Introduction

We all share different spiritual views as well as different political views. However, one thing we all have in
common is that none of us desires to see our loved ones harmed. This is a trait common to most all mankind.

There is a lot of discussion going on at present as to whether U.S. citizens should be allowed to own and keep
guns , or whether it would be better for us as a nation and a people to ban guns.

No one in their right mind desires for anyone to be killed by any means, including guns.

Sadly, guns are here and, until some type of hand held laser pistol is developed they are the state of the art
killing weapon of choice in our time. In times past it was the bow and arrow, then the spear, knife, and lastly
club or rock.

Men will always invent something with which to inflict pain, anguish, terror, and death upon other men.

For us to be fool-hearty enough to believe that the tragedies which happened to the people in the following
article cannot happen to us, or those whom we love, would be utter stupidity. I barely touched the tip of the
iceberg of tragic massacres of various peoples the world over during the past century.

Our children will bleed the same as those within this article bled. Loved ones wept and cried as they saw each
other butchered, helpless to stop the slaughter, because they had no way to defend themselves.

Please read this all the way through and, then, weigh your feelings regarding gun control as a part of the future
of our nation. When you consider this, ask your self: What kind of future did those you read about have left to
them as a result of gun control.

Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn

Warning!!!
The following pages contain true life photos of people who were slaughtered because they were unable to
defend themselves. This material may is not suitable for all age groups. Parental discretion is not only advised,
but is encouraged.
 The Experts Agree...Gun Control Works!
Written By Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn
Copyright 2009 Marvin Thomas Cox
DBA: Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn
All Rights Reserved
For the record: This Average Joe does not own a gun. I sold my guns years ago rather than leave them
unsecured and have my children find them and something horrible happen. I could have spent the money to
secure them, but selling them seem best at that time in my life. At the same time, though I do not own a gun I
do whole heartedly support the right of others to legally purchase, own, register, safely secure, and defend their
families and homes with a gun in the event such a need arises. I am not speaking extremism or radicalism or
any particular ism at all. I am speaking the good common sense that a man is given to defend his loved ones
when threatened. Below you will find some information which I have simply pasted out of various e-mails and
web sources. I am not in any way attempting to promote or advocate violence, terrorism, arming ourselves as
militia or any such nonsense, simply the right to defend your home.

A Marvin Thomas Cox-Flynn Observation:

He who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword 1, as shall also any man who
meets another man wielding a sword and stands there a fool empty handed. A sword
(or a gun) is a defensive weapon until evil men (governments or individuals) turn it
into an offensive weapon of war and murder. The fault is not to be found in the
sword (or in the gun), but in the men who choose to wield them against others, all too
often in the name of God, freedom, and country, and, at times, in the name of chaos
for the sake of insanity ...

1 Mat 26:52 KJVThen said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the
sword.
 A Little Gun History In Pictures

In 1929, the Soviet Union In 1911, Turkey established Germany established gun
established gun control. From gun control. From 1915 to control in 1938 and from 1939
1929 to 1953, 1917, 1.5 million to 1945, a total of
about 20 million dissidents, Armenians, unable to defend 13 million Jews and others who
unable to defend themselves, themselves, were rounded up were unable to defend
were rounded up and and exterminated. themselves were rounded up
exterminated. and exterminated.

China established gun control Guatemala established gun Uganda established gun
in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, control in 1964. From 1964 to control in 1970. From 1971 to
20 million 1981, 100,000 1979, 300,000
political dissidents, unable to Mayan Indians, unable to Christians, unable to defend
defend themselves, were defend themselves, were themselves, were rounded up
rounded up and exterminated rounded up and exterminated. 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.
 Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because
of gun control: 56 million.
------------------------------

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new
law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own
Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 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 criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. 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. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above
prove it.

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear our president, governors or other politicians
disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-
control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans.....before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control,
please remind them of this history lesson.
With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'.
During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew
most Americans were armed!

If you value your freedom, Please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.
C.H. Waters.....busy resisting entropy, since 1968.
Switzerland issues every household a gun. Switzerland's government trains every adult they issue a rifle.
Switzerland has the lowest gun related crime rate of any civilized country in the world. It's a no brainr. Don't
let our government waste millions of our tax dollars in an effort to make all law abiding citizens an easy target.

As average Joe citizens, how do we know that these statements are true? History speaks for itself in
regards to Hitler and others. How about the current events reported to be taking place in Australia?
Shalom brother marv,

This is my opinion as to what I thought then and what I think now. At the time the Australian
government wanted everyone to surrender their firearms we thought it was a Tov (Good) idea as the Port
Aurthur massacre had happened and we believed it was the right thing to do. We were hoodwinked,
conned, as it were. If you look up the Port Aurthur massacre you will see that it wasn't what you thought
it was. There are a number of conspiracy theories which I agree with. The lone gunman Martin Bryant
could not have shot all of those people directly between the eyes from his hip. Also there are other
things. Anyhow, look it up for yourself. Now, I believe we were conned and hoodwinked...If we could go
back to the way it was, I would own a firearm only for the protection of my family.

To the best of my knowledge, in order to possess a gun you must belong to a Gun Club for a specified
period of time, then you must sit for an exam to get your license, you must present a good reason for
desiring to own a gun, and then there is other legislation. It is very difficult and expensive to buy and
own a gun.

Since we have gotten rid of all the guns there are more violent crimes, and the crimes are being
committed are by those that have the guns. We are stripped of our guns, and the criminals are using
guns that they have to commit crimes against us. There are arguments for and against in your country. I
am not sure but I think your 2 nd Amendmentthe right to bear armsI'm not sure. It's your
constitution. Anyhow, if a person is responsible and has a safe place to secure the weapon away from
children then, I do not think there would be a problem with having one. However, our heavenly Father
YHWH is our true protection, but then He expects us to be alert, sober, and be as wary as foxes but
harmless as doves.
As far as I can tell marv, getting rid of the guns here in Australia did not solve the crime rate one bit.
When we had guns we didn't have as much crime back then. Times are different now. But, if we still had
guns I think there might be a lot less crime.......Maybe if all criminals knew that everyone was armed with
a rifle or a pistol, then they might think twice before trying to break in. Then again, I have heard that
some people have been killed with their own hand guns by the criminals breaking in...It's a bit of for and
against...I know in America the death rate of violent crime is high. In Australia we did not have that high
a crime rate when we had guns...Go figure...

Guns or no guns, in Australia we are having a deluge of foreigners coming to live from violent countries.
Now, I do not know if this contributes to any violence or crimes. There are two sides to this issue, but a
man should be able to protect his family.

I just pray that all of my brothers and sisters in Yahushua Ha Moshiach are protected and kept
safe...Lots of love to you. Your friend in Adelaide, Australia, 10/13/09.
(I have withheld this Australian friends name as per his concerns for his family)

As the e-mail article on, A Little Bit of Gun History, shares above, the Japanese chose to not attempt
an invasion of the U.S. Mainland because they knew our citizens were armed. Any predator
instinctively seeks helpless prey. What helpless prey could Japan have chosen to attack rather than
making an all out invasion of the U.S.? A nation of unarmed citizens, easy succulent prey: China. Of
course, this could never happen to us here in the U.S. if we become a nation of unarmed citizens, could
it? Could it? What if, like China, we were invaded, or our own government turned on us?
 nanking massacre
www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/truth/genocide.shtml

Source: Genocides and Human Rights Abuses, http://www.gotrain.com/dan/rights.htm

Everyone knows about the Nazi Holocaust, but very few know about the genocide of 13 million
civilians during the Japanese occupation of China. The climax of this horror was the Nanking
Massacre, the focus of this article. On December 13, 1937, the Imperial Japanese Army stormed the
Chinese city of Nanking, and during the following six weeks, 300,000 people were killed and over
20,000 women were raped. Nanking's kill frequency exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust, and most
frighteningly, was not at all systematic in execution. It was pure barbaric hell rage. During the many
decades to follow, Japan denied that the massacre ever occurred, and erased it from Japanese libraries
and textbooks. It was not until the year 2000 that a Japanese official admitted the massacre's
occurrence.
There were many events leading up to the invasion of Nanking. During the Japanese conquests of
World War II, they invaded China in 1931. They wreaked havoc wherever they went, murdering
millions of Chinese people. First, Japan invaded Manchuria. As Japanese soldiers advanced west
through China, they used germ warfare, spreading typhoid fever and the bubonic plague. During their
occupation of China, the Japanese killed at least fifteen million Chinese soldiers and civilians.
During the nineteen-twenties, Nanking only had a population of 250,000. However, during the
nineteen-thirties, the city was highly populated with over one million residents. This increase was a
result of the Japanese occupation and countless refugees fleeing to the city from Manchuria and other
Chinese areas to the east of Nanking. They were safe in the city, until Japanese forces advanced
towards Nanking from Shanghai on November 11, 1937.
Before the Japanese army attacked on foot, they made many bombings over Nanking. Most of these
bombings were focused on the wealthier and more populated areas of the city. On September 25,
1937, the most devastating bombing occurred. There were over six hundred civilian casualties.
Hospitals marked with a red cross on the roof were targeted, as well as refugee camps, power plants,
water works, and radio stations. As a reaction to these bombings and advancing forces, political
figures from The United States and The United Kingdom assembled an "International Committee."
The committee set up "Safety Zones" inside the city, where refugees could stay.
On November 25, Japanese forces attacked Nanking from three different directions. The Chinese
General Tang Sheng Zhi commanded an army of over a hundred thousand men. However, the
Chinese city soon fell to the Japanese Imperial Army. As the Japanese entered the city, a massacre
began that would continue for six weeks.
 ATROCITIES

During the six weeks of the Nanking Massacre, the Chinese were not simply murdered. They were
tortured, humiliated, and raped. The Japanese used a wide variety of methods of murder. They chased
the Chinese into the Yangtze River with machine guns, drowning them. They poured gasoline on
people, and shot them, so the victims flickered up like candles. They cut the eyeballs out of men, and
then burned the people while they were still living. They tied Chinese civilians up on posts, and threw
grenades to watch their flesh fly. A Japanese general poured acid on a man until he died of corrosion.
Some Chinese were attacked with awls. Others were castrated. Some Chinese even had their hearts
cut out. Some women were beaten at the vagina with fists and other objects until they died. Even
babies were victims; they were skewered and tossed into boiling water. Hakudo Nagatomi, a Japanese
war veteran, described, "I remember smiling proudly as I took his [another general's] sword and
began killing people...The head was cut clean off and tumbled away on the ground as the body
slumped forward, blood spurting in two great gushing fountains from the neck."

Japanese soldiers laughingly made games out of these atrocities. The Japanese generals organized
contests to see how many Chinese one soldier could murder in a given time. Whoever killed the most
won. News reporters and visitors came to observe the competitions and raise praise for the victor
back in Japan. Sometimes the number of bodies reached as high as five-hundred in a single contest. In
one such contest, two officers were racing to one hundred. However, they lost count, so they
continued to one hundred and fifty. A short while later, the Nichi-nichi, a Tokyo newspaper, printed
the story with pride. Highly respected Japanese doctors and scientists went to China to do scientific
research on unwilling Chinese victims. In many cases, the subjects were American and Russian
prisoners. Tests were done without anesthesia or pain killers. The Japanese placed people in pressure
chambers to see how long it would take until their eyes popped out of the sockets. Lethal bacteria and
other biological weapons were tested on people tied to stakes. Fetuses were cut from pregnant women
and preserved in jars. The Japanese government also sponsored bombings of bubonic plague on
villages to test germ warfare for later use on the United States.

Because over twenty thousand women and girls were raped, the Nanking Massacre is also referred to
as the Rape of Nanking. The Japanese officers encouraged their soldiers to rape wherever they went.
One officer told his soldiers, "To avoid troubles,... kill them after that." So, soldiers raped in gangs of
dozens and murdered the women afterward. The victims had their stomachs cut open or their breasts
chopped off. "Comfort women" were kept as sex slaves in wood cabins to service the Japanese
soldiers throughout the day. In one incident, a mother, two teenage daughters, and a one year old
baby were raped in their own home. The family was raped and killed on their own tables and beds.
When the International Committee entered the house to photograph the incident, they found blood
everywhere.

The Japanese finally left China when the United States dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. After the six weeks of horror, Nanking was left in ruins. The storehouses were empty, and
the civilians had lost everything. Their jewelry, coins, food, clothes, heirlooms, pets, and even
everyday objects like dental floss were stolen. Only bodies were in abundance. So many dead bodies
clogged the streets it was hard to move around, even on foot. They floated in the river for a year
afterwards, emitting a smell for miles around. The International Committee buried the bodies in mass
graves and kept close count of the marked sites.
 TRIALS

Years after the massacre, criminal trials were held. Japanese that were not class A criminals were
tried near the homes of their victims. However, the class A war criminals were tried at the Tokyo
Trials in Tokyo. These trials were held by the IMTFE (International Military Tribunal for the Far
East) and lasted from May 1946 till November 1948. The prosecuting team consisted of justices from
eleven countries, including China and the United States.

Twenty-eight men were prosecuted for, "...mass murder, rape, pillage, brigandage, torture and other
barbaric cruelties upon the helpless civilian population..." Eye-witnesses gave testimonies of the
atrocities. Of the twenty-eight men, twenty-five were found guilty. Of the other three, two died during
the trials, and one had a mental breakdown. This man was later released free from the psychiatric
hospital. Seven criminals were put to death by hanging, sixteen were sentenced to life imprisonment,
and two had lesser sentences. However, all the criminals were let out on parole after eight years.

Although Japanese criminals were charged and convicted, many Japanese citizens slowly developed a
denial of the Massacre. During the war, because of the heavy Japanese control over the media, few
Japanese civilians knew about the horrible atrocities. They heard only about the heroic war figures.
The facts released during the Tokyo War Trials shocked the Japanese public. Many books were
written on the subject. These include a major work by Katsuichi Honda, The Journey to China, a
collection of interviews with survivors. At that time, there was no public government denial of the
massacre, but there was not any official public acceptance of responsibility either.

DENIAL

From the 1970's until 1990, Japan officially began to lie about the Nanking Massacre. Right wing
politicians created three types of denial when they came to power in 1972: they distorted the facts,
disputed the extent of the Massacre, and even denied the events completely. The Japan Ministry of
Education headed the attempts to distort and rewrite the history books. Certain words were replaced,
such as "aggression" with "advancing." The entire massacre was re-labeled a "minor incident," or the
"Nanking Incident." The Japanese history books even claimed that the massacre occurred because
Japanese soldiers were frustrated with the strength of the Chinese army.

During this period, some Japanese citizens came to believe the massacre had been a great
exaggeration. The book, Nanking Incident, by Hata Ikuhiko claims that there were only 38,000 to
42,000 victims, whereas most sources state there were over 300,000 victims. This text is considered
the text for history classes on the issue by the Japan Ministry of Education.

Perhaps the most outrageous claim was of an absolute denial of the atrocity. The Journey to China
sparked the publication of two articles, "Reply to Katsuichi Honda," and "The Phantom of the
Nanking Massacre," both declaring that the massacre never happened. They were printed in the
March and April edition of Every Gentlemen. In addition, the book, "Fabrication of Nanking
Massacre," by Massaki Tanaka, also denied the massacre and blamed the Chinese for the war.

In 1990, Japanese government officials formally denied the Nanking Massacre by stating that it was a
lie. On November 10, 1990, the deputy Japanese Consul in Houston told Americans that according to
Japanese sources, the massacre never occurred. Shintaro Ishihara, a Japanese writer and politician,
was quoted by Playboy, "People say that the Japanese made a holocaust there, but that is not true. It is
a story made up by the Chinese." This treatment of the Massacre continued for five more years.

On August fifteenth, 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of the Massacre, the Japanese prime minister
Tomiichi Murayama gave the first clear and formal apology for the Japanese actions during the war.
He apologized for the wrongful aggression and the great suffering in Asia. He offered his "heartfelt"
apology to all survivors and to the relatives and friends of the victims. That day, the prime minister
and the Japanese Emperor Akihito pronounced statements of mourning at Tokyo's Nippon Budokan.
The emperor offered his condolences and hopes that the atrocities of such a war will never be
repeated.

Chinese people are beginning to accept Japan's formal apologies and they believe the apologies are a
step in the right direction. However, the Chinese are still afraid and suspicious of the Japanese, and
await concrete compensations. In the past, they have not made much a fuss over the Massacre. They
have been too humiliated and ashamed of the events, and, perhaps, were more interested in future
economic prosperity than their gruesome past. Daniel Kwan, who put together a Los Angeles
photography exhibit on the Massacre, claimed the Chinese are too involved with, "a desire to focus on
making money to pay for their Rolexes and Mercedes, rather than something so unpleasant."

Other countries from around the world also have suspicions of the Japanese apologies. Some British
and Australian veterans accuse Murayama of making the apologies too personal and telling only his
feelings. They claim the apologies are meaningless and cloudy, and that they are not directly from the
nation of Japan. They will only be satisfied after compensations are paid. Until now, America has
been fairly quiet.

As a result of both the dying witnesses and the fiftieth anniversary of the Massacre, there have been
many efforts to raise awareness of the Nanking Massacre around the world. However, it is extremely
difficult for the older generation of Chinese who lived through the massacre to teach others about it.
They are trying very hard to put their past behind them, and telling about the horrible events is painful
to them. They also do not want to tell children about the atrocities, as the horrid facts may hurt the
children or give them wrong ideas about the Japanese. However, there are other individuals from all
over the world who are concerned about the awareness in future generations and are trying to bring
out the truth.

This small minority is trying to teach those who received a warped education in the Japanese schools.
A video has been released to teach Japanese youth. Three army officials were recorded, speaking
about the brutalities. Even though the video was broadcasted on national television, this attempt met
with little success.

A memorial hall has been erected in Nanking in remembrance of the victims and to raise awareness of
the Nanking Massacre. Built in the 1980's, it is located near a site where thousands of bodies were
buried, called a "pit of ten thousand corpses," or "wan ren keng."

AFTERMATH

Although there are some efforts in Japan and China to raise awareness of the massacre, more have
been made by Americans. In Los Angeles, Daniel Kwan opened a photograph exhibit, "The Forgotten
Holocaust," in 1995. Organizers had many pictures, some so gruesome, they had to be left out. It is
ironic that these pictures were taken by Japanese soldiers as souvenirs.

Chinese-Americans, particularly those among the large Chinese community in Silicon Valley, are
also attempting to educate the American public about the Nanking Massacre. Eugene Wei from San
Jose, a member of an Alliance for the cause, said, "The cause is taking off like wildfire. The Chinese
are really waking up." However, David Bolt, an American filmmaker, stresses the importance of non-
Chinese people to inform the public about the event, so that the historical truths are not labeled as
Chinese propaganda.

The six weeks of horror in Nanking are still inexplicable. Nobody can find a concrete reason for the
occurrence of the atrocities. The massacre was not an organized debacle like the Nazi Holocaust.
Some historians and Japanese veterans suggest that it was an outlet of frustration for the Japanese
soldiers, or that it was an attempt by the soldiers to show their loyalty to the Emperor. Whatever the
reasons are, the effects of the massacre have clearly been long lasting. Today, the few surviving
victims feel guilty. They feel guilty that they survived the Holocaust of Nanking, and so many others
perished.

All peoples of every nation find themselves at the mercy of invading armies, more so especially if the
populace is unarmed. So much for the ideological notion that if people do not possess guns they will
not come to harm. Peaceful surrender and submission to authority does not guarantee life and safety.
The people of Nanking learned this lesson too late.
Below is an article verifying Switzerland's policy on guns. This article drew my attention because it is
written by a lawyer. Generally speaking, lawyers tend to get their facts straight.

Guns, Crime, and the Swiss

by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., J.D.

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/articles/guns-crime-swiss.html

Shorter versions of this article were published in 1999 in the Wall Street Journal on June 3 (European
edition) as "Armed to the Teeth, and Free" and on June 10 (American edition) as "Where Kids and Guns Do
Mix."
For more information on Switzerland, see Stephen P. Halbrook's book Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed
Neutrality in World War II and other articles.
Back in 1994, when the U.S. Congress was debating whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host
asked Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey, a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted
that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for their militia service and are required to keep them
at home, yet little crime exists there. Bradley responded: "My guess is--Swiss are pretty dull--so my guess is
that probably didn't happen."
Actually, for those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, Switzerland is anything but "dull."
By car or by train, you see shooting ranges all over the country, but only a few golf courses. If there is a
Schuetzenfest in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and
women, old and young, walking, biking, and taking the tram with rifles over the shoulder, to and from the
range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye (in the U.S. a SWAT Team might do
you in).
Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution.
But shooting is really just the national sport, although it has the deadly serious function of being the
backbone of the national defense.
Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest
places to be. To the delight of Americans who support the right to keep and bear arms, Switzerland is the
proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime.
According to the UN International Study on Firearm Regulation, in 1994 the homicide rate in England
(including Wales) was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the
United States, the homicide rate was almost 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per
100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the argument goes, the homicide rate is far lower than
in the United States. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: in 1900, when England had no gun
controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.
Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study Crime and Justice concluded that
in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 higher, and the burglary rate was
1.7 times higher than in the United States. Only the murder and rape rates in the United States were higher
than in England.
The UN Study omits Switzerland from its comparative analysis. The Swiss example contradicts the Study's
hypothesis that a high incidence of firearm ownership correlates with high violent crime.
The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that, in 1997, there were 87 intentional homicides and 102
attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms
(the statistics do not distinguish firearm use in consummated murders from attempts). With its population of
seven million (which includes 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000.
There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, giving a robbery
rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these criminal acts were committed by non-resident foreigners, which
is why one hears reference in casual talk to "criminal tourists."
Sometimes, the data sounds too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in
Geneva.
In a word, Switzerland, which is awash in guns, has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than
England, where most guns are banned.
The world was horrified on April 20 when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates
and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado. The Congress is now stampeding to pass additional restrictions on the
acquisition of firearms.. Yet in 1996, a pederast who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations
went on a rampage in which he murdered 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. The Parliament
responded with an outright ban on all handguns and most rifles.
There have been no school shootings in Switzerland, but guns and kids sure do mix there. At all major
shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter the competitors pay 12-year
olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles along with men and women of all ages.
What, asks the tourist brochure Zrich News, are the annual events that one must see in Switzerland's
largest city? Under "Festivals and local customs" is the entry: "Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest),
the oldest Zrich tradition, takes place on the second weekend in September. It consists of a shooting
contest at the Albisgetli [range] for 12 to 16 year-old boys/girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." After
that, the next big event is St. Nicholas Day in December.
The Neue Zrcher Zeitung devoted an entire page to the 1996 Knabenschiessen, noting that 3,667 teens
had participated and announcing the shooting "king" and "queen." Large pictures of girls and boys with
assault rifles and driving bumper cars (not at the same time!) laced the page. The event has been held since
1657.
I once attended a shooting match near Lucerne where the prizes--from rifles and silver cups to computers
and bicycles--were on display at the local elementary school. You could see the children's art show while you
were there.
Prof. Marshall Clinard writes in Cities With Little Crime: "Even in the largest Swiss cities crime is not a
majorproblem. The incidence of criminal homicide and robbery is low, despite the fact that firearms are
readily available in most households." The low crime rate is even more remarkable in that the criminal
justice system is relatively lenient.
Besides the militia system requiring automatic rifles and/or semiautomatic pistols to be kept in the homes of
all males aged 20 to 42, firearms are readily available for purchase in gun shops. Yet firearms are rarely
used in violent crime. Notes Clinard, "These facts contrast strikingly with the belief that a low criminal
homicide rate is due to strict firearms regulations." Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not
the mere presence of firearms. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in
shooting matches bind youth to adults and precludes the creation of a generation gap.
Criminal homicide rates are highest in the less developed countries. These same countries often ban private
possession of firearms. In some of them, such as Uganda, private murder does not compare to the
genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.
In American society, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and excessively-violent
movies. In Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting
festival brings out the entire family. By the range will be a huge tent where scores or even hundreds of
people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With colorful banners of the Cantons and of the rifle clubs
fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells. Event sponsors may
include banks, supermarkets, watch makers, and Die Post--the telephone and postal system.
Some 72,000 competitors participated in the Federal Schuetzenfest in Thun in 1995, making it the largest
rifle shooting match in the world. (The American National Matches that year attracted only 4,000 shooters
out of 260 million citizens.) The President of Switzerland and other dignitaries gave speeches. There was no
"Secret Service" to protect them, and none was needed, although thousands of guns cluttered the assembly.
Since the founding of the Swiss Confederation in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for
its defense. William Tell used a crossbow, the armor-piercing ammo of the age, not only to shoot the apple
from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the
powerful armies of the European monarchs and kept its independence. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The
Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."
Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by
commoners. Averring that "the most usual way to prevent sedition, is to take away the subjects arms,"
Bodin denounced the wearing of arms, "which by our laws, as also by the manners and customs of the
Germans and Englishmen is not only lawful; but by the laws and decrees of the Swiss even necessarily
commanded: the cause of an infinite number of murders, he which weareth a sword, a dagger, or a pistol."
That argument remains a staple of Sarah Brady and Handgun Control, Inc. today.
American interest in the Swiss did not begin with John McPhree's prize-winning essay La Place de la
Concorde Suisse. In 1768, as conflict with the Crown worsened, the colonists called for the strengthening of
the militia, so that "this country will have a better security against the calamities of war than any other in
the world, Switzerland alone excepted." By the time the new Constitution was being debated in 1787, John
Adams wrote a treatise which praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote
on matters of state and to bear arms. The famous orator Patrick Henry praised the Swiss for maintaining
their neutrality and independence from the great monarchies, all without "a mighty and splendid President"
or a standing army: "Let us follow their example, and be equally happy."
The Swiss influence was partly responsible for the adoption of the Second Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, which provides: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." This has become the orphan of the Bill of
Rights which some love to hate.
When the first U.S. Congress met and turned to defense measures in 1791, Representative Jackson argued:
"The inhabitants of Switzerland emancipated themselves by the establishment of a militia, which finally
delivered them from the tyranny of their lords." A law was passed requiring every able-bodied citizen to
provide himself with a firearm and enroll in the militia, and it stayed on the books for over a century.
President Teddy Roosevelt's strictures about training youngsters to shoot in order to promote the national
 defense were quoted in Why School Boys Should be Taught to Shoot by General George Wingate. Wingate,
a founder of the National Rifle Association (NRA), pointed to the Swiss model as the ideal. American military
observers were repeatedly sent to Switzerland, and recommended that the U.S. adopt the Swiss system.
In a 1905 report, U.S. Army Captain T.B. Mott lauded the universal participation of the Swiss population in
shooting matches, his only reservation being "the evil attendant upon all such assemblages of the people,
drinking and carousing and the spending of money during sometimes a whole week." Actually, the party
atmosphere probably ensured the survival of the Swiss militia. Perhaps the suppression of the "drinking and
carousing" which characterized the early American militia musters was the reason for the eventual demise of
the American militia system.
After the Great War, the Congress, after hearing laudations about Swiss shooting skills, enacted the Civilian
Marksmanship Program, which continues to this day to sell surplus military rifles to civilians, much to the
sargrin of Senator Ted Kennedy. Indeed, Switzerland has been debated in Congress whenever firearms
prohibitions have been an issue. In testimony against a 1935 handgun-registration bill, Col. Calvin Goddard
noted that crime was every bit as low in Switzerland as in England, adding: "Any Swiss citizen may carry a
pistol, his pockets may bulge with pistols, without a permit, but if he kills somebody he is out of luck."
In a 1994 gun debate, Senator Larry Craig, who is an NRA board member, argued that in Switzerland "there
are as many guns as there are people," yet the crime rate is low. "But there is also a fundamentally different
social attitude in that country." Now that's an understatement. The Swiss may complain about their
occasional "criminal tourists," but there are too many American criminal subcultures with that "different
social attitude" which results in a disgraceful rate of violent crime.
While the United States is victimized by embarrassing episodes of criminal degradation, the twentieth-
century European experience suggests that tyrannical governments kill far more than private criminals. In
1933, the Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists,"
i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, in preparation for and during the Night of the Broken Glass, they
disarmed the Jews. And when the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for
any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.
There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that
every Swiss man had a rifle at home. The Nazi invasion plans themselves state that, because of the Swiss
gun ownership and shooting skills, that country would be difficult to conquer and occupy. The European
countries occupied by the Nazis usually had strict gun controls before the war, and their registration lists
facilitated confiscation of firearms and, in many cases, execution of their owners.
By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace,
Switzerland demonstrates that possession of firearms by civilians may help prevent large numbers of deaths
and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed
just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three,
many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?
Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal gun control law ever to be
enacted became valid in 1999. Carrying of machine-guns, but not possession thereof, is prohibited. Semi-
auto conversions of military machine-guns may be bought with a permit, except that the retiring soldier
needs no permit. Purchase of some types of firearms from a commercial dealer requires a permit, but
private sales do not. Repeating rifles, both military and hunting, are exempt. Carrying a loaded weapon
requires a permit. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military
Department, which has 200,000 for sale.
The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, generally do not
experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Switzerland fits this mold. But the United States does
not. As H. Rap Brown declared in the 1960s, "Violence is as American as apple pie."
See also Stephen Halbrook's book Target Switzerland: Swiss Armed Neutrality in World War II

We as Americans see ourselves as being the model example of success both culturally, technologically,
and economically to the world. Yet, Switzerland has shown the world that guns, are not evil but, are
simply a tool which can be used for either good or evil. Their society for the most part, chooses good.
Sadly, as in any society anywhere in the world, there are those who take tools which can be used for
good and suddenly, without warning, use them for bad. Such was the case in Switzerland in September
2001 when a lone gunman shot and killed 14 people. Switzerland has since tightened its gun laws, but
still remains a nation which maintains a national militia as the article below shares with us.

September 27, 2006 - 10:03 AM

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swissinfo.html?siteSect=43&sid=7105573&ty=

Gun issue remains controversial

Image caption: A memorial has been made for the Zug victims (Keystone)
Parliament has been discussing changes to Swiss gun laws exactly five years after the country's
worst shooting incident.
But observers warn the changes, which will bring Switzerland in line with European Union guidelines and
which were approved by the Senate in June, are unlikely to prevent future gun attacks.
The EU's Schengen accord on cross-border crime lays down minimum requirements for acquiring and
possessing firearms. Swiss voters agreed to sign up to the agreement last year and it is due to come into force
in the country in the near future.
However, questions have already been raised within the EU as to the usefulness of the guidelines.
EU regulations on guns require the authorities in its member states to approve weapons purchases.
But acquisitions of sport and hunting guns may be announced after purchase, which is how a young man in
Antwerp, Belgium was able to purchase a weapon and randomly kill two people during a racist shooting spree
earlier this year.
Switzerland has also had its share of shooting incidents. Exactly five years ago, a gunman shot and killed 14
people in Zug's cantonal parliament, before turning the gun on himself.
He used his army rifle under the country's militia system Swiss men are allowed to store their army guns at
home. The killings shocked a country which until then had seen little gun crime.
Church bells rang throughout the canton of Zug on Wednesday at midday in remembrance and a
commemorative service was held in the city in the evening.

The issue of gun safety came to the fore again earlier this year when a retired Swiss ski star, Corinne Rey-
Bellet, was killed by her estranged husband with his army pistol.
 EU regulations
The EU regulations only set down the minimum requirements. Some member states, such as Britain, have
already imposed their own tougher rules.
The Swiss amendments tighten existing legislation only slightly. They include introducing a mandatory permit
for purchasing or keeping all types of firearms, which is not at present necessary for all weapons. The move
still needs to be approved by the House of Representatives.
The law also foresees a ban on anonymous sales through the Internet or small ads, and an obligation to
report sales between private individuals.

Improvement
"This is a clear improvement," said Jrg Bhler, from the Federal Police Office. "Gun deals among private
people that used to take place quickly and informally at motorway service stations will clearly be illegal in the
future."
However, hunters, sports shooters and collectors are exempt from giving a reason for purchase.
"A gun which is used to shoot a wild boar can also kill a person," said Bhler. But he added that statistically
seen not many hunting guns were used in crimes. "Swiss legislators have therefore decided here to make a
less complex rule."
Attempts to toughen the law even further were stifled by resistance from the powerful gun lobby. Government
and parliament did not want to give the organizations a reason to fight the Schengen referendum. In the end,
only a small part of the pressure group opposed the treaty.
The Belgian gun lobby is also strong and well organized, but the country has been deeply shocked by the
Antwerp shootings. The Belgian parliament has already put a stop to the easy purchase of hunting guns.
It is now targeting the country's estimated two million unregistered guns. This is acknowledged to be a vital
step.
Swiss info
PRIVATE GUN STORES
No exact figures exist for EU gun ownership. The Geneva-based group, the Small Arms Survey, estimates that
there are around 67 million firearms in the 15 original members of the EU.

The Finns are the most heavily armed at 30 guns per 100 inhabitants, followed by the French and the
Germans. The Dutch have only two guns per 100 inhabitants.

Switzerland, with 16 guns per 100 inhabitants, is in the middle. If army rifles were taken into account, the
country could be considered one of the most heavily armed, with two million private and military guns in
existence.

KEY FACTS
The House of Representatives on Wednesday decided by 86 votes to 83 against forbidding so-called "pump
action" or repeater shotguns.
Two motions from the center-left Social Democratic Party to link the purchase of weapons with a proven need
and for the minimum age of applying for a firearm certificate to be raised from 18 to 21 were turned down.
Debate on the controversial issue of keeping army weapons and ammunition at home has been put off until a
later date.
The Senate came out in favor of slightly stricter rules for purchasing and keeping firearms in June.
 Gun Control
We Need Government Control Not Gun Control

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to posses
arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have
prepared their own downfall by doing so."-Adolph Hitler 1938

The 1938 Nazi law barred Jews from businesses involving firearms. On November 10. 1938 --
one day after the Nazi party terror squads (the SS) savaged thousands of Jews, synagogues and
Jewish businesses throughout Germany -- new regulations under the Weapons Law specifically
barred Jews from owning any weapons, even clubs or knives.

Gun Control's Nazi Connection

We should NEVER forget that Lenin, the Communist Revolutionist, was an agent of the GERMAN
government. What is not commonly known is that Stalin murdered nearly 6 million Jews during the World
War II period, as did Hitler.

Mind Control Techniques, U.S. Military Officers--Shackled by U.N. Forces

One has only to learn what really happened to the Christians in Rwanda between April and July
of 1994 to imagine what may lie in store for Christians here in America at some time in the not-too-
distant future. After the Christian Tutsis had been disarmed by governmental decree in the early
1990s, Hutu-led military forces began to systematically massacre the defenseless Christians. The
massacre began in April 1994 and continued until July 1994. Using machetes rather than bullets,
the Hutu forces were able to create a state of abject fear and terror within the helpless Christian
population as they systematically butchered hundreds of thousands of them.

The Population Control Agenda

Several elements of historical and operational continuity between the development of fascism prior
to World War II and its resurgence over the last several decades. Comparing American scientific
racism of the 1920s and 30s with current thinkers of that school... the profound influence of the
American social legislation spawned by that racism on the Nazi racial laws that were the pretext for
the Third Reich's extermination programs... the American 'prosecutorial' staff at Nuremberg who
helped to exonerate numerous Nazi war criminals and who subsequently participated in the cover-
up of President Kennedy's assassination... a possible fascist connection to the gun-control
movement (Note: It is indeed curious that the American Psychiatric Association initially contained
over 2,000 German 'immigrant' members following World War II. The APA also was/is involved in
GUN CONTROL lobbying.- Branton), as well as a possible connection between that movement
and the assassination of President Kennedy... the resurgence of Fascism in Italy and Germany
stemming from the fascist elements left in place in these countries as a result of the laxness of
individuals such as the American Nuremberg staffers. (Additional Note on the above - From the
www.buildfreedom.com website we read: "A principle player in the 1974 foundings of both HCI
[then called the National Council to Control Handguns] and the NCBH [National Coalition to Ban
Handguns, now renamed the Coalition Against Gun Violence] was Ed Wells, who was A 25-YEAR
VETERAN OF THE COVERT OPERATIONS DIVISION OF THE CIA... There was also a fund
raiser for NCBH hosted by the man Nixon appointed as CIA Director, William Colby... HCI
spokesman Greg Risch -- incredibly -- admitted that "SURE THERE ARE A LOT OF CIA PEOPLE
IN IT [HCI]", and also stated that there are quite a few "EX-CIA WHO DONATE TO US." David
Emory's Talk Radio (On NAZIs)

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms
is the goal"--(Janet Reno)

Unfortunately, what many so-called religious authorities fail to tell when arguing against self-
defense by quoting this bit of scripture is that there are several words in the Hebrew language
which express the verb "kill." The Hebrew word used in this commandment ALWAYS means
"murder" and ONLY in what would now be called a "pre-meditated" murder at that.

Unfortunately, the word "kill" has changed since the time of King James when the first major
translation of the Bible into English was carried out. The "kill" would more properly be translated as
"murder" as far as modern English usage is concerned and, in fact, many modern translations of
the Bible generally use "murder" in this passage. Check it out in a modern language translation of
the Bible or--better yet--with someone who knows Hebrew.

This Bible passage deals with murder, not self-defense and it's a grave mistake to interpret is as
prohibiting self-defense. Thus the commandment is simply "Thou shalt not MURDER." (And any
religious leader using this as an argument against self-defense should be dismissed as a liar or
sent back for more theological training.) PRAISE THE LORD AND (PLEASE DO) PASS THE
AMMUNITION

Here's a question for anti-gun people:

"Would you be willing to put a sticker on your car window or the front door
of your house saying 'I am an anti-gun person--there are no guns in this
[car/house]'"
 QUOTES FROM FOUNDING FATHERS REGARDING GUNS:
"And that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress...to prevent the people of the Unites
States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." SAM ADAMS, in the Philadelphia
Independent Gazetteer, Aug. 20, 1789.
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike,
especially when young, how to use them..." RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, writing in Letters
from the Federal Farmer to the Republic (1787-1788)"On every question of construction [of the Constitution]
let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the
debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform
to the probable one in which it was passed." THOMAS JEFFERSON, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823,
found in The Complete Jefferson, p. 322
"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as
individuals... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority
has a right to deprive them of." ALBERT GALLATIN of the NY Historical Society, October 7, 1789.
"...the people have a right to keep and bear arms." PATRICK HENRY AND GEORGE MASON, Elliot, Debates at
185
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." THOMAS JEFFERSON, Proposal for a Virginia
Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334 (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the
military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury
of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private
arms." TENCH COXE in "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the
pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." ZACHARIA
JOHNSON, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646.
"A free people ought...to be armed..." GEORGE WASHINGTON, speech of Jan. 7, 1790 in the Boston
Independent Chronicle, Jan. 14, 1790.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." ALEXANDER
HAMILTON, The Federalist Papers at 184-8."
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage
and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same
balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not,
others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of
them..." THOMAS PAINE, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894)
"Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion... in private self defense..." JOHN ADAMS,
A Defense of the Constitutions of the Government of the USA, 471 (1788)
"A militia, when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing
arms." RICHARD HENRY (LIGHT HORSE HARRY) LEE, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at
169.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of
the people, trained to arms is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." JAMES MADISON, 1
Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other
nation...Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far
as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." JAMES
MADISON,Federalist Papers, #46.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the
soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either
the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
TENCH COXE, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms
for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own
direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having
those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hand?"
PATRICK HENRY, 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

What happens to people when they live their lives unarmed depending upon others for their personal
protection? While I was finishing High School, people in other parts of the world were learning the
answer to this question, the answer being written in their own blood and the blood of their wives and
children.

Genocide:71
muktadhara.net/page35.htm

Dumped dead bodies: victims Massacre of ordinary people Systematic Ethnic Cleansing
of Pakistani holocaust on the dark night of 25 (Hindu or Muslim?): Human
March 1971 life reduced to an inch of
foreskin

Women were not spared brutal and inhumane treatment

with no one to help or defend them
The atrocities of the razakars in killing the Bengalis equaled those of their Pakistani masters. An excerpt from
an article written in the Azad, dated January 15, 1972, underscores the inhuman atrocities of the Pakistani
troops and their associates, the razakar and al-Badr forces:
'....The people of Narail can bear witness to the reign of terror, the inhuman atrocities, inflicted on them after
(General) Yahya let loose his troops to do what they would. After March 25, many people fled Jessore in fear of
their lives, and took refuge in Narail and its neighboring localities. Many of them were severely bashed by the
soldiers of Yahya and lost their lives. Very few people ever returned Bhayna is a flourishing village near Narail.
Ali Akbar is a well-known figure there. On April 8, the Pakistani troops surrounded the village on the pretext
that it was a sanctuary for freedom fighters. Just as fish are caught in a net so too were the people of this
village all assembled, in an open field. Then everyone- men, women, and children--were all forced to line up.
Young men between the ages of 25 and 30 were lined up separately. 45 people were shot to death on the
spot. Three of Ali Akbar's brothers were killed there. Ali Akbar was able to save himself by lying on the ground.
But no one else of that group was as fortunate. Nadanor was the Killing field. Every day 20 to 30 people were
taken there with their hands tied behind their backs, and killed. The dead bodies would be flung into the river.
Apart from this, a slaughter house was also readied for Bengalis. Manik, Omar, and Ashraf were sent to
Jessore Cantonment for training and then brought to this slaughter house. Every day they would slaughter 9 to
12 persons here. The rate per person was Taka ten. On one particular day, 45 persons were slaughtered here.
From April 15 to December 10, the butchery continued. It is gathered that 2,723 people lost their lives here.
People were brought here and bashed, then their ears were cut off, and their eyes gouged out. Finally they
were slaughtered... : The Chairman of the Peace Committee was Moulana Solaiman. With Dr. Abul Hussain and
Abdul Rashid Mukhtar, he assisted in the genocide. Omar would proudly say, "During the day I am Omar, at
night I am Shimar( legendary executioner famous for extreme cruelty). Don't you see my dagger? There are
countless Kafirs (heretics) on it
Chuknagar is a small business town located in the Dumuria Thana of Khulna district and very close to the India
Bangladesh border. The communication today, between Khulna and Chuknagar, is also quite easy. But it was
not as easy in 1971. Chuknagar being a low land most of the area was quite swampy. But despite such an
unfriendly terrain, there was a route, along Satkhira road, which the refugees and people fleeing from the
onslaught of Paki troop could take to go to Kolkata to take political shelter. In 71 thousands of refugees
gathered in Chuknagar to go to Kolkata.
The Pakistani army started killing Bangalees from the dark night of the 25th March, 1970. The formation of
Razakar and Peace Committee turned the massacre into a systematic genocide. Local collaborators and the
Behari immigrants escorted the Paki occupation army to the remote areas of Bangladesh and killed virtually
anybody supporting the liberation war.
There was no specific factor that could account for such a large gathering of people in Chuknagar on that fatal
day (Thursday, 20th May, 1971). But it is possible to gather some facts from the accounts of some 200
eyewitnesses and interviewees of the oral history and liberation war at grassroots level projects carried out by
Profs Salauddin Ahmed and Muntasir Mamoon. Thousands of Hindu Bangalees refugees, victims of rape,
murder and arsons of the local peace committee members, razakars, Al Badrs and Al Sams forces began in
early April, gathered at Chuknagar to cross the border. The killing spree by the pro Chinese Communist party in
the name of so-called class struggle (those marauders never killed any army or police officers) made the
situation worse. Victims of leftist extremists also gathered at Chuknagar from the local areas, Batiaghata,
Dakopa, and Sathkhira to cross the border. People started to gather at Chuknagar since mid-April. The first lots
crossed the border while the later ones waited there for their turn. By the 15th May big crowds from the
nearby localities flocked to Chuknagar as the rumor of approaching Paki troops spread like fire. According to a
conservative account around ten thousand people were in Chuknagar waiting to cross the border.
Some of the interviewees believed that some Behari Khan was the man behind the genocide. Behari Khan had
heated arguments with some of the refugees on the fair for crossing the Bhadra river. Khan threatened them
that he would get the Pakis to whack the refugees refused to pay the excessive fair he was demanding. The
local collaborators (razakars, peace committee members) of Paki army also instigated the situation. They had
dual motive: to kick out the malauns (heathens) from the Pak (holy) land by sending them to hell; to mug
their money and jewelry.
In the early morning of May 10, the fatal day, the refugees were packing up for the journey towards the
border. Most of the families planned to start after having their morning meal at around 10-11. But around
10am two trucks carrying Paki troops arrived at Kautala (then known as Patkhola). The Pakis were not many in
number, most possibly a platoon or so. As soon as the Paki trucks stopped, the Pakis alighted from the truck
carrying light machine guns (LMGs) and semi automatic rifles and opened fire on the public. Within a few
minutes a lively town turned into a city of death.

Chuknagar: The largest genocide

during the Bangladesh Liberation War
in 1971

The accounts of the two hundred interviewees were same. They differed only in details. There were piled up
dead bodies. Wrote Fazlul Bari, an emotionally overwhelmed reporter from Janakantha: Dead Kids on dead
mums laps. Wives hugging their beloved husbands to protect them from killer bullets. Dads hugging their
daughters to shield them. Within a flash they all were just dead bodies. Blood streamed into the Bhadra river,
it became a river of corps. A few hours later when the Paki bastards ran out of bullets, they killed the rest of
the people with bayonet.It was not possible to figure out the exact number of people killed in Chuknagar
genocide. But as per a conservative account about 10,000 people were killed on that fatal day. In the midst of
the killing spree the Pakis raped the young women and took the others to the nearby military camp. When the
Pakis left, the locals came out clear the dead bodies. Most of the dead bodies were thrown into the Bhadra
river. Some were buried.

How is it these horrifying atrocities came to pass? Was it a result of men possessing and carrying guns,
or is there a deeper issue to be examined here? Is a gun an instrument of evil, death, and destruction
only, or is it also an instrument which is used 99% of the time to guard, protect, and preserve human
life, rather than take it?

If guns are only instruments of destruction, then perhaps world peace is truly attainable if we would
simply disarm our military as well as all the armies of the world. Obviously, if guns are only
instruments of evil, then we might reasonably conclude that guns cause war. Armies have guns, so
remove the guns and wallah, no more war.

The only problem with this wonderful idea is, how do we explain all the wars which have taken place
over the face of the earth, millions of people being killed, for thousands of years before the invention
of firearms? How did men manage to kill each other before the gun, if indeed guns are only an
instrument of evil?

An automobile is a useful instrument of transportation. However, it can also be used to transport drugs,
thieves, murderers, rapists, and other criminals. Would we argue the point that most criminals who use
guns also use automobiles? Yet, how would today's society function without them? How would our
military defend our nation without themjeeps, trucks, etc.? How would law enforcement defend our
cities without them? How would a man provide for his family without them?

Automobiles are used as weapons of destruction by terrorists who turn them into mobile bombs.
Others use them as instruments of death to run their victims down. Should we strongly consider
banning automobiles as well as guns, since both can be used as instruments of evil? This sounds every
bit as logical as ridding the world of guns. After all, think of all the people who have died in
Ambulances. Could it be that Ambulances are an instrument of evil, death, and destruction as is the
gun? If we are determined to label guns as only instruments which bring evil, death, and destruction,
then we must also consider labeling Ambulances as such.

Consider this: Each time someone is killed in a car wreck (Cars do kill huh?), someone is murdered, a
bomb goes off, or whatever the tragedy may be, in almost every case an Ambulance is called to the
scene. Is there a connection? We most surely make the same connection to guns when someone is shot
and killed. How often have we stopped and considered this question: How many people in the world
are alive today because of guns?

We would most likely give the same consideration to Ambulances and those who drive them, but it
never enters our minds to consider that: Nations were not invaded this day because they were able to
defend their borders; citizens were not murdered today because police shot and killed someone in order
to save lives; a mom and her children are alive today because she was able to defend herself from
intruders with the firearm her husband purchased and taught her how to use?

It is clearly not guns which are evil, nor the problem. It is the condition of the human heart which is to
blame for evil acts which take place in the world around us each day. Until such a time as this changes,
with Messiah establishing His Kingdom, men will continue to butcher each other regardless of whether
they have guns or not. Because of this undeniable fact: citizens of every nation of the world should
arm themselves for their own protection against the all too real possibility of their home being invaded
by intruders, invasion of their nation from a foreign power, or the event of their own government
turning against them as history proves does happen.

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not."
~ Thomas Jefferson

How To Combat TV Media's Anti-gun Bias

Written by Erich Pratt--Friday, 01 May 2009 10:18

It's the gift that keeps on giving.

More than two centuries ago, many of our Founding Fathers laid down their lives so that we could be
free. It began in earnest on April 19, 1775, when many brave colonists fought, bled and died on the
Lexington green.

It is such an important day in our history, yet how many of us ever celebrate that anniversary?

I have to admit that I haven't in the past, but that all changed this year.

In the past couple of months, the National Geographic Channel, ABC, NBC and CNN have aired
incredibly biased pieces attacking the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

After viewing these shows, one would think that guns are used far more often to kill than to save lives...
that most police officers support gun control... that guns are the greatest killer of children in the United
States... and that more gun control would make people safer.
Well, I decided that I could just keep complaining about the anti-gun media or that, instead, I could do
something about it.

I chose the latter.

The Gift of Lexington and Concord

Since April 19 fell on a Sunday this year, I decided to "celebrate" this historic anniversary with the youth
in my church. (Sunday evenings are the time that we typically hold our teenage meetings.)

Now, before I tell you about how the evening went, let me tell you a little about my congregation. If
you were to walk in the church parking lot, you would instantly discern where most of the attendees
stand on politics.

Bumper stickers like "Border control, not gun control," "Abortion is mean" and "My son is in the US
Army" are commonplace.

If you were to spot an Obama 08 sticker, you would quickly determine that it belongs to a visitor. It's
not that the church frisks people for political ideology or requires its parishioners to hold certain views
on candidates.

But, the saying "birds of a feather flock together" perhaps best describes why conservative and
libertarian-minded people tend to pick this location for their church home.

With this backdrop, you can better appreciate the results from that Sunday evening.

My plan was to celebrate the history of April 19, to show a video that GOA offers and to do a brief
teaching on I Samuel 13 (where the Philistines used weapons control to disarm Israel and subjugate
them).

But before I did any of this, I passed out a little quiz so I could see where the parents and their
teenagers stood on Second Amendment issues.

Media and Public School brainwashing

The survey results were stunning:

* A third of the respondents did not know that gun control policies around the world over the last 100
years have endangered peoples lives.
* Almost 40 percent did not know that guns are used far more often in the United States to save life
than to take life.
* And a whopping 90 percent did not know that the British effort on April 19 to steal the colonists' guns
(a.k.a., gun control) was the immediate event which precipitated the shots fired at Lexington.

Again, these are not the survey results from President Obama's church back in Illinois.
These are the results from a conservative, suburban church where almost every parent voted against
Barack Obama in the most recent election.

Can you see that the media and public schools are doing their job?

Well, there is good news to report.

Teenagers learn that "Gun control = people control"

After giving out the quiz -- which can be downloaded here -- we discussed the real history behind the
"Shot Heard Round the World."

It was not because the colonists hated paying high taxes. Truth be told, the colonists paid much lower
taxes than we do today.

The American War for Independence began on April 19, 1775 -- the very day that British soldiers tried
to steal weapons and gunpowder from the colonists in Massachusetts.

The war started because our Founding Fathers did not want the King's soldiers to confiscate their guns.
Put another way, the war started because of our opposition to gun control.

This was brand new information for a whopping 90 percent of the group.

Following the discussion of the April 19 anniversary, I showed how this method of subjugation is spelled
out in I Samuel 13:17-22 and how many other countries have followed this pattern.

I then used a video that GOA offers entitled Innocents Betrayed. This is an excellent DVD produced by
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership which demonstrates how gun control has been a first
step to genocide in many nations around the globe.

I had to warn them ahead of time that the video was rated PG-12, as some of the atrocities depicted
can be unsettling for younger kids.

The "Jaws Effect"

We wrapped things up by discussing the actual statistics of firearms use in this country. It became very
clear that a substantial percentage of the youth (and parents) had succumbed to the "Jaws effect."

Remember the movie Jaws from the 1970s? How many people were scared to play in the ocean after

seeing that movie?

Lots of people were -- even though the statistics show that less than 20 people per year are actually
killed by shark attacks in this country. One has a greater chance of dying by lightning, choking on food,
drowning, or being killed in a car accident.

The same misconceptions exist towards firearms. Different studies show that guns are used anywhere
from 50 to 80 times more often to save life than to take it. And yet, the media typically only shows us
the heart-wrenching negative uses.

Hence, it is not surprising that a majority of people in a conservative audience thought guns were a "net
drain" on our society.

Ironically, I actually used the very first couple of minutes of Guns in America -- an anti-gun show
produced by the National Geographic Channel. While the hour-long video is incredibly biased against
Second Amendment rights, the show begins with a reenactment of a self-defense story.

That reenactment would be the last time that Guns in America would ever tilt towards the pro-gun
direction, but in those two minutes, the show depicts an actual 9-1-1 call with a reenactment of a
woman shooting a stalker in her home.

The teenagers cheered when the woman blasted her assailant.

At the end of the evening, I asked the question: "Would any of you would like to change the answers
on your earlier survey?"

A chorus of "YES!" filled the room.........

http://gunowners.org/MediaBias.htm

Videos You Must Watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER8Ieop6_Jc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCezcAHXxRY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER8Ieop6_Jc

Whether we choose to believe or not, all the horrible things which happened to those we have now read
about can happen to us as well. Had these people been able to see what was coming, do you have any
doubt in your mind that they would have sought a means to arm and defend their families, wives,
children, and loved ones? These victims are an example to all who would live their lives believing that
no one would ever harm them or those they love. Will we heed their example, or will our blood join
theirs in setting an example for future generations who will also be forced to choose between arming
themselves or waking up one morning to find that day is the day when they and all those they know and
love will be slaughtered before their eyes? History repeats itself. Will we be readers of history, or will
we be history others read of?
(Written October 15, 2009)