An articulate Virginian Admirably Pushes Back Against Governor's INTENT TO DISARM Virginia... SHARE...!


Jewish Promotion of Gun Control – 1


Bay Area Jewish Moms Take Leading Role in Campaign Against Gun Violence


Dianne Feinstein “Mr. & Mrs. America Turn Them All In”


Feinstein to Introduce Assault Weapons Ban Bill


Gun Control Plotted By Jews


Jewish Groups and Lawmakers Seeking Gun Control Get Major Boost from Obama


Jewish Groups Urge Senate to Pass Gun Control Legislation


Jewish Gun Control Backers Plan New Push


Jewish Politicians Lead Chorus Calling for Tighter Gun Laws



Jewish Promotion of Gun Control – 2


Jews and Jewish Organizations Lead the Gun Control Campaign


Jews Lead Gun Control Charge


New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Demands a Plan for Gun Control


Rabbi Michael Lerner: Banning Guns is Necessary But Not Sufficient


Rahm Emanuel Calls for Nationwide Assault-Weapons Ban


Senator Schumer Wants Your Guns!


Who is Behind Gun Control?


Most U.S. Federal gun control legislation has been written,

introduced, and sponsored by

Jewish Congressmen and Jewish Senators.


U.S. Federal Gun Control Legislation, 1968 – present


1968: The Gun Control Act of 1968 comes from Congressman Emanuel Celler’s House

bill H.R.17735. It expands legislation already attempted by the non-Jewish Senator Thomas

Dodd. America’s biggest and most far-reaching gun law came from a Jew.


1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.1523. It proposes legislation

turning every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense,

allowing a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.


1988: Senator Howard Metzenbaum co-sponsors a bill – S.2180 – to ban, or limit/restrict,

so-called “plastic guns.”


1990: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.2070, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of

1990, which bans gun possession in a school zone. The law will later be struck down in

court as unconstitutional.


1993: Senator Howard Metzenbaum sponsors Senate bill S.653. It bans specific

semiautomatic rifles, but also gives the Secretary of the Treasury the power to add any

semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.


February, 1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns,

becomes effective. Senator Howard Metzenbaum wrote the Brady Bill. Senator

Metzenbaum sponsored the bill in the Senate. The sponsor of the bill in the House

was Congressman Charles Schumer.


1994: Senator Howard Metzenbaum introduces S.1878, the Gun Violence Prevention

Act of 1994, aka “Brady II.” Congressman Charles Schumer sponsored “Brady II”

sister legislation [H.R. 1321] in the U.S. House of Representatives.


September, 1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 goes

into effect, including a provision that bans the manufacture and possession of

semiautomatic rifles described as “assault weapons.” [Note: true assault weapons

are fully automatic, not semiautomatic]. That gun-ban provision was authored in the

Senate by Senator Dianne Feinstein and authored in the House by Congressman

Charles Schumer.


1995: Senators Kohl, Specter, Feinstein, Lautenberg and others introduce the

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1995, an amended version of the 1990 school-zone

law which was struck down in court as being unconstitutional.


September, 1996: The Lautenberg Domestic Confiscation provision becomes law.

It is part of a larger omnibus appropriations bill. It was sponsored by Senator Frank

Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from ever

owning a gun.


1997: Senate bill S.54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher

sentences for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences

and forfeiture of property. It was introduced by Senator Dianne Feinstein and Senator

Hatch, among others. It returns the idea of turning every violation of the Gun Control

Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense.


January, 1999: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.193, the American Handgun

Standards Act of 1999.


January, 1999: Senator Herbert Kohl introduces bill S.149, the Child Safety Lock Act

of 1999. It would require a child safety lock in connection with transfer of a handgun.


February,1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.407, the Stop Gun

Trafficking Act of 1999.


February, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces S.443, the Gun Show

Accountability Act of 1999.


March, 1999: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.560, the Gun Industry

Accountability Act of 1999.


March, 1999: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.594, the Large Capacity

Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999.


May, 2000: Senators Feinstein, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Schumer sponsor Senate

bill S.2515, the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2000. It is a plan for a

national firearms licensing system.


January, 2001: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, and Boxer sponsor Senate bill S.25,

the Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2001. It is a nation-wide gun registration

plan [apparently there were two versions of that Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act bill].


May, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Schumer, Boxer, and others introduce legislation that

would reauthorize the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, and, close a loophole in the

law that allows large-capacity ammunition magazines to be imported into the U.S. The

ban expired in September, 2004.


October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin, and Schumer co-sponsor

bill S.1774, designed to stop the sunset [ending] of the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988.


March, 2005: Senator Frank Lautenberg introduces bill S.645, “to reinstate the Public

Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the

1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.


March, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.620, “to reinstate the Public

Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act,” in other words, to reinstate the

1994 assault-rifle ban [also known as the “Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994”] which expired in late 2004.


July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1621 – Fifty-Caliber Sniper

Weapons. This amendment would convert all .50 BMG firearms to NFA weapons.


July, 2005: Senator Dianne Feinstein introduces bill S.A.1622 – Fifty-Caliber Exclusion

to S.397. This amendment would modify S.397 to allow suits when the firearm involved

was a .50 caliber weapon.


July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1633 – BATFE Safety Standards.

This amendment allows law suits to continue/be brought if the product did not meet the

safety standards as defined by the BATFE.


July, 2005: Senator Barbara Boxer introduces bill S.A.1634 – ‘Sporting Use’ on Domestic

Handguns. Applying ’sporting use’ clause requirements to domestic handguns could,

almost completely, dry up the handgun availability in the United States.






To control all the guns is priority number one for the Jew agenda for total world domination .

To control the secret police is everything, once you do that you can turn the guns on the people.

Every single bill on gun ban ever written in America is written by Jews. The Jew mafia knows

how to take power. The secret police in Soviet was rank and file 80 percent Jews, and it was

not the nice Jews, it was the scumbags of the scumbags among the Jews

who went into the secret police – and they controlled all the guns.



This is what really happened and it did not just “happened” to be Jews that controlled the

secret police. It was well planned ahead and the reason is that to control the secret police

is what made the coup possible. It’s crucial to understand this, because to control the

secret police was the key factor to take over Russia. When you control all the guns what

resistance could the Russian people come up with? Nothing. The key factor is to control

the guns and that the communist Jews did, and it didn’t just “happened” to be Jews.

The coup in Russia 1917 was well planned and it was Jews who planned the whole thing.






Click on this text to watch an Illinois demonstration by Gun Owners stating to Legislature, "We Won't Comply" with Your Gun Laws...



Trump Opens Door For Gun Confiscation In America

By Chuck Baldwin 
March 8, 2018


Sagacious gun owners have always known that the ultimate goal of gun control extremists

such as Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, et al., has always been gun

confiscation. The plan is not to “control” the private ownership of firearms; it is to PROHIBIT

the private ownership of firearms. Enacting ever-encroaching gun control laws is simply

an incremental means to the ultimate end of gun confiscation and prohibition.


Donald Trump was elected on the promise of protecting the Second Amendment (among

other things). Instead, he has become the poster boy for one of the most egregious gun control

machinations of all: gun confiscation.


As I reported in this column last week, in a bipartisan meeting with congressmen and

senators recently, President Trump “voiced support for confiscating guns from

certain individuals deemed to be dangerous, even if it violates due process rights.


“‘I like taking the guns early, like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida ...

to go to court would have taken a long time,’ Trump said at a meeting with lawmakers on

school safety and gun violence.


“‘Take the guns first, go through due process second,’ Trump said.


“Trump was responding to comments from Vice President Pence that families and local

law enforcement should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals

with weapons.


“‘Allow due process so no one’s rights are trampled, but the ability to go to court,

obtain an order and then collect not only the firearms but any weapons,’ Pence said.


"‘Or, Mike, take the firearms first, and then go to court,’ Trump responded.”


See the column here:

Florida School Massacre Proves Police Are Worthless In Protecting Us


Well, Trump’s statements are now the rallying cry for gun

grabbers all over America to enact gun confiscation laws.


So far, five states have passed "red flag" laws that allow police agencies to confiscate

guns from someone deemed to be "dangerous" by either a law enforcement officer or a

family member BEFORE the individual has committed any crime, and in one State

(Rhode Island) the governor issued an executive order implementing a “red flag” law.


Here are the six states where the legislatures have already passed—or the

governor has already issued an executive order implementing—“red flag" laws:


Rhode Island


And since Trump’s Stalinist statements, there are at least 24 additional

states that are currently considering passing "red flag" laws. These are:



New Jersey

New York
North Carolina



Doubtless, many other states are also considering passing "red flag" laws.


And it’s not taking long for law enforcement agencies in the above states

to begin their Naziesque assault on gun owners. This report is from Seattle:


“The city’s police department became the first law enforcement agency in the state to

 force the surrender of a firearm under a new law known as an ‘extreme risk protection order.

“The incident involves a man who lives in Belltown, who neighbors said had been intimidating

people for the past year - even staring-down customers through store-front windows with a gun

holstered at his side.


“Mental illness is suspected, but that new law allowed police to legally disarm him.”


“The man, who we are not naming, is also well known to the bars and restaurants below

his unit along Second Ave. The volume of complaints convinced Seattle police to seek

an extreme risk protection order - or ‘erpo’ – which allows law enforcement to

legally remove guns from people deemed a danger to themselves or others.


“In this case, the man refused to comply. Because of the new law, police were

then able to return with a warrant and force the man to surrender the firearm.”


“A few dozen erpos have been served and executed around the state, but Seattle police

said they are the only agency so far to seize a gun because the owner refused to hand it over.


“Law enforcement professionals said these specialized protection orders could be a

common sense strategy to try and prevent mass shootings - such as what happened in

Parkland, Florida.


“‘There's certainly a big concern of the connection between mental health and people

exhibiting violent behavior and whether or not they should have access to firearms.

The “erpos” give us that tool now as an option,’ said Sgt. Eric Pisconski,

who leads the crisis response unit for the Seattle Police Department.


“The confiscations only last a year, although they can be renewed.”


See the report here:

Seattle Police First In State To Seize Gun Under Mental Health Law



A few observations are in order here:


First, the open carry of a firearm is LEGAL in the area where this took place. So, the

fellow was violating NO gun laws whatsoever. Plus, he never

removed the pistol from its holster or brandished it in any way.


Secondly, the man was “known” to nearby bars and restaurants near his place of

residence. That means nothing. Known for what? The report doesn’t even say the man

was known for acting weirdly or strangely. It just says he was “known.” And even if he

did act weirdly or strangely, if we denied constitutional rights to everyone in that category,

a majority of Americans would have no rights, and ALL of Congress would have no rights.


Thirdly, what does “volume of complaints” mean? How many complaints were received

over a YEAR’S time? Two? Five? Ten? People complaining about other people happens

all of the time. Plus, if complaints had been received over the course of an entire year

and police just now decided to act, the man must not have been considered much of a threat.


Fourthly, there was NO report of the man “exhibiting violent behavior,” as the police sergeant

claims. The report says “he had been intimidating people.” How? No specifics

except to say he was “staring” at people. Wow! Run for your lives!


Fifthly, a U.S. citizen who has committed NO CRIME is denied his Natural right of

self-defense for a whole year. And the media report says the confiscations “only” last a

year, with the caveat that they may be extended. Indeed.

They could and very likely will be extended indefinitely.


How many defenseless (unarmed) people are robbed, assaulted, accosted, beaten up,

raped, wounded, paralyzed, or killed in a year’s time? It seems many politicians (and

many police officers themselves) will not be content until every American citizen is totally

defenseless and unable to protect him or herself.


I tell you this with all seriousness: At some point, the American people will be forced to

view these governmental attacks against our Second Amendment liberties as a declaration of war.


Sixthly, the man quoted in the news story who had complained about the armed fellow did

so because he said he didn’t like the sight of the man carrying a firearm, as it made him “afraid.”




That the mere sight of a law-abiding citizen openly carrying a sidearm would make someone

“afraid” is not sufficient reason to deny the citizen his constitutional right to keep and “bear”

arms. This “I’m offended” or “his gun scares me” complaint is nothing but cover

for little Nazis to try and deny another person their Natural, God-given liberty.


But under this new “red flag” law in Washington State, police are now able to confiscate

a person’s firearm without the person committing ANY crime—or even threatening to commit

a crime. Even when police forced the man to surrender his firearm,

the man made no threatening gesture toward the officers.


Gun confiscation has started in America—and President Trump’s Stalinist statements

about taking guns first and worrying about due process later is the banner under

which this is happening.


When Trump promised to add “mental health” regulations to

gun purchases and ownership, he opened Pandora’s Box.


I go into the “mental health” trap in more detail in this column:


Trump Set To Enact More Gun Control


“Mental health” regulations for gun ownership is what extremist gun grabbers Schumer,

Pelosi, Feinstein, et al., have been trying to accomplish for decades. Now, it is

the “pro-gun” Republican President Donald Trump who is the one making it happen.


Kris Kobach is the Secretary of State of Kansas. He is a former professor of constitutional

law at UMKC Law School. He wrote an excellent analysis of the constitutional violations of

these “red flag” laws:


1. The seizure of guns without any hearing at all. The laws all contain an “ex parte

provision that allows the state to temporarily seize a person’s guns without even

notifying the gun owner or giving him a chance to be heard. This is the quintessential

denial of due process. The Fourth Amendment makes clear that a person cannot be

denied of liberty (to exercise one’s constitutional right to bear arms) without due

process of law. This confiscation is “temporary,” but it

can easily lead to long-term or permanent confiscation.


2. Based on the testimony of one unrelated person. The confiscation order can be

based on the testimony of only one person claiming that the gun owner poses a risk

to the safety of himself or others. The law deceptively says that it has to be the testimony

of a “family member.” such as the one in Washington State But “family member” is

 defined to include “former dating partners” and anyone who has ever lived with the

defendant. So a jilted former boyfriend or girlfriend, or even a roommate from

years ago, could easily set in motion the disarming of a lawful gun owner.


3. Using a very low standard of proof. The standard for obtaining an ex parte order

against a gun owner is absurdly low – one need only show “reasonable cause” to

believe that the person may pose a risk. That’s even lower than the “probable cause”

standard for obtaining a search warrant. In addition, the judge is forced to rush his

decision and issue the confiscation order on the same day of the ex parte hearing.

Within two weeks of the ex parte hearing, a hearing with the gun owner present must

occur; the purpose is to put in place a long-term confiscation order. But even at that

hearing, the standard of proof is far below the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard

used in criminal trials. Rather, it need only be shown by “a preponderance of evidence”

that the person poses a risk of injury to self or others. What kind of evidence? Things

like the “reckless storage” of firearms and drinking habits can be considered. If you

keep a handgun in the bedside table and drink beer regularly, you may [be] in trouble.


4. Shifting the burden of proof to the gun owner. The long-term confiscation order lasts

up to a year, but may be renewed indefinitely. Once it is in place, it becomes very difficult

to remove. To have the confiscation order lifted, the gun owner must prove he does not

 pose a threat to himself or others. Proving a negative is nearly impossible. Adding insult

to injury, the bill even authorizes local law enforcement to charge the

gun owner a storage fee for confiscating and storing his guns.


After the Parkland school shooting, had Donald Trump simply used his bully pulpit to promote

arming teachers and school employees as a deterrent and defense against these school

shootings without calling for more gun control, it would have been a HUGE

boost for the Second Amendment in general and school safety in particular.


Instead, Trump fell in with anti-Second Amendment liberals and started calling for more

gun control, adding “mental health” restrictions to gun purchases and making his stupid

Stalinist statements about taking guns first and worrying about due process later.


As a result, anti-gun liberals all over the country are using Trump’s own words and

proposed gun control policies as a rallying cry to enact gun confiscation laws.


As it stands right now, Donald Trump has opened the door for more damage being done

to the Second Amendment than any other president, Democrat or Republican, in our lifetime.


Freedomists in the 50 states had better keep a close eye on their State legislatures this

year and next, because, thanks to Donald Trump, gun confiscation is going to be on the

agenda in virtually every single State in the country. And while you are at it, don’t overlook

the federal Congress.


No wonder Dianne Feinstein looked so deliriously (and devilishly) happy when Trump uttered

his stupid comment about gun confiscation and said he wanted to bring an

assault weapons ban (Feinstein’s bill) into proposed gun control legislation.


See the video here:

Watch Dianne Feinstein Erupt With Glee After Trump Seems To Endorse Her Assault Weapons Ban



But if you are a freedom-loving American who values your liberties and the God-given

right to defend them, happy is NOT what you should be feeling right now. You should

be OUTRAGED at Donald Trump, and you should be absolutely determined to be ever

vigilant against ANY attempt from Democrats or Republicans from federal, State, or municipal

government to enact further restrictions against your right to keep and bear arms—

because Trump has opened the door not only for more gun control but also for gun confiscation.


P.S. One more time I want to remind readers that self-defense—including defense against

tyrannical government—is more than a right guaranteed in the Second Amendment to our

Constitution; it is a duty assigned us in Nature by our Creator. For anyone, especially a

Christian, to willingly surrender their means of self-defense is not only a crime against liberty;

it is a sin against God.


I urge my Christian friends (and anyone else) to read the book my constitutional attorney

son and I wrote entitled

“To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns.”


Mark it down: Any law demanding the citizenry to surrender their AR-15 rifles would be

unconstitutional, unnatural, and unbiblical. And NO Christian

or other free man should ever comply with such a law.


I know that there is a plethora of pastors who teach that Christians ought to obey the

government should it outlaw our guns. THEY ARE WRONG.

They are wrong biblically, constitutionally, and morally.


Our book shows the Natural and Biblical duty of self-defense.

I don’t know of another book like it.


With all that is happening today, it is CRUCIAL that people (especially Christians) become

familiar with the truths contained in this book. I urge you to order

one for yourself and one (at least) for your friends and kinfolk.


To order “To Keep or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns,” go here:

To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns








Avoid Supporting These Companies

if You Value Your Gun Rights



Amazon Web Services
Amazon restricted user access to,,

where users could access blueprints for making guns with a 3D printer.


Avis and Budget Car Rentals
Avis and Budget ended its participation in the NRA rewards program in March 2018.


Bank of America
Bank of America said in April it would

stop financing manufacturers that make military-inspired firearms for civilians, such as AR-15s.


Buffalo Wild Wings
“In 2009, [Buffalo Wild Wings] announced a blanket no-gun

policy at all of its locations,” reports.


Citi Bank
Citi Bank told its retail business partners to

prohibit the sale of firearms to customers younger than 21 and to those who have not passed a background check.


In 2014, Chipotle asked that customers not bring guns into its restaurants because

“the display of firearms in our restaurants has now created an environment

that is potentially intimidating or uncomfortable for many of our customers.”


Craiglist’s user policy prohibits weapons; firearms/guns and components; BB/pellet, stun,

and spear guns; etc., ammunition, clips, cartridges, reloading materials, gunpowder,

fireworks, and explosives.


Delta Airlines
Delta tweeted in February 2018 that it was ending the NRA’s contract for discounted

rates and “requesting that the NRA remove our information from their website.”


Dick’s Sporting Goods/Field & Stream
The chain store enacted a new policy in 2018 that halted the sale of so-called “assault-style weapons”

in their Field & Stream stores. The company announced it would destroy all the weapons pulled from its shelves.

Dick’s CEO has since announced sales are down, and they may have to close the Field & Stream line of stores.


Enterprise Holdings (Alamo, Enterprise, and National)
Enterprise ended its discount program with the NRA amid the #BoycottNRA movement of 2018.


Facebook prohibits ads that

“promote the sale or use of weapons, ammunition, or explosives. This includes ads for weapon modification accessories.”


FedEx ended the discount it offered NRA members

stopped shipping firearms after Gays Against Guns staged protests.


Hertz ended its discount program with the NRA amid pressure from gun control groups.


Instagram’s user policy says it prohibits buying or selling firearms.


Kroger owns Fred Meyer stores, which no longer

sell firearms to people under the age of 21.


Levi Strauss
Levi Strauss’s CEO announced in 2018 the iconic American denim company will be

donating $1 million to Michael Bloomberg and gun control groups.


L.L. Bean
L.L. Bean no longer sells guns or ammo to people under the age of 21.


Reddit updated its policies to forbid “[soliciting] or [facilitating]” transactions involving firearms,

including “gun sales, drug sales, prostitution, stolen goods, personal information,

and counterfeit official documents.”


“The Seattle-based outdoor retailer said March 1 [2018] that it was halting future orders

of some popular brands — including CamelBak water carriers, Giro helmets and Camp

Chef stoves — whose parent company, Vista Outdoor, also makes assault-style rifles,”

The Los Angeles Times reported.


Shopify changed its user policy to prohibit the sale of certain firearms and accessories.

Retailers who use the platform say this move will likely cost them hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Starbucks published an open letter in 2013 from its CEO asking

patrons not to bring firearms into Starbucks stores or seating areas.


Target issued a statement in 2014 saying, “Bringing firearms to Target creates an environment

that is at odds with the family-friendly shopping and work experience we strive to create.

Starting today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target –

even in communities where it is permitted by law.”


Toms Shoes
Toms announced it will use $5 million to advance universal background checks.


Twitter’s user policy says it “prohibits the promotion of weapons and weapon accessories globally.”


United Airlines
United has ended its partnership with the NRA.


Walmart raised the age for purchase of firearms and ammunition from

18 to 21 years old and removed “online items resembling assault-style rifles.”


Wyndham Hotel Group
Wyndham ended its affiliation with the NRA amidst pressure from the gun control lobby.


YouTube curtailed content intending to sell firearms

or provide instructions on firearm manufacturing.


Keep in mind…

Ryan Flugaur, Director of Federal Affairs at the National Association

for Gun Rights, told Gunpowder Magazine to keep in mind:


Sometimes anti-gun businesses can be tricky to identify
  Sometimes corporate policy will ban guns, other times only local

franchise owners choose to ban them, not the company as a whole.
  Sometimes state or local law will supersede corporate policy,

placating a business or franchise owner as anti-gun even if

they’re not.  Sometimes these legal restrictions or company

decisions only apply to open carry, not concealed carry,

or only apply to restaurants(or portions thereof) that serve

alcohol.  Corporate policies can be very different for

employees than they are for patrons.

  So can storage in a car parked on company

property or possession in a company’s parking lot.





The holodomor was enabled by the initial confiscation of firearms... click on this text to see hidden history known as THE HOLODOMOR (holodomor is Ukrainian for "murder by starvation"...

It has now been 2 years 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!

Hitler and Gun Control

In a speech, sometimes said to have been delivered in 1935, Hitler is supposed to have
exclaimed: "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full
gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will
follow our lead into the future!"

This quote has been popular with Americans who defend the constitutional right to
"keep and bear arms." It's cited to discredit those who support restrictions on firearms
ownership and use. It's also cited to support the often-made charge that Hitler and his
government curtailed gun ownership in Germany, and confiscated weapons held by private citizens.

The truth is rather different. When Hitler and his National Socialist Party took power in
early 1933, they inherited a somewhat restrictive firearms law that the liberal-democratic
"Weimar" government had enacted five years earlier. In 1938 Hitler's government revised
the earlier law by loosening those restrictions, thereby enhancing the rights of Germans to
own weapons. The most thorough confiscation of firearms ever imposed on Germans was
carried out at the end of the Second World War by the occupation forces of the United States
and other victorious Allied powers.


by Dr. William L. Pierce

| A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist...


A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

is that the National Socialist government of Germany under Adolf Hitler did not permit

the private ownership of firearms. Totalitarian governments, they have been taught in

their high school civics classes, do not trust their citizens and do not dare permit them

to keep firearms. Thus, one often hears the statement, “You know, the first thing the

Nazis did when they came to power was outlaw firearms,” or, “The first thing Hitler did in

Germany was round up all the guns.”


One can understand why many American gun owners want to believe this. They see in

the current effort of their own government to take away their right to keep and bear arms

a limitation of an essential element of their freedom and a move toward tyranny, and

they want to characterize the gun-grabbers in the most negative way they can.

Adolf Hitler has been vilified continuously for the past 60 years or so by the mass media

in America, and certainly no politician or officeholder wants to be compared with him.

If the gun-confiscation effort can be portrayed convincingly as something

of which Hitler would have approved, it will have been effectively tarred.





This identification of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms

with National Socialism and Adolf Hitler has been strengthened recently by clever magazine

advertisements which show Hitler with his arm outstretched in a Roman salute under a

heading: “All in favor of gun control raise your right hand.” A Jewish group, Jews

for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), quite noisy for its size, has been

especially zealous in promoting the idea that the current gun-control effort in America has

its roots in Germany during the Hitler period. This group has gone so far as to claim in

several articles published in popular magazines read by firearms enthusiasts that the current

restrictive legislation being proposed by the U.S. government is modeled on a gun-control

statute enacted by Germany’s National Socialist government: the German Weapons Law

(Waffengesetz) of March 18, 1938.


Again, one can understand the motivation of the JPFO. Many non-Jewish firearms owners

are well aware that the movement to restrict their rights is led and promoted primarily

by Jews, and anti-Jewish feeling has been growing among them. They know that the

controlled news media, which are almost unanimously in favor of abridging or abolishing

the Second Amendment, are very much under the influence of Jews, and they know that

the most vocal anti-gun legislators in the Congress also are Jews. It is natural for a group

such as the JPFO to mount a damage- control effort and attempt to prevent anti-Jewish

feeling from becoming even stronger among gun owners. Their strategy is to deflect the

blame from their kinsmen in the media and the government and direct it onto their most

hated enemies, the National Socialists — or at least to create enough smoke to obscure

the facts and keep the gun-owning public confused.


Unfortunately for those who would like to link Hitler and the National Socialists with gun

control, the entire premise for such an effort is false. German firearms legislation under

Hitler, far from banning private ownership, actually facilitated the keeping and bearing of

arms by German citizens by eliminating or ameliorating restrictive laws which had been

enacted by the government preceding his: a left-center government which had contained

a number of Jews.


It is not just that the National Socialist firearms legislation was the opposite of what it has

been claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the

“Nazi” brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different

from its portrayal by America’s mass media. The facts, in brief, are these:


  • The National Socialist government of Germany, unlike the government in Washington
  •  today, did not fear its citizens. Adolf Hitler was the most popular leader Germany has
  •  ever had. Unlike American presidents, he did not have to wear body armor and
  • have shields of bulletproof glass in front of him whenever he spoke in public. At
  •  public celebrations he rode standing in an open car as it moved slowly through cheering
  •  crowds. Communists made several attempts to assassinate him, and his government
  •  stamped down hard on communism, virtually wiping it out in Germany. Between upright,
  •  law-abiding German citizens and Adolf Hitler, however, there was a real love affair, with
  • mutual trust and respect.

  • The spirit of National Socialism was one of manliness, and individual self-defense
  • and self- reliance were central to the National Socialist view of the way a citizen
  • should behave. The notion of banning firearms ownership was utterly alien to National
  •  Socialism. In the German universities, where National Socialism gained its earliest
  •  footholds and which later became its strongest bastions, dueling was an accepted
  • practice. Although the liberal-Jewish governments in Germany after the First World War
  •  attempted to ban dueling, it persisted illegally until it was again legalized by the National
  • Socialists. Fencing, target shooting, and other martial arts were immensely popular in
  •  Germany, and the National Socialists encouraged young Germans to become proficient
  •  in these activities, believing that they were important for the development of a man’s character.

  • Gun registration and licensing (for long guns as well as for handguns) were legislated
  •  by an anti-National Socialist government in Germany in 1928, five years before the
  • National Socialists gained power. Hitler became Chancellor on January 30, 1933. Five
  •  years later his government got around to rewriting the gun law enacted a decade earlier
  •  by his predecessors, substantially amel ior a ting it in the process (for example, long
  • guns were exempted from the requirement for a purchase permit; the legal age for gun
  •  ownership was lowered from 20 to 18 years; the period of validity of a permit to carry
  •  weapons was extended from one to three years; and provisions restricting the
  • amount of ammunition or the number of firearms an individual could own were dropped).
  •  Hitler’s government may be criticized for leaving certain restrictions and licensing
  • requirements in the law, but the National Socialists had no intention of preventing
  • law-abiding Germans from keeping or bearing arms. Again, the firearms law enacted
  •  by Hitler’s government enhanced the rights of Germans to keep and bear arms;
  • no new restrictions were added, and many pre-existing restrictions were
  • relaxed or eliminated.

  • At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded
  •  to discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of
  •  pistols looted from German homes by GIs were brought back to the United States
  • after the war. In 1945 General Eisenhower ordered all privately owned firearms in the
  • American occupation zone of Germany confiscated, and Germans were required to
  •  hand in their shotguns and rifles as well as any handguns which had not already been
  •  stolen. In the Soviet occupation zone German civilians were summarily shot if they were found
  •  in possession of even a single cartridge.

Jews, it should be noted, were not Germans, even if they had been born in Germany. The

National Socialists defined citizenship in ethnic terms, and under Hitler Jews were not accorded

full rights of citizenship. National Socialist legislation progressively excluded Jews from key

professions: teaching, the media, the practice of law, etc. The aim was not only to free German

life from an oppressive and degenerative Jewish influence, but to persuade Jews to emigrate.

The German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, specifically excluded Jews from manufacturing

or dealing in firearms or munitions, but it did not exclude them from owning or bearing personal

firearms. The exclusion of Jews from the firearms business rankled them as much as any

other exclusion, and in their typically ethnocentric fashion they have misrepresented

the law involved as an anti-gun law in an effort to cast their enemies in a bad light.

It should be noted in passing that the restrictions placed on Jews by the National Socialists

had the intended effect: between 1933 and 1939 two-thirds of the Jews residing in Germany

emigrated, reducing the Jewish population of the country from 600,000 when Hitler became

Chancellor in 1933 to 200,000 at the outbreak of the Second World War in 1939. Jews in

the United States, looking at this period from their own narrowly focused viewpoint,

have described these peacetime years of the National Socialist government as a time of

darkness, terror, and regression, whereas for the German people it was a time of hope, joy,

and spiritual and material renewal.


Much the same type of distortion is seen in the portrayal of the United States in the early

1950s: the so-called “McCarthy Era.” Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican, Wisconsin)

used his position as chairman of the Senate’s Government Operations Committee to

expose the widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S.

institutions which had taken place during the Second World War. A substantial majority of

the communists who were dragged reluctantly out into the light of day by his efforts were

Jews. As a result, the controlled media always have portrayed the period as one of terror

and repression, when everyone was frightened of Senator McCarthy’s “witch-hunt.” Of course,

it was nothing of the sort to non-Jewish Americans, who were not intimidated in the least.

History viewed through a Jewish lens — i.e., through media controlled by Jews —

always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and concerns.


Both the German Weapons Law of March 18, 1938, enacted by the National Socialists, and

the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928, which was enacted by an anti-National

Socialist government, are given below in full, first in facsimile and then in English translation.

A little background information first, however, may help the reader to understand their

significance. After Germany’s defeat in the First World War (a defeat in which Germany’s

Jews played no small part, demoralizing the home front with demonstrations and other

subversive activity much as they did in America during the Vietnam war), the Kaiser abdicated,

and liberals and leftists seized control of the government in 1918. Hitler, recovering in a

military hospital from a British poison-gas attack which had blinded him temporarily, made

the decision to go into politics and fight against the traitors he felt were responsible for

Germany’s distress.


The tendency of Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same

as it is for the liberals in America today: they promoted cosmopolitanism, internationalism,

and egalitarianism. By 1923 economic conditions in Germany had become catastrophic,

and there was much public unrest. The communists had made major

inroads into the labor movement and were a growing threat to the country.


Hitler had indeed gone into politics, and his National Socialists battled the communists

in the streets of Germany’s cities and gradually came to be seen by many patriotic

Germans in the working class and the middle class as the only force which could save

Germany from a communist takeover and total ruin. Hitler’s National Socialists continued

to win recruits and gain strength during the 1920s. The communists, with aid from the Soviet

Union, also continued to grow. The political situation became increasingly unstable as the

government lost popular support.


The government’s response was to substantially tighten up restrictions on the rights of German

citizens to keep and bear arms. The Law on Firearms and Ammunition of April 12, 1928,

was the most substantial effort in this regard. This law was enacted by a left-center

government hostile to the National Socialists (the government was headed by Chancellor

Wilhelm Marx and consisted of a coalition of Socialists, including many Jews, and Catholic Centrists).


Five years later, in 1933, the National Socialists were in power, Hitler headed the government,

and the communist threat was crushed decisively. The National Socialists began undoing the

social and economic damage done by their predecessors. Germany was restored to full

employment, degeneracy and corruption were rooted out, Jews and their collaborators were

removed from one facet of national life after another, and the German

people entered a new era of national freedom, health, and prosperity.


Finally, in 1938, the National Socialist government got around to enacting a new firearms

law to replace the one enacted by their opponents ten years earlier. The highlights of

the 1938 law, especially as it applied to ordinary citizens rather than manufacturers

or dealers, follow:


  • Handguns may be purchased only on submission of a Weapons Acquisition Permit
  • (Waffenerwerbschein), which must be used within one year from the date of issue.
  • Muzzle- loading handguns are exempted from the permit requirement. [The 1928 law
  • had required a permit for the purchase of long guns as well, but the National Socialists
  • dropped this requirement.]
  • Holders of a permit to carry weapons (Waffenschein) or of a hunting license
  • do not need a Weapons Acquisition Permit in order to acquire a handgun.
  • A hunting license authorizes its bearer to
  • carry hunting weapons and handguns.
  • Firearms and ammunition, as well as swords and knives, may not be sold to minors
  • under the age of 18 years. [The age limit had been 20 years in the 1928 law.]
  • Whoever carries a firearm outside of his dwelling, his place of employment, his place
  • of business, or his fenced property must have on his person a Weapons Permit (Waffenschein).
  • A permit is not required, however, for carrying a firearm for use at a police-approved shooting range.
  • A permit to acquire a handgun or to carry firearms may only be issued to persons whose
  • trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit. In particular,
  • a permit may not be issued to:
    1. persons under the age of 18 years;

    2. legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;

    3. Gypsies or vagabonds;

    4. persons under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole]
    5. or otherwise temporarily without civil rights;

    6. persons convicted of treason or high treason or known to
    7.  be engaged in activities hostile to the state;

    8. persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal
    9.  offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term
    10. of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since
    11. the term of imprisonment.

  • The manufacture, sale, carrying, possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
    1. “trick” firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);

    2. any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;

    3. cartridges with .22 caliber, hollow-point bullets.

    That is the essence. Numerous other provisions of the law relate to firearms manufacturers,

    importers, and dealers; to acquisition and carrying of firearms by police, military, and

    other official personnel; to the maximum fees which can be charged for permits (3 Reichsmark);

    to tourists bringing firearms into Germany; and to the fines and other penalties to be levied for violations.


    The requirements of “trustworthiness” and of proof of need when obtaining a permit are

    troubling, but it should be noted that they were simply carried over from the 1928 law:

    they were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these

    requirements were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited

    categories listed above was considered trustworthy, and a statement

    such as, “I often carry sums of money,” was accepted as proof of need.


    The prohibitions of spotlight-equipped rifles and hollow-point .22 caliber ammunition were

    based on considerations that the former were unsporting when used for hunting, and the

    latter were inhumane.


    Now read the German firearms laws for yourself, either in the original German exactly

    as they were published by the German government in the Reichsgesetzblatt or in the complete

    English translations which are provided here. If you want to skip over most of the legal

    gobbledygook and go directly to the most pertinent part of the National Socialist Firearms

    Law — the part pertaining to the purchase, ownership, and carrying of firearms by private

    citizens — turn to page 35 (Part IV of the Law). Note, as already mentioned above, that

    two separate and distinct types of permits are referred to: a Weapons Acquisition Permit

    (Waffenerwerbschein), required only for purchasing a handgun; and a Weapons Permit

    (Waffenschein), required for carrying any firearm in public. Interestingly enough, as also

    mentioned above, a hunting license could take the place of both these permits.


    When you have read the two laws mentioned here, you will understand that it was Hitler’s

    enemies, not Hitler, who should be compared with the gun-control advocates in America today.

    Then as now it was the Jews, not the National Socialists, who wanted the people’s right of

    self- defense restricted. You will understand that those who continue to make the claim that

    Hitler was a gun-grabber are either ignorant or dishonest. And you will understand that it

    was not until 1945, when the communist and democratic victors of the Second World War

    had installed occupation governments to rule over the conquered Germans that German

    citizens were finally and completely denied the right to armed self-defense.








    Winning the Cultural War

    Charlton Heston's Speech to the Harvard Law School Forum, Feb 16, 1999
    "I remember my son when he was five, explaining to his kindergarten class
    what his father did for a living. "My Daddy," he said, "pretends to be people."
    There have been quite a few of them. Prophets from the Old and New
    Testaments, a couple of Christian saints, generals of various nationalities
    and different centuries, several kings, three American presidents,
    a French cardinal and two geniuses, including Michelangelo.

    If you want the ceiling repainted I'll do my best. There always seem to be a
    lot of different fellows up here. I'm never sure which one of them gets to talk.
    Right now, I guess I'm the guy.

    As I pondered our visit tonight it struck me: If my Creator gave me the gift to
    connect you with the hearts and minds of those great men, then I want to use
    that same gift now to reconnect you with your own sense of liberty of
    your own freedom of thought ... your own compass for what is right.

    Dedicating the memorial at Gettysburg, Abraham Lincoln said of America,
    "We are now engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether this nation or any
    nation so conceived and so dedicated can long endure." Those words are true
    again. I believe that we are again engaged in a great civil war, a cultural war
    that's about to hijack your birthright to think and say what resides in your
    heart. I fear you no longer trust the pulsing lifeblood of liberty inside you ...
    the stuff that made this country rise from wilderness into the miracle that it is.

    Let me back up. About a year ago I became president of the National Rifle
    Association, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. I ran for office,
    I was elected, and now I serve ... I serve as a moving target for the media
    who've called me everything from "ridiculous" and "duped" to a "brain-injured,
    senile, crazy old man." I know ... I'm pretty old ... but I sure, Lord, ain't senile.

    As I have stood in the crosshairs of those who target Second Amendment
    freedoms, I've realized that firearms are not the only issue. No, it's much,
    much bigger than that. I've come to understand that a cultural war is raging
    across our land, in which, with Orwellian fervor, certain acceptable thoughts
    and speech are mandated. For example, I marched for civil rights with Dr. King
    in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an
    audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride
    or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist. I've worked with brilliantly
    talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gayrights
    should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe.
    I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when
    I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent
    gun owners, was called an anti-Semite.
    Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country.
    But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared
    to Timothy McVeigh. From Time magazine to friends and colleagues, they're
    essentially saying, "Chuck, how dare you speak your mind. You are using
    language not authorized for public consumption!" But I am not afraid. If Americans
    believed in political correctness, we'd still be King George's boys --
    subjects bound to the British crown.

    In his book, "The End of Sanity," Martin Gross writes that "blatantly irrational
    behavior is rapidly being established as the norm in almost every area of human
    endeavor. There seem to be new customs, new rules, new anti-intellectual theories
    regularly foisted on us from every direction.

    Underneath, the nation is roiling. Americans know something without a
    name is undermining the nation, turning the mind mushy when it comes to
    separating truth from falsehood and right from wrong. And they don't like it."

    Let me read a few examples. At Antioch college in Ohio, young men seeking
    intimacy with a coed must get verbal permission at each step of the process
    from kissing to petting to final copulation ... all clearly spelled out in a printed
    college directive. In New Jersey, despite the death of several patients nationwide
    who had been infected by dentists who had concealed their AIDs --- the state
    commissioner announced that health providers who are HIV-positive need not .....
    need not ..... tell their patients that they are infected.

    At William and Mary, students tried to change the name of the school team
    "The Tribe" because it was supposedly insulting to local Indians, only to learn that
    authentic Virginia chiefs truly like the name.

    In San Francisco, city fathers passed an ordinance protecting the rights of
    transvestites to cross-dress on the job, and for transsexuals to have
    separate toilet facilities while undergoing sex change surgery.

    In New York City, kids who don't speak a word of Spanish have been placed in
    bilingual classes to learn their three R's in Spanish solely because their last
    names sound Hispanic.

    At the University of Pennsylvania, in a state where thousands died at Gettysburg
    opposing slavery, the president of that college officially set up segregated dormitory
    space for black students. Yeah, I know ...that's out of bounds now. Dr. King said
    "Negroes." Jimmy Baldwin and most of us on the March said "black." But it's a
    no-no now. For me, hyphenated identities are awkward ... particularly "Native-American."
    I'm a Native American, for God's sake. I also happen to be a blood-initiated
    brother of the Miniconjou Sioux. On my wife's side, my grandson is a thirteenth
    generation native American ... with a capital letter on "American."

    Finally, just last month ... David Howard, head of the Washington D.C.
    Office of Public Advocate, used the word "niggardly" while talking to colleagues
    about budgetary matters. Of course, "niggardly" means stingy or scanty.
    But within days Howard was forced to publicly apologize and resign.

    As columnist Tony Snow wrote: "David Howard got fired because some people
    in public employ were morons who (a) didn't know the meaning of niggardly,
    (b) didn't know how to use a dictionary to discover the meaning, and (c) actually
    demanded that he apologize for their ignorance."

    What does all of this mean? It means that telling us what to think has evolved
    into telling us what to say, so telling us what to do can't be far
    behind. Before you claim to be a champion of free thought, tell me: Why did
    political correctness originate on America's campuses? And why do you continue
    to tolerate it?  Why do you, who're supposed to debate ideas, surrender to
    their suppression?

    Let's be honest. Who here thinks your professors can say what they really
    believe? It scares me to death, and should scare you too, that the superstition
    of political correctness rules the halls of reason.
    You are the best and the brightest. You, here in the fertile cradle of American
    academia, here in the castle of learning on the Charles River, you are the cream.
    But I submit that you, and your counterparts across the land, are the most socially
    conformed and politically silenced generation since Concord Bridge. And as
    long as you validate that ... and abide it ... you are -- by your grandfathers' standards
    -- cowards.

    Here's another example. Right now at more than one major university, Second
    Amendment scholars and researchers are being told to shut up about their
    findings or they'll lose their jobs. Why? Because their research findings would
    undermine big-city mayor's pending lawsuits that seek to extort hundreds of
    millions of dollars from firearm manufacturers. I don't care what you think
    about guns. But if you are not shocked at that, I am shocked at you. Who will
    guard the raw material of unfettered ideas, if not you? Who will defend the core
    value of academia, if you supposed soldiers of free thought and
    expression lay down your arms and plead, "Don't shoot me."

    If you talk about race, it does not make you a racist. If you see distinctions
    between the genders, it does not make you a sexist. If you think critically
    about a denomination, it does not make you anti-religion. If you accept but
    don't celebrate homosexuality, it does not make you a homophobe. Don't
    let America's universities continue to serve as incubators for this rampant
    epidemic of new McCarthyism.

    But what can you do? How can anyone prevail against such pervasive social
    subjugation? The answer's been here all along. I learned it 36 years ago, on the
    steps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC, standing with Dr. Martin Luther King
    and two hundred thousand people.
    You simply ... disobey. Peaceably, yes. Respectfully, of course.
    Nonviolently, absolutely.

    But when told how to think or what to say or how to behave, we don't.
    We disobey social protocol that stifles and stigmatizes personal freedom.
    I learned the awesome power of disobedience from Dr. King ...
    who learned it from Gandhi, and Thoreau, and Jesus, and every other
    great man who led those in the right against those with the might.

    Disobedience is in our DNA. We feel innate kinship with that disobedient spirit
    that tossed tea into Boston Harbor, that sent Thoreau to jail, that refused to sit
    in the back of the bus, that protested a war in Viet Nam. In that same spirit,
    I am asking you to disavow cultural correctness with massive disobedience
    of rogue authority, social directives and onerous laws that weaken
    personal freedom.

    But be careful ... it hurts. Disobedience demands that you put yourself at risk.
    Dr. King stood on lots of balconies. You must be willing to be humiliated ...
    to endure the modern-day equivalent of the police dogs at Montgomery and
    the water cannons at Selma. You must be willing to experience discomfort. I'm
    not complaining, but my own decades of social activism have taken their toll on me.
    Let me tell you a story.

    A few years back I heard about a rapper named Ice-T who was selling a CD
    called "Cop Killer" celebrating ambushing and murdering police officers. It was
    being marketed by none other than Time/Warner, the biggest entertainment
    conglomerate in the world. Police across the country were outraged.
    Rightfully so-at least one had been murdered.
    But Time/Warner was stonewalling because the CD was a cash cow for them,
    and the media were tiptoeing around it because the rapper was black. I heard
    Time/Warner had a stockholders meeting scheduled in Beverly Hills. I owned
    some shares at the time, so I decided to attend. What I did there was against
    the advice of my family and colleagues. I asked for the floor. To a hushed room
    of a thousand average American stockholders, I simply read the full lyrics of "Cop
    Killer"- every vicious, vulgar, instructional word.

    It got worse, a lot worse. I won't read the rest of it to you. But trust me,
    the room was a sea of shocked, frozen, blanched faces. The Time/Warner
    executives squirmed in their chairs and stared at their shoes. They hated me
    for that. Then I delivered another volley of sick lyric brimming with racist filth,
    where Ice-T fantasizes about sodomizing two 12-year old nieces of Al and
    Tipper Gore. Well, I won't do to you here what I did to them. Let's just say I left
    the room in echoing silence.

    When I read the lyrics to the waiting press corps, one of them said "We can't print that."
    "I know," I replied, "but Time/Warner's selling it." Two months later, Time/Warner
    terminated Ice-T's contract. I'll never be offered another film by Warner's, or
    get a good review from Time magazine. But disobedience means you must be
    willing to act, not just talk.

    When a mugger sues his elderly victim for defending herself ...
    jam the switchboard of the district attorney's office.

    When your university is pressured to lower standards until 80% of the
    students graduate with honors ... choke the halls of the board of regents.

    When an 8-year-old boy pecks a girl's cheek on the playground and gets
    hauled into court for sexual harassment ... march on that school and block its doorways.

    When someone you elected is seduced by political power
    and betrays you .. petition them, oust them, banish them.

    When Time magazine's cover portrays millennium nuts as deranged, crazy
    Christians holding a cross as it did last month ... boycott their magazine and
    the products it advertises.

    So that this nation may long endure, I urge you to follow in the hallowed footsteps
    of the great disobedience's of history that freed exiles founded religions, defeated
    tyrants, and yes, in the hands of an aroused rabble in arms and a few great men,
    by God's grace, built this country.

    If Dr. King were here, I think he would agree.

    Thank you."





    Bearing Arms: A Fundamental Necessity

    By Chuck Baldwin 
    November 1, 2018


    As I have said repeatedly, it is a fundamental necessity that the American people keep

    and bear arms. And bearing arms means carrying a firearm with you wherever you go.

    America’s most recent mass shooting serves as another exclamation point behind that statement.


    Furthermore, as an author, columnist, radio talk show host and pastor who is outspoken in

    my support of the Second Amendment, I often receive inquiries from people asking for

    my personal preferences regarding firearms. This column is devoted to answering those inquiries.


    I’m sure this column will not provide anything new for the firearms aficionados out there.

    However, we are living in a violence-prone society, and more and more people (especially

    ladies) who never paid much attention to guns before are sensing the need to arm

    themselves but often don’t know where to start. I hope this column helps these folks.


    Plus, there are many Christians reading this column who have been brainwashed by

    preachers who promote the idea that they don’t need to own a gun, because, they say,

    God doesn’t intend for us to defend ourselves. I trust this column will cause these folks to

    at least study this issue for themselves.


    First, let me emphasize that I am NOT a firearms expert. And I strongly urge you to

    receive as much instruction and training from a firearms professional as possible. Second,

    when it comes to a discussion of which firearms are preferable, the suggestions are as

    varied as the people who proffer them. This column contains my preferences regarding

    revolvers and semi-automatic pistols; rimfire rifles; centerfire hunting

    rifles; centerfire semi-automatic sporting rifles; and shotguns.


    Most people who are armed nowadays are carrying concealed. Disgustingly, many states

    do not allow people to legally carry open. Fortunately, that is not true here in Montana

    where I live, and I often carry open—as do many people in this great State. However,

    most of the time, I am carrying concealed, as I think it better that the bad guy not

    know who among his intended victims is able to shoot back. If you are planning to

    carry a concealed firearm, you will need to carefully consider the kind of clothing you

    are wearing and how the firearm will fit in with your attire. For most people, concealed

    carry requires firearms that are—to one degree or another—somewhat diminutive.


    My personal preference for a self-defense handgun is a Glock pistol. Glock pistols are

    as simple as revolvers to operate, reliable and almost indestructible. Plus, they provide

    increased magazine capacity and are safe. They are also very easy to disassemble and

    clean. And most importantly, they go "bang" when you pull the trigger. Some ladies might

    find the Glock grips to be a little bulky for their hands—except for the Glock 42 and 43,

    which most ladies should find quite comfortable.  But most women should be able to

    safely and confidently shoot the majority of Glock 9mm pistols.


    Favorite options in Glock pistols include the Glock 42 in .380 ACP; Glock 17, 19, 26 and

    43 in 9mm Luger (also called 9mm Parabellum or 9x19); the Glock 22, 23 and 27 in .40

    Smith & Wesson; the Glock 21, 30 (and 30S) and 36 in .45 ACP; and the Glock 20

    and 29 in 10mm Auto.


    When I am carrying concealed, I’m usually carrying the Glock 19.  


    The 1911 .45 ACP (I prefer Colt, Kimber or Springfield Armory) has been proven to be

    an extremely effective self-defense sidearm for over a century. But I don't recommend

    the 1911 for beginners.  


    My wife prefers to carry a Smith & Wesson .38 Special revolver in the snub-nose, J-frame

    configuration. This is primarily due to the reduced weight and size of these weapons for

    carry purposes. Plus, she just prefers a revolver over a semi-auto. And, yes, I sometimes

    carry a J-frame as well.


    J-frames generally have a poor reputation for accuracy due to their very short barrel. And

    the reduced 5-shot capacity (for most J-frames) turns off some people. However, 

    70% of self-defense fights take place at a distance of 2 yards. As such, J-frames are

    very adequate for the task. In addition, most self-defense fights are settled with 3 shots

    being fired, so, statistically speaking, 5 shots are normally enough to defend oneself.


    I prefer the .38 Special revolver to the .380 ACP semi-automatic pistol. Modern .380s are

    very concealable, however, and for that reason, I sometimes carry a .380 Glock 42 as

    a backup. My main complaint with the Glock 42 is it has a stiff trigger pull—around 9 pounds—

    whereas, most Glock pistols have a standard 5.5 pound trigger pull. I have found that a

    lighter trigger pull makes accuracy much easier (which is one reason many people

    prefer the single-action 1911). When I do carry a J-frame revolver, it is usually a

    Smith & Wesson 340 M&P or a Ruger LCR, which are built for the .357 Magnum and

    .38 Special cartridges. And when carrying the J-frame, I’m usually loaded with .38s.

    The .38 Special and 9mm Luger are comparable in power.


    But, honestly, the best J-frame on the market these days might be the Kimber K6s. The

    trigger is sweet (like Smith & Wesson triggers used to be), and it holds 6 rounds instead

    of 5. The K6s is an all-steel revolver and is, therefore, a little heavier than most J-frames

    (23 ounces empty). But the extra weight of the K6s makes shooting the .357 magnum

    round more comfortable than the lighter weight versions. And shooting the .38 round in

    the K6s is downright pleasant.


    And, yes, for some people, a revolver might still be the preferred handgun. It has no

    external magazine to worry about losing; it is very dependable and reliable; it is easy

    to clean; and it is simple to operate. NYPD expert Frank McGee says the typical police gunfight

    conforms to a “rule of three”: 3 rounds, 3 yards, and 3 seconds. So in most real-life situations,

    the increased firepower of a high-capacity magazine doesn't even come into play.


    But, of course, in today’s violent environment, the risk of facing multiple assailants or a

    heavily armed would-be mass shooter is always possible. In such a situation, a Glock

    19 or 17 that has increased magazine capacity would be much preferred, which is why

    I'm usually carrying one. (Ruger, Smith & Wesson and Springfield, along with others, are also options.)


    In dangerous game territory, you will need the power of a 10mm Auto, .357 Magnum,

    .44 Special, .44 Magnum, .45 ACP, .45 Long Colt or even a .454 Casull. These calibers

    are not for the limp-wristed, but when one is facing a Brown Bear, it is what one will need

    to survive. Plus, when your life's on the line, you’ll never feel the recoil. But, truthfully, I

    would hate to face a Brown Bear (includes the Grizzly and Kodiak) with a handgun of

    any caliber. These creatures are the fiercest and most formidable animals on the North

    American Continent (along with the Polar Bear, of course). Against a Brown Bear, I would hope

    I had a big game rifle or shotgun handy.


    I live in Brown Bear country, of course, and when I'm in the woods hiking or hunting,

    I'm either carrying a Glock 20 in 10mm Auto, a Smith & Wesson 686 in .357 Magnum,

    a Kimber K6s in .357 Magnum or a Smith & Wesson 629 in .44 Magnum. To be honest,

    the 629 and 686 get heavy after a few hours in the woods, which is why I usually carry

    the Glock 20 (the K6s carries very comfortably also, and I often carry this revolver as a

    backup). Plus, I feel better with 15 rounds of 10mm Auto than with 6 rounds of .357

    or .44 Magnum. But I hope and pray I never have to test my theory for real. In a real

    encounter, you can bet that my rifle or shotgun would be my first choice, and my handgun

    (whichever one it is) would be the very last choice. (But I spoke with a man recently who,

    sadly, has had to kill several Grizzlies in his line of work, and he swears by the

    .357 Magnum. So there you go.)


    For a .22 LR rifle (which is great for hunting small game), I prefer the Ruger 10/22

    semi-auto. A Marlin model 60 tube-fed .22 LR is also very effective. The CZ model

    455 bolt-action rifle just might be the most accurate factory .22 LR on the market. And

    I absolutely love my Remington American bolt-action rifle in .22 WMR. My all-time favorite

    .22 rifle is a Remington Nylon 66 in Mohawk Brown (which hasn't been manufactured in

    a long, long time). But that's because of sentimentality: It was my very first rifle. My dad

    gave one to me on my 12th birthday, and over the next several years, I fired over 50,000

    rounds through it. I finally sold it (which I have regretted to this very day). But I found

    one in like-new condition (believe it or not) at a Montana gun show recently, and having

    a Nylon 66 in my possession again brings me great delight. But from a practical

    standpoint, I believe the Ruger 10/22 stands alone at the top of the heap.


    For a big game hunting rifle, my suggestion is either a .270 Winchester or .30-06 Springfield

    bolt-action rifle or a .30-30 Winchester or .45-70 Government lever-action rifle. (Here in

    Montana, the .300 Winchester Magnum is a very popular caliber.) The 30-06 Springfield

    is doubtless the most versatile rifle caliber on the market. However, I usually hunt with

    a .270. It’s plenty powerful enough for deer, elk or black bear. And, frankly, I just love

    shooting this low recoil, flat shooting, extremely accurate caliber. I prefer the Remington

    Model 700 BDL, but there are several fine rifles in this configuration by

    numerous manufacturers.  


    For a semiautomatic rifle, I suggest an AR-15 or Ruger Mini-14 in 5.56 NATO (they also

    fire the .223 Remington cartridge) or a Springfield M1A or AR-10 in .308 Winchester. My

    personal choice here is the AR-15. Daniel Defense makes some of the best AR rifles in

    the world, but they are quite pricey. Other good AR brands include Armalite, Bushmaster,

    Colt, Ruger, Smith & Wesson, Windham Weaponry and several others. Most ladies will find

    that the low recoil of an AR-15 or Mini-14 will make the rifle very pleasant to shoot.

    No home should be without one of these rifles.


    For a shotgun, a 12-gauge in any configuration is the premier close-range weapon.

    Nothing equals it. In a pump shotgun, I prefer a Winchester Model 1300, which is not

    made anymore. So, you’ll probably have to choose between Mossberg and Remington.

    In the semi-auto configuration, I prefer Mossberg shotguns. And don’t discount 20-gauge

    shotguns. The 20-gauge has less recoil than a 12-gauge, and at “bad breath” range (where

    a shotgun shines anyway), the 20-gauge is just as lethal as a 12-gauge. And for home

    defense, do not overlook the double barrel shotgun. And while I often use a

    .410 gauge shotgun for small game, I do not recommend it for self-defense.


    It is also critical that no matter which firearm you decide to purchase to be sure and practice

    with it. The firearm you purchase is no better or worse than your ability to handle it. And

    be sure to stock up on ammunition. A gun without ammo is reduced

    to being either an expensive club or a cumbersome paperweight.


    Go to your local independent sporting goods or gun store (I don’t recommend the large

    national chain stores to do your firearms shopping), and get to know your hometown firearms

    dealer. Most of these people are kind and helpful folks who will be more than happy to

    assist you in finding exactly what type of firearm is suitable for you and your family.


    And always be sure to follow all of the safety rules for your firearm. The last thing any of

    us wants is an accidental discharge of a firearm that results in the injury or death of a loved

    one or friend. So, always remember that safety is job one. And rule number one is NEVER

    point a gun at anyone unless you are doing so in an act of self-defense. And rule number

    two is ALWAYS assume that a gun is loaded, which takes you back to rule number one.

    Plus, guns should always be kept away from children before they have been properly

    taught how to safely handle a firearm—which should be done as soon as possible.


    I realize that there are many pastors and Christians who try to impugn the necessity

    —much less the desire—to own a firearm. These people are famous for saying things

    such as “God will take care of you; no one needs a gun.” Of course, these same people

    quickly embrace the idea that police officers should carry guns for self-defense. I never

    understood why it is that Christians who are not policemen are supposed to “trust God”

    to take care of them and not arm themselves, but Christian police officers are somehow

    exempt from this same spiritual notion.


    Beyond that, many pastors teach that Christians are obligated to obey civil authorities

    who demand that we surrender our firearms. They even try and quote Scriptures

    to prove this preposterous position.


    For these reasons, my constitutional attorney son and I collaborated on a book that takes

    the Scriptures (Old and New Testaments) to prove that self-defense is not just a right under

    our Constitution; it is a moral obligation given us by our Creator. In the book, we show that

    Christians who are unwilling to defend themselves, their families and their communities

    have actually denied the Christian faith. We show that the Bible nowhere teaches God’s

    people to remain defenseless or to surrender their means of self-defense to any civil authority.


    In the book, we examine the Scriptures that the “no gun” preachers use to support their

    lunacy and show how unbiblical these positions are. We go through both Testaments and

    show that our Creator has given us the obligation to defend the life He has given us.

    We also put to rest many of the distortions of Scripture that anti-gun preachers use to

    turn Christian men and women—who are created to be providers and protectors—

    into sheepish slaves of the state and helpless prey for human predators.  


    Yes, keeping and bearing arms is a spiritual DUTY. Defending oneself or family

    is as spiritual as praying or reading the Bible or any other spiritual exercise.


    The title of our book is To Keep or Not To Keep:

    Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns. Order it here:


    To Keep Or Not To Keep: Why Christians Should Not Give Up Their Guns


    It is not only important to be armed; it is even more important to understand the moral

    and spiritual underpinnings of WHY we should be armed. And that is exactly what our

    book attempts to explain.


    If you are challenged by this column, I encourage you to highlight what resonates with

    you, and then take these suggestions to your local independent firearms dealer who

    can further explain the various nuances of what to look for in a gun for your unique and

    individual needs. When you do, you might find that his preferences differ from mine.

    But basics are basics, and at least you have my suggestions as a starting point. And

    remember, there is no one gun that is perfect for everyone. Get the gun that is right for

    YOU. In a self-defense situation, any gun is better than no gun. The Boy Scouts motto

    is good advice: “Be Prepared.” Plus, much more important than the type of firearm and

    caliber you choose is shot placement (accuracy). And that only comes with practice.

    So, find a gun that suits you and practice with it.


    And if you are one of those people who just don’t “like” guns, when you become familiar

    with firearms and actually begin shooting under the supervision of a knowledgeable

    instructor, you might find yourself really enjoying it. But even if you don’t, there are many

    things we adults do that we don’t enjoy doing, but we do them because we know it is the

    prudent and responsible thing to do. I would put the proficient use of a firearm in that category.


    Good (and safe) shooting.


    © Chuck Baldwin



    Breaking: First Gun Confiscation Killing Reported in Maryland (Nov. 5, 2018)

    Police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland arrived at a man’s home to confiscate his guns under the state’s Red Flag law.

    When he answered the door holding a gun, a fight ensued and they shot him dead.


    For months, we have been warning you about the so-called “red flag” bills that are being passed in states around the country. These laws allow family members, friends, and even complete strangers to turn gun owners into police to have their firearms confiscated. It is then up to the gun owner to prove that he or she deserves the right to keep and bear arms. It completely turns the justice system on its head. Under these laws, gun owners are presumed guilty until proven innocent.


    On Monday morning, police officers in Anne Arundel County, Maryland showed up confiscate 60-year-old Gary J Willis’ guns. A family member had called police and asked them to suspend Gary Willis’ gun rights, and the local police department was more than happy to oblige.


    When the pounding on the door began at 5:17 am, Gary showed up to his door holding a firearm. When he saw it was police, he put the gun down to talk to them. But then, the officers informed him they were there to confiscate all of his weapons.


    Imagine how you would feel. You wake up out of a sound sleep to pounding on your door. You grab a gun in case it is a criminal, but it turns out that the police are there to confiscate your guns without even accusing you of committing a crime…


    Gary Willis refused to comply with the confiscation order. That is when the fight broke out. During the struggle, one of the weapons discharged. Police, fearing for their lives, opened fire on Gary Willis, killing the 60-year-old man in his own home.


    Gary Willis was not charged or even accused of committing a crime. All of this happened because one extended family member told police she was worried that he was dangerous. No evidence, no proof… just one person’s word. And now, an innocent man is dead.





    Million Plus NJ Gun Owners Defy State Law, Refuse to Turn Over Banned Gun Mags

     Dec 17, 2018


    Over one million New Jersey Gun owners defy Governor Murphy’s gun magazine ban & turn in demands of what some estimate is easily more than ten million now illegal standard capacity gun mags.


    New Jersey –- New Jersey’s standard capacity magazine ban is now in effect making New Jersey’s one million gun owners criminals in the eyes of the state. But in an act of mass definace, New Jersey residents refuse to comply.


    Any magazine holding more than ten rounds is now illegal in the Garden State. The standard magazine for an AR-15 holds 30 rounds. Glock 19s, which is the most popular pistol in the United States, holds 15 rounds. Anyone who is possession of larger magazine is committing a fourth-degree felony.



    Anyone caught with one of the now banned magazines in their possession faces up to 18 months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both for each magazine found.


    The bill was signed into law last June by Gov. Phil Murphy (D). Residents had until December 11th, 2018, to turn over magazines to police or sell or store them out of state.


    Pro-gun groups sued New Jersey to try to prevent the law from going into effect. Their attempt on blocking the law failed in a federal appeals court. The three-judge panel ruled that a law limiting the number of rounds a magazine holds did not violate the US Constitution and did not put an undue burden on New Jersey gun owners.


    “New Jersey’s law reasonably fits the State’s interest in public safety and does not unconstitutionally burden the Second Amendment’s right to self-defense in the home,” the court wrote in their decision. “The law also does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause because it does not require gun owners to surrender their magazines but instead allows them to retain modified magazines or register firearms that have magazines that cannot be modified.”


    AG Gurbir Grewal applauded the ruling on Twitter stating: “This just in: for months, individuals have been challenging NJ’s limits on large capacity magazines—a sensible law to address mass shootings. Today, the court of appeals upheld the law. Big win for public safety and law enforcement safety!”


    Residents of New Jersey on various message boards have called the magazine ban unenforceable. Some were going as far as laughing at Gov. Murphy and his attempt at regulating magazine size.


    New Jersey is not saying how they plan to enforce the ban on standard capacity magazines. Gov. Murphy’s office referred AmmoLand to the New Jersey Attorney General’s office. The AG’s office refused to comment.


    Sharon Lauchaire, Director of Communications for the Office the Attorney General told AmmoLand: “We do not discuss law enforcement strategies.”


    AmmoLand’s sources within the New Jersey State Police that spoke on a condition of anonymity stated that they had not received any guidance on how to enforce the ban from the AG’s office. They said that there is currently no plan to investigate gun owners suspected of having the now banned magazines.