Free news

FREE blog







Gun poll








14th Amdt

19th Amdt













Gun Control Is Government Tyranny

Inmate study shows: 260,000 incarcerated JUST for technical violations (like failure to "register" a gun in violation of the Constitution) of one of the 22 THOUSAND gun control laws, not related to an actual crime


Here's a thought to warm some of your hearts... From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia:

Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 6.2 percent

Australia-wide, assaults are up 9.6 percent

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent
(yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

(Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly, while the resident is at home.

Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the State Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience speaks for itself. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's too late!



horizontal rule



Dennis Farina
IFC Films
'Law & Order' actor Dennis Farina arrested at Los Angeles International Airport after a loaded gun was found in his carryon luggage.

Actor Dennis Farina arrested for bringing gun to airport

The former 'Law and Order' actor, who tried to board a flight at LAX with a handgun, tells police he forgot it was in his briefcase.
By Jean-Paul Renaud, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 12, 2008
Dennis Farina is a bum shot.

Still, Los Angeles International Airport police took no chances Sunday with the former "Law and Order" actor, who was teased for his poor shooting skills during his earlier career as a Chicago police officer.

Farina, 64, was booked in a felony case after LAX screeners found a loaded handgun in his briefcase as he prepared to board a plane.

bullet Celebrity mug shots
The actor, who is often cast as a foul-mouthed mobster or cop, was contrite when he told airport police and FBI agents that he had forgotten he put the .22-caliber semi-automatic weapon in the case, authorities said. He spent most of the day in a Van Nuys jail and was released on $35,000 bail.

"He was apologetic and very cooperative, and he said he understood what was going to happen," said LAX Police Sgt. Jim Holcomb.

Farina had no permit for the gun, and it was not clear why he was carrying it. A representative for the actor could not be reached.

Holcomb said Farina told investigators he put the gun in the case before driving to L.A. from Arizona for the United Airlines flight to Chicago. He was booked on suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon.

The actor has starred in several feature films, including "Get Shorty" and "Saving Private Ryan," and the current "What Happens in Vegas." Farina served with the Chicago Police Department for nearly 20 years.

LAX police run into this problem--of passengers forgetting they have guns in their carry-on luggage--regularly, Holcomb said. Most of the roughly 10 incidents a month involve police officers traveling as civilians.

"People don't get it," Holcomb said. "When you go to an airport, the only people that can carry a gun are federal agents."

That's not to say high-profile travelers haven't tried to board with weapons.

Rapper Snoop Dogg pleaded guilty in 2007 after screeners at John Wayne Airport in Orange County found a collapsible baton in his luggage. Although the rapper said it was a prop for a music video, authorities deemed it otherwise.

David Huckabee, son of former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, received a one-year suspended sentence last year after he was caught at a Little Rock, Ark. airport with a loaded Glock pistol in his bag.

"It was a silly mistake," he said at the time.

And the lead singer of the rock band Incubus, Brandon Boyd, was arrested in 2004 for carrying a switchblade in his bag while trying to board a plane at New York's La Guardia International Airport.

horizontal rule

"Unless restrained, all governments devolve to tyranny."

"It can never be assured, nor should we ever believe, that government could never become oppressive and devolve into tyranny."

The sole purpose of guns is to protect the people from a tyrannical government

The right to bear arms
Phoenix Journal 90, Taking off the Blindfold- Chapter 15, p.182
Constitution prohibits Federal interference
By Peter D. Lepiscopo

A reprint of an article that appeared in the San Diego Mirror Tribune
2/2/94 entitled:

Is its [guns] purpose for hunting ...or collecting ...for sport ...or for self-defense against criminals?

No, although these have been offered as justification for its existence. Its sole purpose is to secure an individual's right for self-defense against government. "It" is the Second Amendment.

In order to understand the Second Amendment's constitutional purpose, one first must recognise the distinction between the "Constitution" and "Bill of Rights". The Constitution establishes a government of limited powers; thus it deals exclusively with power. Conversely, the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10) was adopted to secure individual rights against government's intrusion; thus it deals exclusively with individual rights.

The importance of this distinction is indispensable when one attempts to discern the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment. For example, if the Second Amendment is designed to secure a right against government's intrusion, then the question is raised: How can one argue that the amendment's purpose is for self-defense against criminals?

The answer of course, is that one cannot because the Bill of Rights dies not secure an individual's rights against other individuals but against government. Accordingly, present-day opponents and proponents of gun control are engaged in a debate that does not address the principle of government vs. individual but individual vs. individual.

This misinformed and illogical debate would offend the Founding Fathers.

Another misconception about the Second Amendment is the unfounded assertion that the amendment's language is ambiguous. The Second Amendment provides: "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 language is not ambiguous but clear if one properly analyses the amendment according to Thomas Jefferson's instructions, "On every question of constructions of the Constitution let US carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted and recollect the spirit manifested in the debates".

In order to find the purpose behind the Second Amendment, one need only recall the Founders' fear of government's abuse of power.

Specifically, the Founders feared a standing army, which is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as an army of professional soldiers kept permanently on foot. For example, it was Britain's standing army as assembled in 1770 that caused the Boston Massacre.

The universally understood view of the Founders was articulated by James Madison during the Constitutional Convention: "The greatest danger to liberty is from standing armies". In this regard, after the signing of the "Declaration of Independence" and prior to the ratification of the Constitution, state constitutions secured the right to keep and bear arms. For example, Section 14 of the Declaration of Rights to Vermont's Constitution (adopted 1777) provides that "the people have a right to keep and bear arms ... as standing armies are dangerous to liberty".

Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution provides that Congress shall have the power to "raise and support armies". In addition, Article I, Section 10, prohibits states from keeping troops, without the consent of Congress.

These two provisions clearly placed the exclusive power to establish a standing army with the federal government, which had the effect of disarming the states and their inhabitants. This situation sounded the alarm that caused the Founders to adopt the Second Amendment.
Militias vs. standing armies Present-day opponents of the Second Amendment argue that the word "militia" means an army designed to provide for the common defense of
our nation. These opponents, therefore, argue that because we have the greatest military that ever existed, a militia is not necessary; and, therefore, there is no need for the right to keep and bear arms. This assertion is incorrect and contrary to history surrounding and debates concerning the Second Amendment.

The word "militia" is not synonymous with the term "standing Army". A "militia" is a non-professional citizen army which is not assembled on a permanent basis. Conversely, standing armies are permanently assembled and are comprised of professional soldiers.
The Founders were not confusing the standing armies that could be established by Congress with those comprised of common inhabitants of the states. The latter were not assembled by, or loyal to, the federal government but to their own local neighborhoods and state.

Accordingly, present day opponents' arguments that the right to keep and bear arms is not necessarily because "militia" is synonymous with "standing armies" is false.

"Shall not be infringed"

The Second Amendment provides that the government shall not "infringe" on the people's right to keep and bear arms. As understood by the Founders, the term "infringe", as it relates to rights, means "to encroach on or upon". This means to invade gradually. Thus, the Second Amendment prohibits the government from interfering with this right, no matter how minimally; no matter how subtly. This includes indirect interference, such as oppressive taxation or regulation.

Furthermore, the use of the command "shall not" was used to eliminate any argument that the right was subject to the government's discretion. The Founders did not use the term "shall not be infringed" by accident but by design. They intended to preclude the government from implementing sophisticated means by which to encroach upon this right. After all, the amendment was designed to be a check against government's abuse of power, and it would be in the government's best interest to encroach upon or eliminate this right. Virginia delegate George Mason stated it most succinctly, "To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them".

Accordingly, the Founders used specific language in order to obtain a specific result, to secure our right to keep and bear arms for our protection against government. Those who actually believe that the Founders were not deliberate in their drafting of the Second Amendment are either naive or misinformed.

An amendment under attack

In the last several years there has been a torrent of gun-control legislation that calls for severe infringements or all-out repeal of the Second Amendment. The opponents and proponents of gun control focus their debate on the impact, or lack thereof, it would have on gun-related deaths.

On the other hand, the proponents of gun control insist that removal of all guns from society will stem the rising tide of gun violence. On the other hand, gun-control opponents insist that the Second Amendment guarantees them a right to self-defense against criminals, to collect guns, to hunt and/or to use guns for sport.

I believe both arguments are historically and constitutionally incorrect.

It is quite clear from history and the debates surrounding the adoption of the Second Amendment that the present-day debate does not focus on the proper principle underlying that amendment - protection against governmental tyranny.

Accordingly, the actual purpose of the Second Amendment will be betrayed regardless of who wins the debate.

To be sure, the argument can be made that we are entering the 21st century and the fears of men who existed in the late 18th century no longer exist. This argument quickly disappears, however, once one realises that although time has passed, human nature remains unchanged.

Unless restrained, all governments devolve to tyranny.

Moreover, it can be observed that governments throughout the world are oppressive to their people. What do these governments have in common?

They have the guns and their subjects do not. More importantly, it can never be assured, nor should we ever believe, that government could never become oppressive and devolve into tyranny. Accordingly, there can never be any constitutional justification for government infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms.

Finally, to those of you who advocate gun control at the expense of the Second Amendment, I leave you with Benjamin Franklin's insight, "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety".



horizontal rule

According to a BeCounted poll at only 7.8% believe gun control laws have been effective.


The Associated Press recently reported that the national murder rate has experienced a dramatic decrease despite its rise in some large cities. Nationwide, the murder rate has gone down to levels not seen since the 1960s. Criminologists point to the aging of the 'baby boomers', the reduction in crack cocaine related crimes and increase in community involvement as reasons. They have not mentioned any effect of current gun control legislation. How will this affect how you approach any upcoming gun control legislation the President might try to pass?
Total Votes = 244
3.7% I would be more likely to support such legislation because it is evident that gun control efforts have been having effect.
10.2% I would be less likely to support such legislation because this decrease shows that we have passed enough legislation to have a positive effect.
70.9% I would be less likely to support such legislation because there is no proof that it has been effective, and this decrease in crime makes it less necessary.
15.2% None of the above.
What role do you believe recent gun control laws have had in the overall lowering of the US crime rate?
Total Votes = 244
30.3% They've had no effect at all because criminals are unlikely to be willing to obey any of the laws that are passed.
0.8% They have been the most important factor in the reduction of crime because they have reduced criminals' access to firearms.
3.7% They have been an important factor, but have only been a part of the overall anti-crime movement which has shown criminals that their behavior will not be tolerated.
3.3% It may have had some effect but has been limited because it only addresses on aspect of criminal activity.
58.6% They may have actually hindered the anti-crime movement by discouraging and hindering private gun ownership which has traditionally been a deterrent to crime.
3.3% None of the above.


horizontal rule


Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself



The only thing good about “SWAT teams” is that we can count on them to spend lots of money, look really intimidating,  hide behind trees, wear bullet proof vests, stay in their nice safe air-conditioned armored vehicles--until the shooter gets tired and finally shoots himself—then brag about how dangerous police work is, and ask for ever more money.


It must really be embarrassing to be a cop these days.



Somebody needs to do a cost/benefit analysis of these gun control nuts. 




25 years murder-free in 'Gun Town USA'
Crime rate pummeted after law required firearms for residents

horizontal rule

Posted: April 19, 2007
1:52 p.m. Eastern


Kennesaw, Ga., City Hall

As the nation debates whether more guns or fewer can prevent tragedies like the Virginia Tech Massacre, a notable anniversary passed last month in a Georgia town that witnessed a dramatic plunge in crime and violence after mandating residents to own firearms.

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189. 

By comparison, the population of Morton Grove, the first city in Illinois to adopt a gun ban for anyone other than police officers, has actually dropped slightly and stands at 22,202, according to 2005 statistics. More significantly, perhaps, the city's crime rate increased by 15.7 percent immediately after the gun ban, even though the overall crime rate in Cook County rose only 3 percent. Today, by comparison, the township's crime rate stands at 2,268 per 100,000.

This was not what some predicted.

In a column titled "Gun Town USA," Art Buchwald suggested Kennesaw would soon become a place where routine disagreements between neighbors would be settled in shootouts. The Washington Post mocked Kennesaw as "the brave little city … soon to be pistol-packing capital of the world." Phil Donahue invited the mayor on his show.

Reuters, the European news service, today revisited the Kennesaw controversy following the Virginia Tech Massacre.

Police Lt. Craig Graydon said: "When the Kennesaw law was passed in 1982 there was a substantial drop in crime … and we have maintained a really low crime rate since then. We are sure it is one of the lowest (crime) towns in the metro area." Kennesaw is just north of Atlanta.

The Reuters story went on to report: "Since the Virginia Tech shootings, some conservative U.S. talk show hosts have rejected attempts to link the massacre to the availability of guns, arguing that had students been allowed to carry weapons on campus someone might have been able to shoot the killer."

Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible.

Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself.



horizontal rule

The real damages of gun control laws:


Bob Stewart's Trial: Empty Building, Empty Justice

by Rick DeStephens

June 3, 2002 -- I drove up to the massive cavern known as the Sandra
Day O'Connor Federal Courthouse. The outside was as inviting as
a  Khrushchev-era Soviet housing project in Minsk. The inside had all the
charm of an aircraft hangar with out the benefit of the cool planes. I
stepped into the building and moved up to the security station which
sported a sign requesting "Government Issued Photo Identification." The
federal guard looked at my drivers license perhaps long enough to be aware
that it was an Arizona document but I doubt if he could have compared the
photo or read any of the information.

As I passed through the magnetometer I asked one of the security guards
(all had east-coast accents for some reason) why they needed drivers
licenses for admittance. "Increased security," one offered. I asked how
that might increase security? There were shrugs all around. Another offered
that knowing the names of people would make the court safer. After I
mentioned that all of the 19 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade
Center used valid government Ids with their exact names, all I got were
shrugs. The rest of the day would make about as much sense.

Judge Roslyn O. Silver entered the courtroom fashionably late. She was
forced to share her courtroom with approximately 20 Bob Stewart supporters.
The room was about two-thirds full. Other times saw the room packed with
Stewart supporters but several delays in sentencing made it difficult to
attend on this day.

To make Judge Silver feel more comfortable, there were also at least 10
federal marshal/security guards both inside and outside the courtroom. I
guess the thought of so many potentially armed Senior Citizens spooked her.
This was accented when Bob Stewart's attorney requested that handcuffs be
removed so that Bob could shuffle through paperwork in response to the
judge's questions. Roslyn refused the sensible request.

The first order of business was to consider two motions for reduced
sentence filed by Bob Stewart's attorney. The first concerned an
"Acceptance of Apology Adjustment." Succinctly, if Bob Stewart admitted
that he "knowingly violated the law and accept[s] responsibility for [his]
actions," his sentence could be reduced.

Bob was willing to apologize and accept responsibility for his actions but
he had difficulty understanding why he had to alter his position taken
during the trial in which he said he was unaware of violating the law. The
questioning and conferencing went on for many, many minutes. The hang-up
continued to hinge on the word "knowingly." "Did you knowingly and
unlawfully possess machine guns and firearms?"

The judge repeated what she wanted several times. But the last time she
repeated it, she perhaps mistakenly or absent-mindedly left off the word
"knowingly." This might have been Bob's chance, or maybe he would later
have just have to sign a document with the phrase "knowingly violated." I
don't know. Be that at it may, Bob said he was unable to agree to those terms.

How odd is it that someone who says that he knowingly violated a law is
given a lighter prison sentence than someone who could not say that he did
it knowingly. Bob Stewart's case aside, the person who says he did it an
knew it gets off light than someone who did it out of ignorance. Justice?
Or coercion to get a lighter sentence in exchange for the judge feeling
better about herself?

As a result, Bob was unable to take advantage of reduced prison time on
that basis. However, there was one last chance to reduce Bob's prison time
from a potential 96 months to some significantly less term.

Next up was a motion for "Downward Departure" which under "unusual
circumstances" and "very narrow" guidelines, which Judge Silver decided
were valid for consideration, Bob's sentence could be reduced.

The judge said she considered "Offender Characteristics." Essentially,
Judge Silver said she had seen Bob over the last two years and had grown to
know him through his testimony and had shown her his insight into the
issues addressed. "Then again," she added, "when I have strained to tell
you the position you must take.bent over backward to grant continuances and
make positions on the law, you have, until now, defied it."

Judge Silver continued, "It is rare that this court grants downward
departure. But it is [unintelligible] in circumstances."  She then
explained that downward departure was supported in case law in several
circuits and even the Supreme Court. "I have spent a considerable amount of
time considering unique factors.that you have been a loving father and
husband, but I must wonder why you have exposed them to dangerous weapons.
Letters from your friends and family have been [glowing in support of you],
and you have not engaged in violence. You have served your community
[selflessly] to help others."

Judge Silver, attempting to make it clear to Bob that in this section of
the hearing, things were going his way, asked, "Do your really wish to say
anything?" Bob responded that he did not.

Judge Silver then declared, "I am going to grant a downward departure.due
to a confluence of factors [that] warrant it. I am persuaded, at least
today, that this will not happen again. If you come back in this court, I
will have to reconsider and I will give you the maximum term for violation
of supervised release."

At this point I almost got the inkling that she was going to let him off
with time served. Wishful thinking, and not provided by in federal
sentencing guidelines which work on a point system. Judge Silver stated
that there was a possible 87 to 108 month sentence for the crime given a
"criminal history at Category 3. She then reduced it to "Level 22" which
called for a range of 51 months to 63 months. She again cited letters sent
to her but mentioned that many letter she received (all copies sent to Bob
by her) had a negative connotation toward her. She maintained that these
letters had no effect on her decisions.

Bob's attorney then requested that the judge impose the lower end of the
sentence scale. Fred Batista, the government attorney, then spoke in an
effort to convince the judge to impose the higher end of the sentence
range. He said that Bob had "shown his true colors by "accusing ATF of
pointing a [9mm submachine] gun at his seven year-old son during the raid.
The "accusation" caused the government to fly regional BATF head, Marvin
Richardson, away from his duties preparing for the Salt Lake Olympics.

The government attorney claims that the child was never harmed.

Bob responded that his son was so frightened at staring at the MP5
submachine gun that the son wet his pants on the spot and has been
undergoing counseling for nightmares. Batista also took exception to Bob's
accusation that evidence was planted and tampered with by BATF as well as
accusing U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno of directing BATF to put him "out
of business." Judge Silver had no comments concerning any of the statements
above. Given the stellar history of the BATF, we can come to our own

Finally, Judge Silver, passed sentence.

For "violations of US Title 18 Section 922 (G)(1), 924(A)(2), and 922(O)":
60 months in prison.

In addition: "$600 Special Assessment" to be paid from his prison earnings,
and a $20,000 fine. And possible payment for investigational costs incurred
by the government, subject to submittal by the US Attorney. Judge Silver
noted that Bob Stewart owned nearly $500,000 in property and could afford
to pay the fines. Bob tried to tell the judge that his family is in
bankruptcy but she did not respond.

Judge Silver continued with other sentencing issues: After serving his 60
months in prison, he would be subject to Supervised Release for three
years, mandatory drug testing is suspended for that period. He must also
submit to search of his person, property and business during that time,
including any financial information. Bob will also be prohibited from
entering into financial contracts without approval of the parole officer.
Bob is not to engage in sales of firearms or accessories and no ownership
of firearms. 500 hours of community service to be completed within the time
of his three-year supervised release. He is also mandated to attend a "BATF
gun laws and gun safety" course.

If Bob is to appeal, he must do so within 10 days.

Lastly, Bob mentioned that BATF confiscated $500,000 of property from his
family that was not related to the case. Recall that the BATF raided his
home based on manufacturing rifle kits which are not firearms under the
law. Stewart did not stand trial for that, but for other evidence found as
a result of that search. Judge Silver said she "would consider a motion for
the return of the property."

The Court was adjourned. Bob was hustled out of the courtroom without being
able to say goodbye to his supporters. Two women began crying as they
objected to the sudden separation.

As I walked out of the courtroom I could only think that I would rather
have ten Bob Stewart families in my neighborhood than just one of the
Federal Marshals I saw patrolling in and around the courtroom.

Bob, a man that any of us would be happy to have as a father or
grandfather, is going to take up space in a prison cell. As a result, one
rapist, bank robber or murderer will be released to make space. I don't
feel any safer, do you?

At least Bob was able to take up two years of a servile US Attorney's time
as well as occupy several BATF thugs so they can't, as the Declaration of
Independence says, "[send] hither swarms of Officers to harass our people,
and eat out their substance."

Rick DeStephens
Phoenix, Arizona





jewn McCain

ASSASSIN of JFK, Patton, many other Whites

killed 264 MILLION Christians in WWII

killed 64 million Christians in Russia

holocaust denier extraordinaire--denying the Armenian holocaust

millions dead in the Middle East

tens of millions of dead Christians

LOST $1.2 TRILLION in Pentagon
spearheaded torture & sodomy of all non-jews
millions dead in Iraq

42 dead, mass murderer Goldman LOVED by jews

serial killer of 13 Christians

the REAL terrorists--not a single one is an Arab

serial killers are all jews

framed Christians for anti-semitism, got caught
left 350 firemen behind to die in WTC

legally insane debarred lawyer CENSORED free speech

mother of all fnazis, certified mentally ill

10,000 Whites DEAD from one jew LIE

moser HATED by jews: he followed the law Jesus--from a "news" person!!

1000 fold the child of perdition


Hit Counter


Modified Saturday, March 11, 2017

Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party