Democratic Gun Control

by Louis Beam

Since disarming the citizens of this country is the objective of the federal government, and since the federal government proclaims this to be a democratic country based upon equality, then any gun control measures adopted by the government should be democratically applied.

If  law abiding citizens are to have their guns taken from them then let the law abiding police agencies of the state be disarmed also. (Those in law enforcement who are crooked can keep their guns just as the drug pushers and criminal elements in the civilian population at large will keep theirs.) Democracy based on equality requires that, so far as possible all are to be democratically equal. Why should the police, FBI, and federal marshals remain armed while citizens are not? Let us look at this issue in an intelligent, reasonable manner and examine the arguments.

It will be said of those in favor of  non-democratic gun control that the police come into contact with dangerous criminal elements and need guns to defend themselves as well as to enforce the laws. This is, of course, quite true, but is it not equally true for the citizens of  this country? Are they not the chief   victims of crime? Do they not need to protect themselves? In most cases, the policeman or FBI agent is much more able to defend himself as a result of training, physical conditioning, and experience than, say, a woman at a shopping mall who is dragged into an attacker's van and raped while her child is beaten unconscious by the assailant. Why, in a equal democratic society, would laws be passed that would provide a pistol for the police officer and not for the woman? Does not the woman as a citizen enjoy the same right to self defense as a police officer? Do not citizens have the same right to defend themselves as FBI agents?

For every law enforcement officer that comes into contact with a criminal there are 7,653 citizens that are victimized by criminals. A citizen is 800 times more likely to be the victim of crime than a law enforcement officer, yet those who control the Federal government in Washington wish to make it illegal for any citizens to defend himself! The best place to stop crime is at the time of it's occurrence; in other words, were the 7,653 citizens armed they could in most cases prevent the crime at the point of it's occurrence. The police almost always arrive at the scene of a crime after the occurrence of the crime. Logically speaking, if the rules governing gun ownership are to be un-democratically applied, it makes far more sense to disarm the police than the citizens. The police can of course, once the one week waiting period is over, obtain a firearm just like citizens. Their arms should, however, be kept under lock and key at the police station. Then, just like citizens, if they get into trouble they can call 911 for armed help to come save them.

One week waiting periods before the purchase of a firearm should be democratically applied. If it makes sense for a citizen to be required to wait a week in order to buy a firearm for protection, then it makes equally good sense for the police and FBI to do the same. Innocent people are killed every year by both agencies. If enforcement agencies had to wait a week before they could get a pistol, countless lives would be saved. A true example of this type of situation occurred recently in Houston, Texas where two armed robbers held up a large super market. The police advised of a hold up in progress placed officers at all exits. As the holdup progressed and shoppers became aware of the stickup, several tried to flee the robbers. The first three shoppers out the door were shot by a female police officer, two died. How does a one week waiting period sound for this police officer? Now, it can be argued that most officers never shoot an innocent person with their side arms. Quite true. The same is true for most citizens who own guns.

If our cites are so safe that citizens do not need guns, then the President's secret service guards should be disarmed. Is the president any more deserving of his life than the citizens who elected him? Democracy, where art thou?

It seems clear that government elitists don't trust citizens who own guns. Can citizens trust a government who owns all the guns?

Perhaps the federal government has something planned for the citizens of America that requires them to be disarmed? Bought any stock in the "New World Order" yet? It's originators, socialist elitists in Washington D.C., specify that worldwide disarmament must be instituted for the NWO to begin. You did not really think that this just meant foreign armies did you? Of course the enforcers of the NWO are to be allowed to keep their guns. How else can they see that you, a simple citizen, go along with their program?

One has to ask himself what kind of country this would be if only criminals and government agents have arms. Perhaps the simple peasants who were in Tienanmen Square, or the Croatian and Slovakian citizens seen throwing rocks at tanks can best answer this question. Gun control works. Ask any government agent from Red Square to the steps of the White House.

For those who can think, the words "gun control" or "New World Order" instinctively cause us to throw a thirty round clip into our weapon, for we are aware that the biggest criminals are the ones who live in Washington D.C.

Reprinted from The Seditionist Summer, 1991

Tell The Truth. Who Would You Really Rather Have A Gun?