparts finally had to face with the problem. It took us a long time and it was very difficult and the process made us great. Black Americans tried escaping to other countries instead of fighting for dignity here. It did not work for us and it will not work for the oppressed Indians of Mexico. America is great because America has faced great challenges. You want a “Day without a Mexican?” Try having a Day without and America!” God Bless America!

Need a real Keynote, Motivational speaker for your event?

2010-07-22T11:24:00.000-07:00

advertisment

MASON WEAVER

Motivational, Inspirational, Accurate

RADIO TALK SHOW HOST, TEA PARTY SPEAKER

www.MasonWeaver.com
Speaking to your event with special summer rates!

Just a small honorarium plus travel accommodations!
I will deliver a very exciting 45-60 minute motivational, inspirational speech with energy, knowledge and power.

Watch videos here
Tea Party Kickoff 700 Club appearance Fox and Friends GOP convention Faith is a verb!

*25 years of experience to your organization.
*Federation of Republican Women, National Convention
*Tea Party Rally Washington DC. 9-11-2009
*North Carolina Republican State Convention
*Fox and Friends
*Major Church events and meetings
*Author
*Candidate for US Congress 2010

Contact me about your upcoming events and lets keep the team motivated in this special time in our history. The public is afraid, it is time for us to lead.

EXCITING
ENERGETIC
INSPIRING
MOVING
Make your next event memorable!
Book today!

Is this man Obama's worst nightmare?

2010-07-22T07:24:00.000-07:00

Is this man Obama's worst nightmare?
Cains life story is powerful. And the republican leadership may support him because he does have his own money (they get excited about that) this is going to be interesting.

UR2BFree

Message to the Church

Attacks on Liberty and Freedoms!

Racist Origins of Gun Control Laws

EXPOSED! Black Leaders and White Racist United.

Ready for the ten toes of Daniel?

Related articles by Zemanta

Stuxnet malware is 'weapon' out to destroy ... Iran's Bushehr nuclear plant? - CSMonitor.com

GOP only cares about managing not winning!

Related articles by Zemanta

Lookout! Government peering at you with X-rays on highway

While you were watching the Koran burning: US-Saudi arms deal - Yahoo! News

It's official: We have lost our minds!

General Petraeus should not comment on US Civilians

Related articles by Zemanta

Mosques of Conquest from history

Giant Mecca clock seeks to call time on Greenwich - Telegraph

Someone tried to Kill Mason Weaver (39 years ago today)

Democrats know poor people do not vote, union members do.

Obama the uniter. Even Blacks turning away.

Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial - SFGate

Breitbart.tv » Mexican Flag Flies as Dozens Arrested at Illegal-Immigration Law Protests

YouTube - Anita MonCrief: I Am Filing FEC Charges Against Obama Administration

Was President Obama talking out of his White side or Black side?

illegal immigration

Need a real Keynote, Motivational speaker for your event?

Is this man Obama's worst nightmare?