LOBBY - BAD LOBBY
By: Ted Lang
Thursday, September 9th, two days before the third anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our nation, former New York City Police Commissioner and now Los Angeles Police Chief, William Bratton, was quoted by ABC commenting on the impending expiration of an unconstitutional law: the so-called "Assault" Weapons Ban.
Both Bratton and ABC still
hyped the lie that so-called "assault weapons," so termed to
imply military style fully automatic machine-guns, were now once again
going to be made available to the general public. They both would have
you believe that this "evil" caused millions of crimes and worse
carnage than Hiroshima and Nagasaki until we were all saved by draft-dodging
former President Bill Clinton. Why then did it only get through Congress
limited by a "sunset" provision?
The reason machine-guns were banned in 1934 was as a direct result of another ill-conceived federal law; namely, Prohibition, which deprived the American populace of alcoholic beverages that they wanted to consume. Organized criminal gangs were created by this ridiculous law, and since a general "us-versus-them" mentality resulted, a general social atmosphere of rebellion against both government and its unjust laws developed among the populace, and criminals were as much affected by this reckless abandon as were law-abiding citizens. Hence the term, "Roaring Twenties."
Our federal political dullards involved US unnecessarily in World War I, which produced a huge inventory of Thompson sub machine-guns. And then the dullards decided we shouldn’t drink alcohol. Organized crime gangs began battling each other for "market share," much the same as the organized drug gangs are doing today, and the "Tommy Gun" was the weapon of choice. In 1934, the "Tommy Gun," and all machine-guns, were restricted by the aforementioned law.
Now does anyone seriously believe Bratton doesn’t know this? The Peter Jennings/ABC News broadcast of September 9th is documented on the ABC website. Bratton is introduced as being infuriated by the expiration of the ban: "Nothing gets Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton more passionate than talking about the impending expiration of the 10-year-old assault weapons ban." The piece quotes him as saying, "Nobody has an inalienable right to run around with a machine-gun. I’m sorry, that’s insanity. They're weapons of murder. They're not weapons of hunting or collecting," he said.
But neither are semi-automatic rifles machine-guns, and as a cop, he should be totally familiar with the difference. Bratton is therefore a liar and wrong – inalienable rights are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Second Amendment. And since when does a law cause people to "run around" with anything?
And if these are weapons solely used to commit murder, why do the police departments he managed have them? Haven’t both his police departments, the NYPD and the LAPD, been involved in innumerable cases of abuse, torture and murder of unarmed civilians? What about Rodney King? And then there are the cases of Amadou Dialo, Alberta Spruill, Eleanor Bumpers, Abner Luima, and on and on. With the exception of Bumpers, an overweight elderly black woman wielding a knife and ranting, the NYPD wasted her with a 12-gauge shotgun blast. Why do police have to kill old black ladies with shotguns and machine-guns?
"Unless Congress or the Bush administration agrees to extend the ban, it will expire on Monday. Soon, all sorts of semiautomatic weapons could once again be legal," says Bratton. When the law was passed, the FBI pointed out that less than one percent of armed crimes involved semi-automatic rifles. As I have explained in this space a zillion times, machine-guns fire as long as the trigger is depressed – semi-automatics fire each time the trigger is pulled. Isn’t the latter performance from a firearm standard?
The problem is that so-called military style assault weapons are military surplus, crippled as to their use as machine-guns and reduced to semi-automatic one squeeze-one-shot performance. They only look like machine-guns, and being modified and resold to the public, can save the military and the taxpayer money. Now that’s a real "buy-back" program that works in the taxpayer’s favor!
As usual, the most obnoxious cacophony of whining and moaning comes from the Zionist owned and operated large city newspapers and TV network news broadcast talking heads simulating, if not emulating, fascist and socialist stooges. And of course, the target of their hatred has always been the evil, despicable "gun lobby."
Here’s the typical smear as documented by ABC "News": "Bush says he opposes the semi-automatic weapons, but is careful not to upset the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby. The NRA will endorse the president's re-election bid after the ban expires, ABC News has learned. But most Democrats aren’t putting up a fight either because they do not want to bring on the wrath of the NRA in key congressional districts during an election year."
The article goes on: "‘There is a big block of Democrats joining a big block of Republicans that will make sure this issue never sees the light of day in the House,’ said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president and CEO of the NRA. Democrats remember what happened 10 years ago, when a Democratic Congress sent then-President Clinton the bill outlawing assault weapons. A few months later, the gun lobby was instrumental in helping Republicans win control of the House." Selectively voting politicians in and out of office is wrong when undertaken by gun owners?
The media has always been, and continues to be, the staunchest enemy of the Second Amendment. In my judgment, their deliberate lies, falsehoods and fascist/communist propaganda does not emanate from stupidity, but rather from an agenda created at a much higher level designed to eliminate totally the influence and independence of the American people. In this way they can be subjugated more easily under the one world government of the New World Order. I feel it to be the agenda of the Illuminati. If I am wrong, I’m guilty only of being a fool. If I am proven right, it will be too late.
Within the last two weeks, a "leak" was broadcast, I believe on August 26th, by CBS, connecting the Israeli lobby, American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee, to an Israeli diplomat based in Washington and a Pentagon employee. They formed a network to pass intelligence information to the government of Israel. The purpose of the spy ring was to enable Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, to arrange for the required event manipulations to involve the United States military in yet another pre-emptive and unnecessary war with yet another perceived "enemy" of Israel. Why should our troops be sacrificed for Israel?
Over 1,000 of our troops have been killed in a war based upon false intelligence, which has Mossad and Israel’s fingerprints all over it. President Bush used it in his constitutionally mandated annual report to the nation in his State of the Union Message. Who will now be held accountable for those 1,000 deaths? Who will now answer for 15,000 of our maimed and crippled war-fighters? Who will be held accountable for 30,000 dead Iraqis?
It will be US – we will be held accountable. And perhaps another terrorist attack will kill even more Americans. Why then, is the NRA the "evil" gun lobby? The NRA is not trying to trick US into a war, or ace US out of our tax money by tax-exempt status as AIPAC is doing. Why aren’t they considered as the bad lobby and the NRA considered as the good one?
AIPAC has 60,000 to 85,000 members and represents the interests of the foreign state of Israel and its five to six million citizens, and another five to six million Jews in America. And now they have been caught spying, in order to generate more lying, to involve US in an unnecessary war where thousands, and perhaps eventually, even millions may be killed. Why is this then considered as a good lobby? And which lobby is really to more powerful one?
The NRA seeks only to preserve and protect the rights of ALL Americans, as well as 60,000,000 to 80,000,000 AMERICAN gun owners. And when it comes to what government can do, and what it can’t do, the Constitution has always worked for me. And the militia act was passed in 1792, one year after the Constitution was ratified, and the National Guard was first created in 1903. The National Guard, as well as any other organized military entity, is not the militia. American citizens are the militia!
Actually, the Bill of Rights bans all infringements, not just certain types. The 1934 machine-gun law is also an infringement, and private ownership of machine-guns is required in Switzerland where crime is practically non-existent. Total gun bans in England and Australia recently have cause massive crime waves in both countries where none previously existed at that high level of occurrence.
But banning citizens from owning firearms increases crime because the preventative nature of crime control is replaced by the inefficiencies of after-the-fact investigation of victimized, unarmed citizens. Gun ownership and crime prevention effectively minimizes the need for police, which would probably eliminate the need for police chiefs like Bratton.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
Ted Lang is a freelance writer and political analyst. He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone. Ted Lang can be reached at: email@example.com
We invite you to visit his website at: www.tedlang.com
Published in the September 17, 2004 issue of Ether Zone. Copyright © 1997 - 2004 Ether Zone.