An articulate Virginian Admirably Pushes Back Against Governor's INTENT TO DISARM Virginia... SHARE...!
U.S. Federal gun control legislation has been written,
introduced, and sponsored by
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
every violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968 into a RICO predicate offense,
a gun owner to be charged with federal racketeering offenses.
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
semiautomatic firearm to the list at a later date.
1994: The Brady Law, which requires waiting periods to buy handguns,
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.
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
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
Lautenberg. It bans people convicted of misdemeanor
domestic violence from ever
owning a gun.
bill S.54, the Federal Gang Violence Act of 1997, proposes much harsher
for people violating minor gun laws, including mandatory prison sentences
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
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
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
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,
October, 2003: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Levin, and
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
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
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’
Handguns. Applying ’sporting use’ clause requirements to domestic
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.
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
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
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
Trump Opens Door For Gun Confiscation In
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
confiscation. The plan is not to “control”
the private ownership of firearms; it is to PROHIBIT
private ownership of firearms. Enacting ever-encroaching gun control laws is simply
an incremental means to the ultimate end of gun confiscation and prohibition.
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
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
should have more tools to report potentially dangerous individuals
“‘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
"‘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.
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
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:
since Trump’s Stalinist statements, there are at least 24 additional
states that are currently considering passing "red flag" laws. These are:
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.’
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
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
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
certainly a big concern of the connection between mental health and people
violent behavior and whether or not they should have access to firearms.
“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.
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
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.
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!
a U.S. citizen who has committed NO CRIME is denied his Natural right of
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
and unable to protect him or herself.
I tell you this with all seriousness: At some point, the American people will be forced
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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—
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
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
it is a sin against God.
I urge my Christian friends
(and anyone else) to read the book my constitutional attorney
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
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,
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 codeisfreespeech.com,,
where users could access blueprints for making guns with a 3D printer.
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.
“In 2009, [Buffalo Wild Wings] announced a blanket no-gun
policy at all of its locations,” ConservativeReview.com reports.
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 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
The chain store enacted a new policy in 2018 that halted the sale of so-called “assault-style
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.
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’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 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
and counterfeit official documents.”
“The Seattle-based outdoor retailer
said March 1  that it was halting future orders
of some popular brands
— including CamelBak water carriers, Giro helmets and Camp
— whose parent company, Vista Outdoor, also makes assault-style rifles,”
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
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.
today we will also respectfully request that guests not bring firearms to Target –
even in communities where it is permitted by law.”
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 has ended its partnership with the NRA.
Walmart raised the age for purchase of firearms and ammunition
18 to 21 years old and removed “online items resembling assault-style
Wyndham Hotel Group
Wyndham ended its affiliation with the NRA amidst pressure from the gun
YouTube curtailed content intending to sell firearms
instructions on firearm manufacturing.
Keep in mind…
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
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
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
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"...
OF AUSSIE GUN CONFISCATION
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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.
MYTH OF GUN CONTROL IN GERMANY, 1928-1945
by Dr. William L. Pierce
| A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment
U.S. Constitution is that the National Socialist...
A common belief among defenders of the Second Amendment to the
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
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.
of the inclination to deny citizens the right to keep and bear arms
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
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
claimed to have been by persons who want to tar modern gun-grabbers with the
brush: the whole spirit of Hitler’s government was starkly different
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
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
- 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
- relaxed or eliminated.
- At the end of the Second World War, American GIs in the occupying force were astounded
discover how many German civilians owned private firearms. Tens of thousands of
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
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
widespread communist infiltration of the U.S. government and other U.S.
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
always is distorted in a way corresponding to Jewish interests and
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
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
The tendency of
Germany’s new rulers after the First World War was much the same
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
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
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
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:
The manufacture, sale, carrying,
possession, and import of the following are prohibited:
- persons under the age of 18 years;
- legally incompetent or mentally retarded persons;
- Gypsies or vagabonds;
under mandatory police supervision [i.e., on parole]
- or otherwise temporarily without
- persons convicted of treason or high treason
or known to
- be engaged in activities hostile to the state;
- persons who for assault, trespass, a breach of the peace, resistance to authority, a criminal
- offense or misdemeanor, or a hunting or fishing violation were legally sentenced to a term
- of imprisonment of more than two weeks, if three years have not passed since
term of imprisonment.
firearms, designed so as to conceal their function (e.g., cane guns and belt-buckle pistols);
- any firearm equipped with a silencer and any rifle equipped with a spotlight;
- 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);
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:
were not formulated by the National Socialists. Under the National Socialists these
were interpreted liberally: a person who did not fall into one of the prohibited
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
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
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
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.
Bearing Arms: A Fundamental Necessity
By Chuck Baldwin
November 1, 2018
As I have said repeatedly, it is a fundamental necessity that the American
and bear arms. And bearing arms means carrying
a firearm with you wherever you go.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
carry purposes. Plus, she just prefers a revolver
over a semi-auto. And, yes, I sometimes
carry a J-frame
J-frames generally have a poor reputation for accuracy due to their very short barrel.
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
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
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
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
round more comfortable than the lighter weight
versions. And shooting the .38 round in
the K6s is downright
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
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
.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,
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
a big game rifle or shotgun handy.
I live in Brown Bear country, of course, and when I'm in the woods hiking
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
sadly, has had to kill several Grizzlies
in his line of work, and he swears by the
So there you go.)
For a .22 LR rifle (which is great for hunting small game), I prefer the Ruger
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
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
bolt-action rifle or a .30-30 Winchester
or .45-70 Government lever-action rifle. (Here in
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
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.
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.
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
In the semi-auto configuration, I prefer Mossberg
shotguns. And don’t discount 20-gauge
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
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
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
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
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
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
have actually denied the Christian faith.
We show that the Bible nowhere teaches God’s
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
We also put to rest many of the distortions
of Scripture that anti-gun preachers use to
men and women—who are created to be providers and protectors—
into sheepish slaves of the state and helpless prey for human predators.
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.
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
can further explain the various nuances of what to
look for in a gun for your unique and
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
is good advice: “Be Prepared.” Plus,
much more important than the type of firearm and
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
and responsible thing to do. I would put the proficient use of a firearm in that category.
(and safe) shooting.
© Chuck Baldwin