US
CITIZENS CONCERNED US citizens are concerned about the Australian attempt to ban guns. In a report titled WAKE UP CALL FOR AMERICA, it says : "The people of Australia are only used as New World Order guinea pigs. What happens in Australia is almost always done later in America, so, US citizens, you better get ready! Soon, a horrible "terrorist" act will be committed by a person who will be branded by the media as a "crazed shooter". The President and the media will scream and holler for action. New, draconian, gun-confiscation legislation will be rushed into law by our controlled and bought-off Congress. You'll have to bring your guns-or else go to prison. |
Issue of gun control is important to every Australian citizen, whether they have guns or not, because the right of the citizen to bear arms is a fundamental tenet of self-defence and national defence.
LETTER FROM POLICE
A letter to police in Perth received this response: "an inalienable
right to bear arms does not exist in Western Australia".
But he might as well have said "Australia" since guns
are now banned nationwide. And there's something worrying about
it, because the man who alienated an inalienable right could just
as easily alienate other inalienable rights, such as the right
to free speech, freedom of peaceful assembly, trial by jury, etc.,
because this is the way things are headed: in the direction of
fewer civil liberties.
PERSONAL PROTECTION IS NO REASON TO HAVE A GUN
We are now being told that having a gun in self-defence is not
acceptable. Not that this is anything new. An ad. placed in the
Sydney Sunday Telegraph, during 1992,defended gun registration
and insisted that "personal protection is no reason to have
a gun". And now this is a nationwide policy.
FIRST SHOT FIRED IN ANGER AGAINST CITIZENS RIGHTS
This is the first stage in a war against the rights of Australian
citizens and a dress rehearsal for a slave state. The main purpose
of the government is to defend its citizens. But now they seek
to deny them a basic right: the right to self-defence with guns
if attacked. Denial of the right to have guns for self defence
is rather like saying that you can have food, but you can't eat
it, you can have water, but you can't drink it. There is a natural
right of self defence and national defence being denied.
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS OF DEFENCE
It was precisely this right of the individual to keep and bear
arms that was a foundation of freedom for the American pioneers.
Some people have suggested that the US Founding Fathers meant
only the Organized Militia (National Guard) to have weapons. If
you listen to the following quotes from the US Founding Fathers,
it couldn't be more clear that the right to keep and bear arms
was meant to apply to all US citizens.
THOMAS JEFFERSON:
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The
strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep
and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against
tyranny in government".
SAM ADAMS:
"The said constitution shall never be construed to authorise
Congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable
citizens from keeping their own arms".
PATRICK HENRY
"The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who
is able may have a gun".
JAMES MADISON:
"Americans need never fear their government because of the
advantage of being armed,which the Americans possess over the
people of almost every other nation".
Short of drawing diagrams, it couldn't be clearer, The Founders of the US wanted grassroots citizens to have a gun to defend themselves from tyrannical government.They had to battle for their freedom, it wasn't given to them on a plate, now they wanted to safeguard it.
BILL OF 1688
The same thing applied in the case of the 1688 Bill of Rights.
It was part of the culmination of a disastrous war in which the
citizens fought for their freedom and wanted to save future generations
from that suffering, Clause 7 of the 1688 Bill of Rights affirms
the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
LEARN FROM HISTORY
Why don't we learn from history? Must we keep repeating the pattern
where citizens have to fight for their rights, seek to protect
future generations from tyrannical government, to find these principles
later discarded?
GOVERNMENT AS ENEMY
These people realised that the greatest enemy they might have
to face was their own governments, and this has proved true today,
especially in the light of the Waco and Randy Weaver cases.
NATIONAL DEFENCE
In a wider sense it has implications for the defence of the country.
NATIONAL MILITIA URGENTLY NEEDED
At a time when the national defences are totally inadequate to
fend off an attack, which may come from a well armed country such
as Indonesia, or perhaps China, the backup of a citizen militia,
such as exists in Switzerland, is crucial.
DISARMED COUNTRY INVITES OPPRESSION AND INVASION
If you wanted to invade Australia, wouldn't you want to wait until
the country's citizens had disarmed? Otherwise, when you invade,
the citizens may be unsporting enough to fire back.It's better
for invaders when their fire isn't returned.
INDONESIA MAY INVADE
Indonesia has a history of invading neighbouring countries, and
Australia, during both the ALP and Liberal/National Governments
has had a history of appeasing them, even allowing Indonesian
troops to train in Australia: supplying them with weapons and
assistance and turning a blind eye to Indonesian atrocities, including
the shooting of five Australian journalists.
AUSTRALIA'S DEFENCES
The armed forces at the moment in Australia are woefully inadequate
to handle an Indonesian invasion. What is needed is a citizen
militia trained in the use of weapons and having guns at home
to use. At the moment, even the regular army's short of ammo.
SWISS CITIZEN MILITIA
Despite the fact that most adult Swiss citizens are armed, Switzerland
has NO record of mass shootings and assassinations. Switzerland
trusts its own citizens. Apparently Australia cannot. And that
strikes at the hearts of our so-called democracy. But what are
the real issues? Why are guns banned?
MUSHROOMS AND GOVERNMENT
Pardon the diversion into botany, but is the government treating
us like mushrooms, are the explanations provided not entirely
adequate or truthful?
PORT ARTHUR MASSACRE
We know what the government and the media tell us: guns are banned,
gun control laws and also the lowest crime rate.It was a barrier
to the imposition of uniform gun laws, so perhaps it had to be
taught a lesson, Perhaps an incident had to be manufactured to
"convince" them? We don't know exactly who organized
that., We do know that the Port Arthur Massacre was preceded by
the Australian signing of the UN Conventions designed to implement
universal disarmanent (see September issue of Shooters' Journal)
NO REFERENDUM
There was no referendum to ask the Australian people what they
thought, or any intention to notify them what was planned
PRIOR PLANNING?
The fact that there was a move on banning guns and getting State-wide
agreements within 12 days of the shootings suggests prior planning.
It seems possible that the politicians were ready to act on any
excuse to ban guns.
IN POLITICS, NOTHING HAPPENS BY CHANCE
Franklin Roosevelt said that "in politics, nothing happens
bychance". Things can be and have been engineered for political
means. An illustration of the way things can happen is suggested
in a letter in Christian Identity Ministry Newsletter, August,1997:
CLINTON GUN CONTROL. It says: "President Clinton had a gun control bill that Congress would not pass". An incident was staged where four federal officers were killed by a "cult" that supposedly had machine guns, illegal ammunition, handgrenades,etc. The cult was wiped out, killing 86 men, women and children and Mr. Clinton's gun bill passed in Congress with flying colours.
ANTI TERRORISM BILL
A second incident is mentioned: Later Mr Clinton had an anti-terrorism
bill that was going to be defeated. A federal building was blown
up, killing 168 and the bill passed.
AIRPORT SECURITY BILL
A third incident: Mr Clinton's airport security bill was going
down. A missile shot down flight 800 killing 230 people and Mr
Clinton's airport security bill was passed. It was proven that
the FBI was involved in the Trade Towers' bombing. All this was
done under Clinton's administration. This is legislation by mass
murder. Is anyone ready to believe that this sequence of events
"just happened" by pure chance, enabling these controls
to be forced through?I don't think so.
A pattern is created:
1. suggest a bill to remedy a social problem.
2. If they don't pass the bill, create the social problem.
3. Enforce the answer to the social problem which you created.
COULD THAT HAPPEN HERE?
Could something like the Port Arthur Massacre have been engineered
for Australia to create the problem of a lone nut assassin so
that uniform gun controls could be forced through on the tide
of popular sentiment? Or am I being too cynical? Was it more noble
than that? Was Little Johnny Howard a champion protecting the
safety of the people? This is the way he was presented in the
Melbourne Herald Sun cartoon, as an Olympic champion protecting
the people-an award winner. But is this the reality or is it an
image created to justify a preconceived policy. Could Howard have
been manipulated by forces behind the scenes?
MARTIN BRYANT-LONE NUT ASSASSIN OR FULL GUY?
To what extent did manipulation operate? Is it possible that Martin
Bryant was either not the real assassin or that he was trained
as an asssasin? Maybe. There are 2 theories bearing on this. One
is the theory by Joe Vialls in Strategy magazine (May, July &
August,1997) and in the magazine Exposure. And the other is that
of Douglas and Sharp in New Citizen, the journal of the Citizens'
Electoral Council (the LaRouchites), June-July,1997.
YVONNE FLETCHER MURDER
The first part of Joe Vialls's article is his documentation of
the way in which an English policewoman, Yvonne Fletcher, was
assassinated in England, allegedly by Libyan terrorists, so that
Libya could be expelled from England, which it was. He concluded
that it wasn't carried out by Libyans but by some other group
trying to implicate the Libyans.
PATTERN REPEATED IN PORT ARTHUR?
He decided that the same type of tactics were used in the Port
Arthur Massacre, which he feels is an engineered atrocity. He
argued that Martin Bryant didn't have the IQ or the skill to carry
out a massacre which he feels showed the skills of a sharpshooter.
He feels that either Martin Bryant was assisted by others or that
a man, perhaps of Martin Bryant's general build, did the shooting
and that Martin Bryant was the "fall guy" or "patsy"
forced to take the blame. Part of his goal in writing is to call
for an investigation into the shooting that may clear Bryant.
Part of his evidence is that the frantic shooting of Martin Bryant at Seascape Cottage hit no targets, inconsistent with the high kill rate at the Broad Arrow Cafe. Later information from Joe Vialls is to the effect that the gunman shot from the right hip and finished off 12 head shots in 15 seconds, firing 12 feet away, an accomplishment showing a professional sharpshooter skill beyond that of Martin Bryant, whereas Martin Bryant is left handed. He claims that those in the Cafe were in a state of shock and trauma and not able to properly assess what was happening. In a later article in Strategy, Joe Vialls suggests that a Tasmanian gun dealer, Ted Hill, was used as a "scapegoat" after the incident, blamed for having sold guns to Martin Bryant.
CEC OR DOUGLAS & SHARP
The version of events from CEC or the Larouchites agrees with
Joe Vialls that it would have taken a man with professional military
skill to carry out the massacre. However, they claim Bryant did
it, but that he was programmed or encouraged to carry out his
killings, which they attributed to a London based terrorist outfit
called Tavistock Institute which the CEC believes is a centre
for world terrorism.
TAVISTOCK INSTITUTE?
The CEC may be wrong in thinking it was necessarily the Tavistock
Institute who did the killings, as it could equally well have
been another group - U.S. for example.
Joe Vialls may be right in thinking that there is an inconsistency between the high kill rate at the Broad Arrow Cafe and the ineffective firing by Bryant at the Seascape Cottage.
But the details have to be worked out.
SIMILARITIES
Both theories differ in details, but they agree in one respect:
Military training was needed for the sharpshooter. Other queries
include who supplied the shooters high-tech weapons? Was it modelled
on the Dunblane Massacre in Scotland?
MOTIVE FOR CONTROL IS "G.U.N."
We can't be sure of the identity of the group behind the massacre
but we do know the underlying motive, summed up in the letters
G.U.N. Grab by the United Nations, as a move towards global disarmanent.
And here we have the real motive-part of the real issue. But before
we leave the topic of the Port Arthur incident, leaving to one
side whether or not it was engineered, let's point out that if
we had a situation, such as applies in Switzerland where most
able bodied males have what amounts to a machine gun in their
homes,then any assassin could have been surrounded by people from
homes in Port Arthur who could have ordered him to drop his gun
or be killed? So the problem is not having too many guns, but
too few.
IS IT GOOD TO BAN GUNS?
Before we go on, let's examine the issue of gun control. One survey
suggests that about 78% of people surveyed supported gun control,
and whether that's an exaggeration or not,nevertheless many people
have supported the policy. Many feel that gnn control is a good
thing: that it takes dangerous weapons out of irresponsible hands,
that banning would prevent or lessen crime. Part of the answer
to this has already been suggested: that guns provide a remedy
against government tyranny, and the Switzerland allows its citizens
to bear arms without many incidents of "lone nut assassins.
Did Little Johnny Howard in his touching concern for our welfare,
believe he was doing us all a good favour, thus explaining his
ruthless determination to ban guns?
GUNS AND CRIME
I don't think so, because if Little Johnny had done any research,
he would have found a lot of evidence refuting the idea that gun
control means less crime, some of it coming from within the Federal
Government department,the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Is
it that he didn't look, or didn't he want to know?
FIREARMS DEATHS AUSTRALIA
For example, if Johnny had checked with the federal department,
The Australian Bureau of Statistics, in the booklet titled Firearms
Deaths In Australia (ABC cat. no. 4397.0) p.5, he would read that
crude firearm death rate declined from 4.8 deaths per 100,000
population in 1980 to 2.6 in 1995. This represented a decline
of 49% over a period of 16 years.
MOST FIRARMS DEATHS WERE SUICIDES
"The majority (78%) of firearms deaths during the relevant
period (1980-95) were sucides: 15% were homicides, while deaths
from the accidental discharge of firearms contributed" So
most firearms fatalities during 1980-95 were suicides, not homicides.
However, regarding suicides with firearms, it says in another
ABS survey, Suicides Australia,1982-1992 (cat. 3309.0) p.8, says
that "there has been a change in the pattern of suicide methods
between the years 1982-1992. In 1982 suicide deaths from the use
of firearms and explosives accounted for 31% of total suicides.
By 1992 this has decreased to 21% of all suicides".
FIREARMS DEATHS REDUCED
So the general pattern was reduction in deaths owing to firearms.
IF YOU OUTLAW GUNS,ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS.
The general pattern has been observed: it is generally the lawabiding
citizens that willingly hand in guns: criminals refuse to. An
article in the Melbourne newspaper,The Age, 1/9/96,mentions that
two American cities with the tightest gun controls are Washington,
D.C and New York City, and both are rife with illegal guns. Experience
in the US has shown that criminals hesitate to attack citizens
with guns.Guns can prevent crime.
US CITIZENS CONCERNED
US citizens are concerned about the Australian attempt to ban
guns. In a report titled WAKE UP CALL FOR AMERICA, it says : "The
people of Australia are only used as New World Order guinea pigs.
What happens in Australia is almost always done later in America,
so, US citizens, you better get ready! Soon, a horrible "terrorist"
act will be committed by a person who will be branded by the media
as a "crazed shooter". The President and the media will
scream and holler for action. New, draconian, gun-confiscation
legislation will be rushed into law by our controlled and bought-off
Congress. You'll have to bring your guns-or else go to prison.
"Of course, only you, the individual, law-abiding citizen, will have your guns confiscated. The ruthless gangs in the inner cities will actually be given more guns. Guns headed for gangs are being smuggled in almost every day now on Red Chinese ships docked in Long Beach, California, and Portland, Oregon. "You and I will be left unarmed and defenceless. We will be prey to urban gangs, criminal elements, roving packs of illegal immigrants, and the entire federal Gestapo (the FBI,BATF,CIA, the EPA, NSA and all the other alphabet cops). It's time for us to protest now, or soon it will be too late. They've already cracked the whip on gun owners in Australia. We're next! "
GUN CONFISCATION = SLAVERY
The drive to ban guns in Australia, and later in the US-has a
very ominous precedent- that every time Communists have taken
over a country, they moved to confiscate guns.
HOW THE COMMUNISTS CAPTURED CHINA
If you want a description of how that operates, hear the audiotape
by Reverent Milne, a Christian minister who worked in China, prior
to and during the Communist takeover of China. He relates how
the Communists first reacted with a plastic smile, treating people
with courtesy until they had taken their guns. Then they moved
in for terrorist control. (see How The Communists Captured China,
by Rev. Milne, from; Australian Freedom Foundation, PO Box 140,
Glenelg,S.A. 5045 or Christian Identity Ministries, PO Box 146,Cardwell,Qld.,4849)
GUN REGISTRATION = GUN CONFISCATION
Mentioned in Aid & Abet Newsletter, Feb.,1997, published by
Police Against The New World Order (PANTWO) "Gun registration
always lead to gun confiscation! As a matter of fact, the seven
major genocides that occurred in the 20th century,each and every
one of them was preceded by gun control. No tyrant can force his
will on the people of his nation if the people are all armed.
That is why our founding fathers insisted on giving us the 2nd
Amendment in our US Constitution which reads in part: "the
right of our people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
According to a study done by Professor R.J. Rummell, there were
119,000,000 people killed by their own governments in the 20th
century, while 35,000,000 were killed on battlefields in that
same period of time! That means that governments have killed almost
4 times as many of their own people as did war in this century.
UN PEACEKEEPING
And now we're faced by an intended monopoly of weapons control
on the part of the UN, a super government that will eliminate
national sovereignty and impose a One World dictatorship. They
have the potential for a total global tyranny that will make murders
by national governments pale into insignificance!
TYRANNY OF ABSOLUTE POWER
The historian, Lord Acton, made the famous statement: "power
tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
If men were angels, there would be no problem, but the potential
for absolute power placed in the hands of globalists answerable
to nobody is an invitation to tyranny. The history of UN so-called
"peacekeeping" shows a determination to protect Communist
rulers. For example, under UN rule, Croation Moslems were disarmed
while Serbians were armed., The Serbs were allowed to commit genocide
or "ethnic cleansing".
KATANGA
Then there's the case of Katanga, now part of Zaire. One of the
best references for this is The Fearful Master, by Edward Griffin.
Briefly, in 1960, the Belgian Congo was given its independence,
and the country was taken over by a Communist dictator, Lumumba,
who established a reign of terror, murdering and torturing men,
women and children. In this situation, one area of Congo,the province
of Katanga, headed by a man, Moishe Tshcmbe, declared its independence.
Tschombe was a devout Christian and an ardent anti-Communist.
Instead of the UN being thrilled to support such a declaration
of independence, Communist-led influence led the US to join with
the USSR in support of a UN resolution, July 14,1960, authorising
sending troops to the Congo to suppress Katanga.
KATANGA MASSACRE
UN troops, including US warplanes, bombed and strafed civilians
in schools, churches and hospitals, obviously with genocidal intent.
Troops even bayonetted Red Cross officials who tried to help the
wounded. There has been no admission of wrong doing on the part
of the UN, no apology and no restitution for victims of this UN
atrocity. It served its purpose, to bring Katanga under Communist
control.
GLOBAL TYRANNY
This is the same kind of body that wants universal control, and
wants to take away all our guns so they can enslave us. Their
goal is to have global control by the year 2000.
ALL CIVIL LIBERTIES CRUSHED
A body with absolute power would be able to suppress all civil
liberties, including free speech, to crush all dissent.
WHAT CAN WE DO?
Some people are withholding guns, and risking arrest or massive
fines to prevent their guns being seized. But we shouldn't have
to risk life and limb to retain what remains of our freedom.
ROYAL COMMISSION
One option is suggested by Joe Vialls- that funds be raised to
form a Royal Commission into the Martin Bryant case, including
also the scapegoating of Ted Hill, the Tasmanian arms dealer,
to open up information being withheld from us. ''1688 BILL OF
RIGHTS-Several Attorney-Generals of individual States have admitted
that the 1688 Bill of Rights, which guarantees the right to keep
and bear arms is still in force. On this basis, some patriots
want to launch a High Court challenge to the validity of the gun
laws, claiming it is banned by the 1688 Bill of Rights. However,
lawyers that I've spoken to insist that it is not in force, that
it has been overriden by the Statute of Westminster dated 1931
and ratified 1932 which allows Australia to pass laws repugnant
to British law. One QC insists that the 1688 Nill of Rights is
not even valid in U.K., let alone Australia. This seems to be
based on the idea of Pariamentary supremacy. The reality is, of
course, that UN is becoming supreme over the Parliaments. There
are some moves you can take.
SUPPORT GUN HAPPY POLITICAL PARTIES
Support a political party that favours unbanning guns, such as
Australia First and One Nation and make the right to keep and
bear arms an election issue. Say you won't vote for politicians
that support banning guns.
CITIZENS INTIATED REFERENDA
One possible move is to press for Citizens Initiated Referenda,which
would give the ordinary grassroots a voice, and demand a refenda
on the gun issue.
GET THE POLICE ON SIDE
We need to consider that the immediate implementation of the plan
to ban guns will depend mainly on the police.
APPEAL TO POLICE
I appeal to police to heed the literature put out by Jack McLamb's
Police Against the New World Order (PANTWO), to read the booklet,OPERATION
VAMPIRE KILLER, available from, Christian Identity Ministries
Box 146, Cardwell, Qld,. 4849. A lot of this deals with the way
police are being conditioned to support the "system"
rather than the individual. The tendency is to create an "us
versus them" mentality, that means any citizens who won't
hand in their guns are portrayed as dangerous rednecks and not
as individuals who want to preserve their freedom. Under thinking
like this, there have been invasions of property and seizure of
guns before the gun amnesty even ended. A significant section
in PANTWO's Operation Vampire Killer is the comment: "the
question each officer individual must face is a very difficult
but realistic one: which way will your own gun face when the orders
are issued?"Will you protect the people you have sworn to
protect? Or will you do what other patriotic officers from other
countries have done to their countrymen, "obediently just
follow orders?"
OFFICER, WILL YOU KILL FELLOW COUNTRYMEN WHEN ORDERED TO TAKE
THEIR WEAPONS?
Perhaps it will help that you will be told by superiors, "It
's for the national good" and/or "it's for the good
of society (History proves that the nations' enforcers can expect
some such motivational indoctrination such as this) "Could
there be such a police action, taken against the public, if the
police were told the truth, ie.. that officers should take the
guns and liberties from the masses so that the Controlling Elite
of the nation can enslave them? We think not. In other words,
police officers, is it such a good idea to prepare the grounds
for a police state, run by the UN in the interests of a one eyed
class with absolute power at the top? Be aware of what is going
on, instead of blindly following orders, be aware of the consequences
of your action. You may be interested to learn the results of
a poll conducted in the US with over 16,000 police, conducted
by the American Federation of Police and the National Association
of Chiefs of Police (Aid & Abet Newsletter, v. 1# 9) concluded
that: 90% said that they did not agree that by banning ownership
of firearms by private citizens, there would be fewer crimes committed
with firearms.
PERSONAL & NATIONAL PROTECTION
"86% believe that it was not for "hunting and target
shooting" that the 2nd Amendment was placed in the US Constitute
but for every citizen to (1) defend their person and property;(2)defend
this nation (US) from enemies, domestic and foreign.
WAITING PERIOD USELESS
"71% do NOT believe that a waiting period will have any effect
on the criminals obtaining firearms.
MEDIA BIAS
"86% are critical about the way in which media presented
particular crimes such as shooting, riots,etc.
MEDIA HYPOCRISY
"90% resent the hypocritical manner in which the media hypes
violence and at the same time promotes the banning of firearms
for law abiding citizens. So please note that US police officers
are mostly against the banning of guns for citizens. Will Australian
police consider coming out against this policy when they realise
it's intended to create a slave state?
LOCAL POLICE SACKED?
Lastly, police may themselves be disarmed under a New World Order
because. according to a UN volume, World Peace Through World Law,
the authors claim that local "police forces supplemented
by civilians armed with sporting rifles and fowling pieces might
conceivably constitute a serious threat to a neighbouring country.
So they recommend "rigid controls on all firearms and ammunition
possessed by civil police and private citizens.
FOREIGN CONTROL
Last but not least, foreign troops and maybe foreign police may
be sent to patrol Australia.
WORLD GOVT MAP
According to a map in OPERATION VAMPIRE KILLER (p. 74) foreign
troops and police will be sent to guard countries, including Australia.
One possible reason for this is that troops and police may hesitate
to fire on their own citizens but foreigners will have less hesitation
in doing so. I've left the best for last. PRAY that we can successfully
awaken the people to the real dangers to freedom posed by the
UN gun grab and its One World tyranny, before it's too late.
Thank you, ladies and gentlemen
Back to Top