The following was written by Ed Lewis, I am reposting it here because it just makes too much sense!

Ever wonder why the federal government gets by with exceeding the power given it by the Constitution of the united States of America? Well, wonder no more. The wrongly named Million Mom March represents the epitome of the reason - ignorance.

I have often thought the American public is one of the most misinformed, improperly educated mass of people that knows NOT the documents that protect their rights and liberty from those who would become tyrants and establish a totalitarian government. The march by women (and maybe a couple of men) who haven’t a clue as to meaning of the Declaration of Independence nor a basic understanding of the Constitution, let alone the reason for the 2nd Amendment, do nothing more than support my conclusion.

The women who participated in the "March of a Few Thousand" (not even close to a million) are completely ignorant of the facts concerning crime and gun control. They know NOT the facts concerning concealed weapon carrying and crime.

To put it simply, they are ignorant, not based on having an inadequately functioning brain but because of the fact they are not willing to obtain facts, weigh the facts, and then make an intelligent decision.

They are also ignorant of federal jurisdiction and believe the federal government, namely Congress, can make any law it wishes as they believe it has control over the people of the States. Totally false, of course, as nothing in the Constitution gives Congress plenary power over the people.

No doubt they believe a majority is the rule concerning rights of citizens, that they believe they live in a democracy. They know NOT of our country being a Republic with the protection of a Constitution which prohibits the majority from removing the rights of even one citizen even if every eligible voter votes otherwise.

Here are a few facts for these misinformed, too-lazy-to-search-for-the-facts,

respond-only-to-emotion women and, further below, a few interesting numbers concerning gun confiscation.

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, passed a city ordinance in which the heads of households (with certain exceptions) are required to keep at least one firearm in their home. If other gun control advocates and the women involved in the recent march are correct, crime, accidental shootings, intentional shootings, violence in schools, child murders, etcetera, should have ran rampant, especially since the community nearly tripled in population (from 5,000 to 13,000) during the next 16 years.

However, nothing could be further from the truth. During the first year after the ordinance was passed, crime against persons decreased by 74 percent and then fell another 45 percent when comparing 1983 to 1982. The numbers of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.0 through 1998. (Information from The New American Magazine, editorial by Chuck Baldwin)

In contrast, here are interesting figures concerning Australia. Granted, it is another country but the figures still speak for themselves. And, they are figures you will not find in the mainstream media here in the US.

In the next 12 months after 640,381 personal firearms were confiscated and destroyed (presumably), the results were as follows:

Figures up to the confiscation showed that for the previous 25 years, there had been a steady decrease in armed robbery. However, in addition to the above increase, there was also an increase in break-ins and assaults on the elderly, including in-home (occupants were home) invasions.

Now, goody-two-shoers probably won’t understand this but one of the best deterrents against in-home invasions, muggings, high-jackings, and other person-against-person crimes is the potential of a firearm loaded and ready for use. If there isn’t a potential, then, of course, criminals have nothing to fear. And, it is well-known that many criminal types prey on older people who are less likely to be able to defend themselves.

Have you ever heard of Anniston, Alabama? You should have but didn’t. But, Littleton, Colorado, became a household name. What is the difference?

A man named Thomas Glenn Terry happened to be in a Shoney’s a few years ago in Anniston. He was present as two armed men burst into the restaurant and put all the employees and customers in a walk-in refrigerator.

The manager was kept out in order to give assistance to the two armed robbers. Terry opted to hide under a table as others were forced into the cooler.

As one of the crooks took money from the cash register, the other patrolled the restaurant and discovered Mr. Terry. The would-be robber pulled his gun but was then shot to death as Mr. Terry pulled and fired his own legally concealed firearm. The other thief rifling the cash register opened fire on Mr. Terry who returned fire and shot the second robber mortally wounding him.

So, why wasn’t this front page news for weeks and weeks as was Littleton?

Simple. Littleton was a mass killing by crazed young people. Mr. Terry, however, prevented a potential mass killing. Plus, it was the use of a handgun by a citizen protecting himself. That is not the news the government wants the media to put out.

Different you might state. How about Joel Myrick, the assistant principal who prevented a school shooting in Pearl, Mississippi, from escalating as did the mass murder at Littleton. You see, a student not of stable mind, shot and killed two of his fellow students. However, Mr. Myrick had a legal firearm in his car with which he held the shooter at bay until police arrived. Had it not been for his being armed and having the fortitude to face the armed shooter, the Pearl incident might have been another Littleton.

Publicized? Of course not. It was also a case of a handgun being used as it should be, to protect innocent people, including the bearer of the firearm. But, again, the federal government doesn’t want such cases flooding the networks and printed media as it is against their hidden agenda.

Or, in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, a 14 year old student opened fire at the eighth-graduation dance. He killed one teacher and wounded three others.

It did not become another case of mass murder as James Strand, a local restaurant owner was armed. As the kid stopped to reload and continue his attempted killing, Mr. Strand immobilized the student and held him for over ten minutes before the police arrived.

Again, a case of an armed citizen preventing what might have very well become a blood bath as was Littleton. But, not much media coverage.

Why? Again, it is a case against the case being presented by the federal government, that the answer to controlling crime is to control firearms with the intent of removing all firearms from citizens’ hands.

People such as the MMM participants will state the police will take care of us.

Only an idiot would believe this and leave their lives in the hands of the police. When confronted, a citizen becoming a victim might have a very short time to react. Can systems such as 911 handle it and provide protection?

In the April issue of "Ideas On Liberty" titled Just Dial 911? - The Myth of Police Protection by Dick Stevens, the truth outs.

The myth is based on the government’s assertion that the police have a legal obligation to protect individual citizens. Many people, maybe most, believe they don’t need to protect themselves since the police have the task of doing so. All one has to do is dial 911.

According to Mr. Stevens and FBI figures, in 1997 the police and government failed to prevent 18,209 murders, 497,950 robberies, and 96,122 rapes. These figures don’t include reported car thefts, illegal drug use, and burglaries. Plus, there are no doubt hundreds of thousands of crimes committed by man against Man that are never reported, such as child molestations, rapes, and family assaults.

Is 911 an effective deterrent against crime? Gun control advocates, both in and out of government, will try to tell you it is. It is their goal to convince the public it is. In regards to the government, the myth is a necessity if they are to confiscate all weapons from the people of this nation.

However, research by Witkin, Guttman, and Lenzy published in U.S. News and World Report, June 17, 1996, revealed that only 5 percent of the 911 calls made were made quickly enough for a crime to be prevented or to arrest a suspect. 250,000 (possibly more now) 911 calls are made each day. You do the math. How many crimes were committed that weren’t halted or resulted in an arrest in 1996? (In case public education failed to teach you math, there were 95 percent of 91,250,000, or 86,687,500 crimes that were not prevented or arrests made based on a 911 call.)

Once again, this does not include unreported crimes of all natures. Stop and think. Assume you are out for a walk at night (once we could do so safely) and are accosted by a mugger. How the hell do you call 911? Or, if you are in your home when attacked in your bed? How the hell do you call 911? What if you are a woman alone sleeping when awakened by a rapist holding a knife at your throat? How the hell do you call 911? Only after the fact assuming, of course, you are still alive and well enough to make a call.

There is a third myth conveyed by the government. It is that when you call for police help, the police are legally obligated to respond. This, sadly, is not true. The highest district court in DC, the Federal Government, spelled it out in Warren v. DC 444 A 2d 1,4 (DC 1984). Here is the pertinent part of the ruling: "...the fundamental principle is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen."

States also provide protection against suits by citizens against police forces and other government agents. In California, California Government Code s/s 845 states? "...neither a public entity or a public employee is liable for failing to provide for a police department or otherwise provide police protection services."

In the same state, an appellate court ruled that "...police officers have no affirmative statutory duty to do anything." [Sousa v. City of Antioch 62 California Reporter 2d 909, 916 Cal. App. 1997]

What about your state? Are police liable to the individual citizen? Logically, should an officer fail to respond to a family disturbance because of duties demanding him elsewhere or as acting in good faith concerning statutes covering police response to such disturbances and a death results, it would be totally unfair to hold the officer liable for the death. This must include other police services as well, such as a 911 call of a rape in progress or burglary in progress. No person could be expected to be at all places at the same time.

Because of this fact, that no person, or even agency, can be expected to be at all places at one time, it is highly feasible that the response to a 911 call might be far too long to prevent a crime or arrest a suspect. Even if it is a very short time, even a minute, murder can be done and the killer gone before any officer arrives.

Thus, a deterrent against this is arming citizens in order for them to provide for their own protection. It is their right without the 2nd Amendment. We have the God-given right of self-protection and any person in a life-and-

death situation will do whatever he or she can to preserve their life. Any who think otherwise have their heads in the sand ignoring the cases of the old and feeble who fight against overwhelming odds when protecting their property and their lives.

It would seem to me that the people who want increased gun control have the mistaken notion that the government will protect them regardless of the situation. How stupid is that? Even with a law enforcement officer (or member of the military in the case of martial law) in the center of every block of every street in every town and city, it is no guarantee that any one individual can receive protection when needed.

Besides, who did the ‘Moms’ have protecting them during their get-together?

Yes, armed police with the key word being "armed". If they are so dead set against the right of people to arm themselves, why did they rely on armed people to protect them?

Their come back could very well be that the officers are trained but isn’t it trained officers who are beating and mistakenly shooting and killing innocent people, or breaking into innocent people’s homes. Hundreds of cases but no mention of that by these women.

Nor did they or the media talk about states such as Kentucky which does have concealed weapon carrying. As of August 8, 1999 (Reported in the Kentucky Post by Michael Collins and Peggy Kreimer, Staff reporters), there were 51,482 people who had permits to carry concealed weapons.

People advocating more gun control will state that increased guns in the hands of people will result in increased crimes and abuse (irresponsible use) by armed people. Not so.

In Frankfort, retired Cinergy worker Joe Megerle, 57, was walking in Devou Park when a man approached him, drew a pistol and demanded money. Megerle drew his own .25-caliber pistol and shot the perpetrator, Jamie Kennedy, resulting in his being hospitalized in serious condition.

This was the first time since the law was passed (1996) that a concealed weapon was used by a person defending possibly his life in Northern Kentucky but not the first time statewide.

In Bowling Green, a woman who had just completed the course and received her permit shot a man who broke into her house. According to her, had she not taken the gun-safety course resulting in the permit and weapon, she would not have been able to defend herself. Another tragedy, perhaps a rape or killing or both was prevented by an aware, armed citizen.

Rep. Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, said he wasn’t aware of any case in which charges have been filed against a concealed-carry permit holder. And in both cases to date of the article, the two people had acted responsibly and behaved in the manner intended by the law, both written and God-given - self-protection.

But, as always, there are dumbbells. Rep. Jim Callahan, a Wilder Democrat who opposes the concealed-carry law, said the Devou Park shooting illustrates the danger of giving people greater access to guns. Now just what the hell is the guy speaking about? A person defended themselves rightfully. Is this the danger he is talking about, that a citizen defending themselves illustrates a danger. Or is he talking about the fact that over 51,000 people have NOT acted irresponsibly? Appears to this writer the guy is either a nincompoop or suffering from diarrhea of the mouth and a constipated brain.

Anyway, Callahan has the mentality of the ‘Moms’ doing their march. Even with the evidence right in front of them, they ignore it and base their thoughts on imaginary fiction. Callahan also said he feared that putting more guns on the streets would lead to more shootings. I say "Great" to that, particularly if it is concealed-carry weapons thwarting crime on the streets, a job police seem ill-equipped to accomplish.

People such as this guy, in spite of all the volumes of evidence to the contrary, believe that law enforcement only being armed is a deterrent to crime. What a farce. Crime has escalated during my life to the degree that one can’t walk around most towns and cities and feel safe when approaching another person. And, yet, law enforcement numbers have increased.

The problem is not with honest citizens having firearms and being able to carry them. The problem is with criminals. The police forces nationwide have proved they cannot control crime nor control criminals being able to arm themselves in spite of laws to the contrary.

The means of controlling psycho kids who turn on society is not by preventing citizens from owning and carrying firearms. Trigger locks won’t do it, nor will violating every citizens’ right to privacy by dumb moves such as fingerprinting gun owners and the like. My gosh, the Littleton killers had bombs planted. If not bombs, then other means of killing could be used.

In Rwanda, nearly one million people were hacked to death in under four months by madmen with machetes. They were, of course, innocent people who were essentially defenseless against the onslaught.

And what of all those people killed in the Oklahoma bombing? Is it now required that no parking be permitted within a quarter of a mile area or so around any federal building? Are vans outlawed?

How many people have been poisoned to death. And, yet, poisons remain readily available. And, poisons may reach far more people at one time than a handgun. Dozens could be killed remotely with little risk to the killer/s.

And what of all the killings of innocent people by trained police officers? Who is demanding weapons be removed from their hands? No one. And, yet, the killings go on. And the numbers far exceed the few who have been killed in schools.

"Protect the kids." What a crock. The kids who have killed are mentally deficient in some way or another but most probably relates to lack of parents teaching proper values and providing a loving, caring relationship with their own children. People do not go off the deep end for no reason. And the reason is NOT because a firearm was available to them.

Littleton killers planned in great detail their attack against their fellow students and their teachers. Law enforcement aided them in that they hid outside for too long. How many of the students could have been saved had law enforcement been Johnny-on-the-spot and had the guts to enter the fray?

What if, however, there had been an armed person inside the school who could take immediate action against the shooters, such as that taken by Joel Myrick? How many lives could have been saved?

Again, one might state that had guns not been available to the killers, then it wouldn’t have happened. However, again the facts are ignored. If one wants a gun, one can get it. Criminal types keep right on getting assault weapons. Why isn’t this controlled? Because the government can’t control it, nor can government protect every individual against such weapons being used against them.

If not a gun, then bombs can be made. Many sources will teach crazed people how. If one wants to kill either an individual or attack and kill as many as possible in a group, there are means to do so. It has always been so and it will always be so. Maybe we should just destroy all books that have any information telling of how to make bombs or other means of mass killing.

If an archer cared to, and were mentally deranged enough to do so, he could go around any city or community of people killing at will with arrows. It is likely that if he were careful, he could do so for years without getting caught. So, is every arrow going to have a serial number with registration required?

The government’s intent is clear. It wants no armed citizenry. It has been acclimating the people in this country to increased gun control for several generations now. A little here; a little there. It is doing as it always does when determined to establish unconstitutional control over the free citizens of the 50 states. It did the same with Federal Income Tax, Social Security,

and means of compiling data bases on free citizens, acts of theft, fraud, and violations of privacy.

Why does the federal government want no armed citizens in spite of the overwhelming evidence that citizens being armed is the most effective deterrent against crime? Well, if the MMM participants cared about facts, this group of ill-informed people would have found the same as hundreds of thousands of thinking people who will not give up their arms.

Our founders never wrote of ‘being armed’ as one providing protection against criminals and the like. Oh, no, their concern was that the people always have a means of protecting themselves against a central government. They knew of the dangers of putting power in the hands of the few and the very real potential of corruption, a state that has eventuated.

The past may be prologue to the future. Has it happened before? Has a corrupt government removed all arms from the citizenry? I believe it has.

Read the below and see what you think. And, then, think about whether or not the people in the countries thought it could or would happen to them.

The below figures are those of Mr. Greg Lance-Watkins, The Welsh Assembly. As he states, the figures may be questioned but there is NO argument with the broad data.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated."

I agree with Mr. Lance-Watkins when he states: "With guns, we are citizens. Without them, we are subjects." That is the intent of the federal government of this nation, that we all be subjects with every dissident controlled by NOT having the means of defending themselves against tyranny. And, when it comes to push and shove, there is no other protection against this than the citizens of this nation being well armed.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee it - it is a God-given right, a right that no government nor majority may remove. It is a right that must be defended at all costs. Privileges may be legislated but the federal government grants very few privileges to citizens of this nation. It is not allowed to legislate rights as it is not within its power to do so except in specified situations, such as receiving earnings from a foreign source. Then, it is the earnings that are taxed, not the individual.

We are a Republic with each of us having the responsibility for our own lives. It is not up to government to provide the protection except in cases in which the states are invaded by hostile forces. Hell, the government can’t even control terrorists from entering and killing innocent people. Thus, the necessity once again for the citizens being armed.

In every state permitting concealed weapon carrying, crimes such as theft, murder, rape, and other violent crimes are down as much as 60 percent or virtually non-existent as in Kennesaw, Georgia. Knowing this, why does the government keep putting the blame on citizens owning guns?

It wants to establish a totalitarian, world government. That is its goal. It cannot do so safely unless all firearms are removed from the hands of the people of this nation. It could care less about crime since it uses crime to fool non-thinking people such as those marching for increased gun control.

This government NOT for the people, of the people, or by the people could also care less about the war against drugs and crime except in using it as an excuse to arm its agencies and train them much as SWAT teams are trained.

It doesn’t want drugs or crime stopped. Not only does it use the so-called "war" to make money for itself , it also uses them to fool non-thinking people such as those marching for increased gun control that it is a benevolent government. Think of this as you read articles about government hired ‘hit men’, people who are government hired killers of the innocent. Or the facts about Waco. Or Flight 800. Or the government ordered raid on school teachers teaching people the Constitution and the truth about government.

Ours is not a benevolent government; it is as corrupt as any that has existed. It is just better at hiding many of its atrocities against citizens. It manufacturers crimes and evidence against innocent people, hides the truth concerning its activities, buries evidence, and just flat out ruins people’s lives or takes their lives at will. So easy to protect itself against the people when it controls both the evidence gathering and handling, the courts and all officers of the courts. And, of course, having control over the government thugs attacking innocent people.

Ignorant people play into the federal government’s plans like the fools they are. Push for increased gun control and watch crime increase. Get the guns out of people’s hands who are willing to protect themselves and this society against criminals and the government. You will pay dearly just as has every society that has allowed its firearms to be taken.

But, for once, could one of you people condoning gun control please quote a fact, not a mere emotional response to something you know nothing about?

Fat chance I would say to that since there is not one single fact that offers proof that the keeping and owning of firearms by responsible citizens results in increased crime, including murder. If murder is the intent, many objects or chemicals become murder weapons, including hammers, ball bats, heavy objects in socks, knives, pillows, poisons, electricity, hands, heavy boots, cars (such as the crazed person who drove his into a crowded playground killing several students), bricks, swords, thin wire or rope (as in garroting), carbon monoxide, heart-attack simulating drugs, drugs (as in OD), and so on.

And what of fire? How often has fire been used to kill? Or to hide killing?

And, yet, means of lighting fires are still available.

Here are simple facts to grasp. Citizens carrying firearms is the best deterrent against crime. In Pennsylvania, a concealed-carry state, it is estimated that each permit issued saves taxpayers approximately $5000 in law enforcement costs. Armed responsible citizens aid police forces which cannot be at all places at any given time.

In every area of this nation in which concealed-carry is permitted, crime has decreased by far greater than just significant levels. In Kennesaw, crime is virtually non-existent when compared to areas in which weapons cannot be carried.

In areas of the world in which weapons have been confiscated in the last few years, crime has increased tremendously, including in-home invasions as the criminals are not concerned with whether or not those at home are armed.

Furthermore, if history has taught us nothing else, it has taught us the road to tyranny and rule by a government has been done by removing weapons from the hands of the citizens. Millions (estimated at 56,000,000) of people have been exterminated by governments after removing firearms from citizens in the 20 century.

So, ask if I will voluntarily give up my firearms and I will tell you it will only be done if I lie bleeding to death (or dead) after being invaded by a government agency hell-bent on tyranny. I will protect myself as best I can against citizens of this nation who are in the employ of government (law enforcement and other government agencies, including the thieves and armed thugs of the IRS) but could care less about who they kill or what rights they violate.

That, Folks, is my God-given right and you bleeding hearts who haven’t a clue as to the reason for the 2nd Amendment, nor of God-given rights verses government privilege, nor of self-preservation and the use of any means of self-preservation as being righteous, will NOT take this right from me.

And I could care less about the majority or polls. It is an individual right which the majority nor the polls nor the march by ignorant of the facts women have any bearing on whatsoever. This is America but, even more important, I am a living organism that has the right to defend its own life and territory (property). And I will do so regardless of any unconstitutional law or laws to the contrary.

One last fact. Instead of marching against guns and for gun control, pro gun control people should be thanking their lucky stars there are enough Americans who do own and carry firearms which has resulted in crime being somewhat controlled.

Surely those who advocate gun control aren’t completely stupid in addition to being ignorant of the facts. Logically, without citizens who own and maintain loaded weapons, criminals would feel free to do as they will. But, for now, since they can’t be certain as to own firearms, crimes such as rapes, muggings, burglaries, and in-home invasions have been somewhat held in check.

But, then again, maybe they are stupid. We will see, won’t we?

Boy Howdy ... I'll Tell you!...