American Guns

       Media Intensifies Attack
       Against Gun Industry


       It was not in the least surprising to see a report issued last week by the Media Research Center in Washington, DC detailing the increased attacks on the gun industry by the media. When the Clinton Administration launched its all out work against the tobacco industry in 1995, its declaration of war was found on the front pages of America's "hometown" newspapers for almost five years before the anti-tobacco, pro-tax lobbyists began to initiate blatantly unconstitutional and legally unfounded lawsuits against Phillip Morris, Brown and Williamson, Liggett & Myers, the American Tobacco Company and R.J. Reynolds.

       After all, the government--and the lawyers filing the lawsuits--all knew that when these cases went to trial it would be the men and women in home-town America who would sit on the juries. It certainly didn't hurt to shape their opinions on the health risks not only of smoking but of   inhaling second hand smoke as well. The media hucksters knew all too well that if an unproven theory is placed in print enough times it will become fact in the minds of those reading it. If you disagree with that statement think about this for a moment. There is absolutely no fossil evidence that establishes an evolutionary link between the lower forms of animals and mammals, nor are there any fossils to support the claim that man evolved from an ape, yet, Darwinian evolution is taught as fact in every secular school in the nation...and no one argues against it because they are convinced in their own mind that there exists physical evidence establish-ing that evolutionary trail. After all, you can see drawings galore of how man evolved; and you can see photographs galore of "early man." Yet, no fossil evidence exists that irrefutably supports the claims which are today accepted as fact only because the masses have been brainwashed by the media and by those advocating that position.

       Media brainwashing is always viewed as a necessary first step in reshaping the opinions of Americans about anything. Since 1920 the Council on Foreign Relations [which was created specifically for that purpose] has been bombard-ing us with article after article extolling the virtues of world government and the inherent dangers of the nation-state. Today we stand on the brink of surrendering national sovereignty in order to gain membership in Utopia. It was only logical that the spinmeisters would use the same, time tested method to warn America on the dangers of smoking. They have, after all, been trying to ban cigarettes almost as long as they have been trying to abrogate sovereignty. It is interesting that the suffragettes who campaigned against the evils of John Barleycorn tried to ban tobacco at the same time. In other words, the attempt by Big Brother to control our lives is nothing new in America. However, before the illegal ratification of the 17th Amendment, the federal government was hard-pressed to tread too much or too often on the States "turf." Even when Franklin D. Roosevelt created an unconsti-tutional bureaucracy to control the lives of the citizens of the United States, and assume control over all aspects of business and industry through bureaucratic regulations, it was still difficult  because the people still understood what the Constitution meant and what protections they were afforded by the Bill of Rights. It would be the generations which followed, deliberately "dumbed down" by a government-created curriculum spoon-fed to local schools by the NEA with malevolent intent. The NEA which was originally incorporated as the National Education Association in 1870 was re-incorporated by Congress as an NGO in 1906. From that time, the United States government has controlled its agenda and funded its operation. This fact, of course, was not openly discussed with the American people, nor was it openly discussed with the local school boards, since the NEA would have been repudiated at the State or local level because the States [particularly at that time] would not have allowed the federal government to promote its own agenda under the guise of education. [Every totalitarian government knows that to prevent generational revolutions, it is necessary to shape the minds of the children so they will be loyal and productive members of that society as they mature.]


       To disarm a population whose right to possess firearms is constitutionally protected, it is necessary to convince that population that guns are too dangerous for ordinary people to own, and to create a "citizen groundswell" that would allow the government to legislate guns out of existence without calling too much attention to the fact that the legislation doing so violates the Bill of  Rights and is, therefore, unconstitutional...and illegal. Regardless how "well-intended" such laws are, Congress cannot assume for itself power or authority not granted it by the Constitution of the United States. Unless, of course, nobody protests the abrogation of rights.

       As the Kennedy Administration put together what became known as State Department Publication #7277, a plan to unilaterally disarm America--and its people--in anticipation of our enemies doing the same when they saw that we no longer poses a threat to their national security, the bureaucrats began their public relations campaign to convince Americans that "guns kill," and that to end crime in America, it would be necessary for the private ownership of guns to be eliminated.

       For 40 years the media has brain washed us with the notion that the 2nd Amendment no longer has significance since, they claimed, it was inserted because of the need of frontier Americans to protect themselves from "native Americans," and to hunt in the virgin forests of this great land for the meat that would feed their families.

       Anyone who has read the Federalist papers knows the Founding Fathers weren't concerned about hostile "native Americans," nor were they concerned about hunting for game. The 2nd Amendment was one of several "checks and balances" inserted into the Constitution to protect the States, and the people, from its own central government. That is a fact; it is not right wing conspiratorialism. A central government was an evil--and I do mean evil--that the Founding Fathers recognized as necessary. But, in creating it, each held a deep-seated mistrust for it because each knew that when you give a central government the power to absolute rule, that government will rule absolutely. The separation of power between the States, the people, and the federal government worked well until the most affluent and greediest of its citizens destroyed that separation in order to create a central bank in the United States. When the 17th Amendment died in April, 1913, the Republic died with it. Once the States lost their voice in Congress, the federal government became the master of us all.

       As the Council on Foreign Relations gained an authoritative voice in the Congress and the White House [1961], this nation's course towards the surrender of its sovereignty was charted. All that stood in their way in 1961, and all that will stand in their way in 2001, is the 2nd Amendment. For world government to be achieved, the right of the American citizen to own a gun must be abrogated.

       After all, as everyone knows, guns kill.

       Over the past 35 years, the media has played up every crime of violence in the United States in banner headlines. And, at the same time, the media has artfully dodged reporting the 200,000 or so incidents in the United States each year where American citizens law used legally owned firearms to deter criminals from robbing their persons or businesses; and where women, of all ages, simply by brandishing a handgun, have forced would-be rapists to run in the other direction.

       One of the first promises William Jefferson Clinton made when he was elected the 42nd President of the United States was to eliminate the private ownership of guns in America--by any means. His Attorney General, Janet Reno, has said the same thing many times. The Clinton  Administration, which usually waffles on every issue, has never waffled on this one. Clinton and  Reno have made it clear since 1998 that if the Congress would not legislatively outlaw guns [which Constitutionally it cannot], then the Clinton Administration planned to sue the gun industry out of existence.

       From 1993 the media onslaught against guns increased tenfold. Guns kill. Yet, when the Chinese government, under the name of COSCO, the Chinese shipping company which supported the Clinton/Gore campaign in 1992 was granted the rights to lease the Long Beach Naval Yard port facilities, they responded by attempting to smuggle 25,000 illegal AK-47s into the United States and were caught. Not a word of outrage was heard from the Clinton people--and none from Janet Reno, raising the question of whether the folks at COSCO [which the ATF proved was supplying the youth drug gangs in the heartland of America with guns] was simply repaying the Clinton camp with a favor to keep gun violence on the front pages of America's newspapers.

       When the tragedy at Littleton, Colorado happened, a new piece of gun legislation hit the halls of Congress like a cyclone. Hoping to capitalize on a shocked and sorrowful public, the Democratic versions would have all but outlawed the private ownership of guns. Less severe versions would have allowed the prosecution of adult gun owners whose children stole their guns and used them to commit violence. Another law would allow the victims of gun violence to sue not only those used guns to commit crimes [who of course, do not have the financial wherewithal to merit being sued since those suing could not collect] but those who sold the gun to its lawful owner, the lawful owner [from whom the gun was likely stolen], the distributor who sold the gun to the retail store, and the gun manufacturer who  made the gun in the first place.


       Because Congress knows, and Clinton finally seems to understand, that Congress [as much as it would like to] is prohibited from outlawing the private ownership of guns because of the 2nd Amendment, the Clinton Administration is tearing a page from the "Winning The Tobacco Wars" textbook. When you can't legislate it out of existence--sue it out of existence.

       Last year, after winning a major victory over the tobacco industry, the Clinton-sponsored legal attack team [which includes Hillary Clinton's baby brother] turned their attention to the gun industry with the stated intent of banning guns in America.

       The fact that Clinton's hand was all over the initial lawsuit against five gun manufacturers in a case handled by a Clinton-appointed U.S. District Court judge in Florida is evidenced by a meeting in the White House between the Chairman of Colt Arms and Bill Clinton after a jury found against the gun manufacturers and awarded the seven plaintiffs $51 million. What is most interesting is the fact that the plaintiffs attorneys were unable to prove what brands of guns were used in the crimes against their clients. The Clinton judge allowed the case to proceed claiming that because guns are dangerous and the gun makers made guns, they were culpable and it was not necessary to prove the guns used were specifically their guns.

       In a midnight deal with Clinton, Colt Arms agreed to stop manufacturing handguns for sale in America to get out of the lawsuits. Colt's name was withdrawn from several other lawsuitsalready filed against gun makers by cities throughout the United States for creating products that were responsible for violence, death and loss of property in their States and communities.

       Deliberately ignored by those who are filing the lawsuits, and deliberately ignored by the Clinton Administration is the fact it is not "guns" that kill--it is people that kill. Furthermore, also ignored is the fact that in almost no instances anywhere in the United States are citizens who have legally bought and legally possess firearms using those firearms to commit crimes.

       When States pass concealed weapons laws and allow their citizens to carry guns, violent crimes in those jurisdictions drop. Always. Why? Because criminals do not want to risk trying to rob someone who can hurt them. In the same token, very few instances of domestic shootings occur where the gun discharged is a legally owned firearm, and the person firing that gun is the lawful owner.

       Statistics reported by the federal government in the FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics Report on the relationships between gun victims and those who shoot them have been deliberately distorted to present a view that suggests that more and more often the shootings are the result of domestic violence, or at least they are the result of arguments between friends and/or family members. The 1992 report states that 58% of all murders in America are committed either by family members, or people who "knew" their victim, suggesting close relationships existed between the perpetuator and the victim. Actually, only 18% of the murders were family-related.

       The bulk of the "people who knew their victims" crimes of violence were people shot by the drug dealers. Others resulted from robbers killing their victim because they used to work for the victim and they were afraid that he or she would later identify them to the police. Each of these types of crimes, because the shooter had previous contact with the victim is listed under this category. I cannot help think the intent to mislead is deliberate. If you believe the odds are greatly increased that you might be shot by a neighbor or family member in the heat of argument, are you going to be more or less willing to advocate the outlawing of guns in America?

       The media attack, and the judicial attack, on the gun industry is queuing up for round two. There are now some 25 lawsuits filed by States and/or cities against the gun makers. All of these lawsuits are unfounded since in no instance has the plaintiffs been able to establish that the gun makers are culpable in the crimes for which their products have been used; nor have they been able to establish that the industry knowingly sold their products, or allowed them to be sold, to those who would use them for illegal purposes.

       Today, the gun industry is preparing to fight back. It is raising what will amount to $10 million a year to fight groundless lawsuits. Even though Colt Arms has agreed to stop selling weapons in the United States, the industry as a whole is gearing up to fight the costliest legal battle ever to be waged in the United States of America.

       At stake is more than your right to buy, and own, a firearm. At stake is the Constitution of the United States and the sovereignty of this great nation. If you do not take sides on this issue, you will very likely lose your right to chose sides on any issue in the not too distant future because the only side of any issue will be the government's side.

© 2000 Jon Christian Ryter
Posted By Permission Of The Author