Welcome
to
Len Lisenbee's Outdoor World
Len Lisenbee is the Outdoor Columnist
for the Canadaigua Daily Messenger, Shooting Editor of the former New York
Sportsman, retired Special Agent with the US Fish and Wildlife Service
and book author of "TALES FROM THE MARSH AND OTHER DRIVEL" a unique look
with fact and fiction of his years as a federal game warden.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the prople to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
On October 20, 2000 I was busy working on an outdoor article when something on the radio caught my attention. It was a powerful commentary by Paul Harvey, national radio news personality, on the real underlying purpose of gun control and people (read liberal democrats) who want to take our Second Amendment rights away.
Here is a copy of the complete text of his comments:
“Thousands of years of governments killing people. Eventually, some people figured out a way to create a balance such that this could not happen again. And for hundreds of years it worked. But then, people decided it would be a good idea if society ridded itself of the balance, because there was some inherent danger. Hmmm?
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that, because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment doesn't matter? Then, consider this....
In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938. From 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing the government more than $500 million dollars. The results Australia-wide: Homicides are up 3.2%; Assaults are up 8%; Armed robberies are up 44%. In that country's state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%.
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed robberies, and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns."
It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws only affect the law-abiding citizens. Take action before it's too late. Write or call your delegation.” Paul Harvey
Thank you very much, Mr. Harvey. And, the old adage that, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns should be changed. It should now read, when guns are outlawed only government and outlaws will have guns. Now, that is a scary thought.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Stop for just a moment and think about the entire concept of “Gun Control.” Left-wing liberals want to disarm every American, even to the point of revoking their constitutional right to own and possess any firearm. Why? What possible motive could they have for this activity?
Crime control? That is one of the reasons they will give to support their position. But that argument does not hold any water. Scientific study after scientific study proves without question that gun control does not equate to crime control in any way. In fact, just the opposite is true. Crime rates always go up, way up, any time honest, law-abiding citizens in any jurisdiction are disarmed. It doesn’t matter if the jurisdiction is a city (such as Washington, D.C.), a state (such as Massachusetts), or a country (such as Great Britain, Canada or Australia), if you take away guns from the honest folk, the crime rate will literally soar. No exceptions!
And yet, it is more than a bit ironic that liberal anti-gunners such as Charles Schumer (NY), Barbara Boxer (CA), Hillary Clinton (NY), Diane Feinstein (CA), Thomas Dashell (SD), John McCain (AZ), and a long, seemingly endless list of other liberals will actually use the above fact to further their arguments for the necessity of completely disarming America. They pass a gun control law — the crime rate goes up — then they claim we need even more gun control laws to better control crime.
What utter nonsense. What drivel! What tripe! And yet they fully expect Americans to believe them and support their cause. I find it rather unsettling that many Americans do believe them, and do support their efforts in disarming America.
The real underlying reason for the overwhelming desire on the part of these liberal left-wingers to disarm America can be found elsewhere. There can be little doubt that these flaming liberals want something very big. They want the United Nations, not the United States, to become the world’s leader in every respect. They also want America to fit into the ever-growing New World Order that we see oozing up all around us. The European Union is, without any doubt, the best current example of that ooze.
Why, you might ask, is total and complete removal of guns from our society necessary for the U.S. to join in this new order? Because America still has a great number of conservative, ruggedly individualistic people who happen to like calling themselves citizens of the greatest country on earth. If America enters into such an organization, it will not, it can not, be allowed to hold that title. World-wide SOCIALISM, which is the real name for the New World Order, demands that everyone be equal. Everyone, that is, except the liberal left-wing leaders, who would comprise the social, political and media elite.
An implausible situation, you might think? Impossible? Even the flaming liberals want this nation to survive as it currently is, you say? Well, Walter Cronkite, arguably America's most famous living journalist, was recently interviewed by Bill O'Riley. During that interview this world famous celebrity stated that he was very much in favor of the United States giving up its sovereignty and placing itself under the umbrella of the United Nations. With that single statement he demonstrates his support for the coming New World Order. Now, is there any doubt remaining about exactly what the left-wing liberal democrats really want for this great nation of ours?
Just think about all the ramifications such a situation would entail? In such an organization Americans would necessarily be required to lose their identity as such. Oh, the place would still probably be called the U.S. of A., but the U.N. would be the actual governing body. Congress might survive as an entity, but it, too, would get its marching orders from the world leaders. The office of the president may or may not be retained. If it were retained the person occupying the office would be only a puppet, and would not weld any of the power currently enjoyed by President Bush.
Many (most?) of the people who live in this country probably would not take kindly to such a situation. After all, we sort of like the autonomy and individual freedom that we now have. That means the our people, our U.S. citizens, would have to be physically and mentally controlled by the reigning world authorities. And that, dear friends, is why total and complete gun control (read the elimination of all firearms of any kind from any kind of private ownership or possession) is so important to the liberal left. They fully realize they can never control most Americans until those individuals are disarmed and wholly at their mercy. Only then can they impose their will on us with impunity. And make no mistake about it. If they could, then they would impose their will on us, even by force if that were the only route open to them.
Is the reasoning contained in this essay “off-the-wall?” Not if you think about it for just a bit. There are already forces working to bring it all together. Just look at the gun control debacle of the Clinton/Gore Administration. Clinton actively fought for more and more federal gun control laws. At the same time he ordered the Justice Department, under Janet Reno, not to prosecute federal gun law violations. Then, since the laws that had been passed “did not work” he called for even more stringent gun control laws. Dastardly duplicity on his part! And never forget Hillary's socialized health-care debacle that would have turned one-third of our nation's economy into a socialized welfare state. But, were these things also part of a broader world-wide socialist conspiracy? You ultimately must be the judge on that question. Just remember the annual “brain trust” meeting he and Hillary attended down south. The most powerful of the liberal elite were always in attendance at those shindigs.
It is more than likely you will never actually see most of these socialists. No one can put a face on the people pushing for world-wide socialism, but they are out there and active, none the less. They may be world bankers, or members of the multi-national industrial leadership. They could even be current or past leaders of various countries, but more than likely they are the people just below the various world leaders. Those individuals weld the real power wherever they exist.
Now, do you want to know the really scary part? It’s the eventual fact that nobody will be able to stop them. These conspirators are very patient with what they are doing, slowly making progress from a dozen or more fronts. They fully realize that at least one more generation must still pass before they can have virtually everyone “educated” to the fact that their world-wide government is the most progressive and acceptable way for our country and our world to go. They are already busy with that education in our schools. The kids today are already subtly learning how to become good citizens of the world.
Do you think I am wrong with this very sad pronouncement? Well, then just look at the facts. Ultra left-wing liberals currently control more than 90 percent of the media outlets in this country, including the Washington Post, New York Times, L.A. Times, CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN, to name just a few. They completely control more than 90 percent of our colleges and universities, including all of the most prestigious schools in the country. And, those same liberals also control most if not all of the public school system in our country. Now, if you wanted to take over the world, and you had plenty of time to do it, don’t you think controlling the educational institutions and major information outlets would be a really good place to start? Well, so do the ultra-liberal socialist democrats among us.
Len Lisenbee* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here are a few things to consider about gun control and what the left-wing liberals would have us all believe:
Washington, D.C.’s low murder rate of 98 per 100,000 is due to very strict gun control, and Indianapolis, Indiana’s high murder rate of 8 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991 when we started putting violent criminals behind bars for longer prison terms.
The more helpless we are the safer we are from violent criminals.
A woman that is raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers only to the National Guard which was created in 1917, 130 years later.
An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas, pepper spray or even oven spray, but if he is shot with a .357 Magnum he will get angry and harm you.
These phrases, “Right of the people peaceably to assemble,” Right of the people to be secure in their homes...,”Enumerated herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people,” and “The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people,” all refer to individual persons. However, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” refers to the states.
Rifles, shotguns and pistols are no longer necessary for national defense. So, why does the army have hundreds of thousands of them?
Individual citizens should not be permitted to own handguns because they are not “military weapons,” but individual citizens should not be permitted to own assault weapons because they are military weapons.
The National Rifle Association’s program called “Don’t Touch” that teaches children not to touch any gun they might find is just pro-gun propaganda, while the anti-gun lobby’s attempt to teach their own “don’t touch” program is responsible social activity.
Ordinary people with a gun turn into slaughtering butchers, but they instantly revert back to normal when they give up their gun.
Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, but the NRA is bad because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution.
“Assault weapons” have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. Citizens do not.
Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for self-defense purposes, which is why we see so many police officers with one on their duty weapon.
Compiler of this information Unknown
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hunting Home Wildlife Review Len's Commentary
A Game Warden's Life Fishing Outdoor News and Analysis
E-Mail Len Humor Christian Corner Bible Questions Copyright 2003 Len Lisenbee- Last updated June 23, 2003