What is your opinion?

Are we not the melting pot? Is not the United States of America composed of people from every nation in the world and every walk of life? So, Why Can We Not Look Upon Nations And Consider What We've Found To Be Inhumane Or Insane? Wherein are their faults and what caused them? Is it so imperative that we follow other nations? We do not have to keep plunging ourselves into totalitarian rulership via Communism, Federalism, Socialism, Commercialism, Exploitation, Dictatorship, Humanism, Liberalism, Nazism, or Political empowerment!! We should be able to study these failed or non-respecting governments and see what caused the first sign of stupidity to be empowered. Why pass laws that have proven to promote totalitarian empowerment?

http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_downlo...

Since the outlaw of guns in Australia (The country of "down-under" and "shrimp-on-the-barby"), the murder rate was cut by almost 50,000 per year (supposedly). The kidnapping/missing rate, however, has gone up 252,000 the previous "national average". That means that the missing are not being considered dead/murdered because their bodies are no longer left to be found. Plus, at what it was (the rate of kidnapped/missing), when taken in consideration with the previous murder rate, those 2 crimes (together) have tripled, since 1996 (the year Australia adopted gun-control). WHERE ARE THOSE MISSING PEOPLE? (dead, most likely) As well, Assaults have escalated, Sexual Assaults have escalated, and Robberies have escalated. The chart (above - Australian Violent Crimes Statistics) is based upon the multiple of 1000 (ie. each listed number - excluding the date - should be multiplied by 1000).

The links below are a few sites with other stats and news on gun control. The national, international, and local news never reports the reality of the state of our union, nor the state of other nations (only what they want you to hear/know and what they think might sell and not disrupt their way of thinking. However, their way of life may be extremely disrupted if they continue to make such laws and refuse to extinguish those upon the books that deny any one of the Bill of Rights/1st 10 Amendments or the Constitution {no threat being made, just an observation from a local poll that I conducted with people that I know and people that I've met}).

http://www.nrawinningteam.com/auresult.html
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/pages/bocsar_crime...
http://concealed.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/%E2%80%A2-gun-control-fails-in-cand...
http://www.gunowners.org/sk0703.htm
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0411f.asp
http://www.angelfire.com/pa/sergeman/issues/firearms/control.html
http://www.haciendapub.com/comm8.html
http://www.newswithviews.com/Turtel/joel39.htm
http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=australia+gun+control&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

Well, I've been researching and found that there are at least 5 totalitarian (2 of which are extreme communist) laws that have been passed and have been enforced in the USA. How many communist laws does it take to truly be considered communist? (Answer: one {1}) Congress needs to pay particular attention to the 9th Amendment: Amendment Nine - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. I'll retain my rights, whether they agree, or not.

The Riot Act was one of the first. Although it seemed like a good idea at the time, it only opened the door for communisms stronghold. Having passed a single law/amendment/bill that revokes or restrains any of the 10 Bill of Rights or Constitution has thrown our nation into what we fear and despise most - COMMUNISM. (Free Speech?) ".....to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" --- All it really does is keep the criminal, committing the act, from serving out the rest of his life behind bars. Each person involved could press assault charges, injured could press battery charges, and dead could be be avenged with involuntary man-slaughter charges. HOW? DID? THAT? LAW? PROTECT? The People?????????

Then there is the regulation and monitoring of "Free" Press. Something that has not existed since the 1940's. (ie. Why have we not been told about Australia, while discussing the gun-control laws on national news? Why have we not been informed of the tragic increase in crime since Australia passed gun-control? Why have they not included the seperate states that have gun-bans and shown their crime stats since they adopted gun-bans { Disarming Citizens and Multiple Murders by John R. Lott, Jr. }? We wonder why crime keeps increasing! If they were to show such things, the Fed would close them down!). (Free Press?) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;...."

Later, we passed a law preventing criminals from voting (WHAT? Has their citizenship been revoked for one stupid mistake?). http://www.slate.com/default.aspx?id=78066

In the 80's they passed the "Brady bill", which depreciates the second amendment. (Right to keep and bear arms?) "....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

In 1996 (?) they passed a second part to the "Brady bill" ("Lautengerg Domestic Gun Ban"), this takes away the gun rights of anyone that gets into a fight (self-defense or not - misdemeanor or not). (What 2nd amendment? - one of the ten bill of what?)

This past year the new "Hate-crime" law became effective. This law will allow the Fed to arrest anyone that writes, speaks, or signs anything that could be construed as offensive. (What 1st amendment?) "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,...." With this new law, they can incarcerate a person for a "violent" crime - hate (although the person may not have ever actually harmed anyone or threatened the same) - then they can revoke the persons 2nd amendment right, as well. Any "hate-crime" is considered a "violent" crime.

http://www.google.com/search?q=states+that+have+gun-bans&rls=com.microsoft:en...

_____________________________________________________________

When is it a 'good' idea to break the law to pass a law that is unConstitutional and unJust, thereby being unlawful in itself; then forcing every person in the nation to break the law, by enforcing an UNLAWFUL ORDER? (NEVER!!) If you will bear with me, I want to explain and remind you of the purpose for a Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights (aka: the 1st 10 Amendments), and subsequent Amendments 11-27. The Declaration of Independence was drafted to establish and brake away from a government that was prohibiting its citizens from having law and order. The Constitution was set down as the foundation by which all laws are to be enforced and by which all laws are to be established; ours includes a clause which allows the Constitution to be amended for Lawful purpose to make corrections as necessary that it ensure that the nation is always reasonably represented and orderly maintained as a whole. There is no way to just bypass the Constitution or its amendments. A "Bill of Attainder" or "ex post facto law" is not a lawful order. In order for such a law to be lawful, you must FIRST pass an amendment to Repeal the Constitutional statement(s), as well as any of the amendments that it may inflect negatively upon.

DIRECT & TO THE POINT:
There is a bill that was passed through Senate with only 87 votes for (?) and somehow only 2 opposing (?), then it was signed by our former President William Clinton. The bill was then enacted as "law", even though it is an unlawful order. The supposed law is known as the "Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban" ("H.R. 3610: Sec. 658"; Attached to "DOD Appropriations Act, 1997; CR page H-11743"); a copy is located at the following link, as well: http://www.gunowners.org/klamd.htm . First, I refer you to the final draft of the United States Constitution (the end of the final line stating (i): "the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our names, G. Washington Presidt and deputy from Virginia", etc...), on file with the Library of Congress and this link: ( http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/charters_downlo... ). If you will, read under Article 1, Section 9, Statements 2&3: s.2:"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." s.3:"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." Now I refer you to our Bill of Rights, the original draft consisting of 12 Articles, of which the first 2 were not passed at that time. The 1st draft was first introduced on Wednesday, 4 March 1789. The first 10 Amendments consist of the ratified Articles 3-12, of the first draft. Article 2 of the first draft was ratified (brought into law) in 1992 and Article 1 of the first draft is still on the board from 1789, but yet to be ratified. Amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, & 10 have all be trodden upon by this single supposed resolution (Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban) that is being unJustly and unConstitutionally imposed upon the people residing in these United States.
I think that I've given reasonable explanation for the quotes that I've given of our US Constitution. As for the Bill of Rights, I've listed all 10 (enclosed in quotation marks) below. However, Amendments 3 & 7 do not, directly, pertain to this subject, therefore have no annotations below them. I have are emboldened the portions that are relevent and offer a brief explaination:

1st 10 Amendments: Bill of Rights: http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=574&False

1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-I have several grievances against the passing of law that is contradictory to the Constitution and Bill of Rights that, thus far, have not been recognized.
2. "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."
-First, I want clearly define Militia: A militia is an army or armies of completely untrained civilians (common citizens with NO military training or that are no longer under contract to the military) that would come together to defend the nation of their choosing (usually the nation in which they are citizens) - not National Guard, not Reservist, but rather common citizens that will join ranks with a unit of trained military in order to defend the laws of their land.
3. "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

4. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures , shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue , but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
-By having passed a 'retroactive' (new term for ex post facto) law, our rights guaranteed by this amendment are being obliterated, all together.
5. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
-Each citizen being railroaded by this ex post facto law, that was presented as a bill of attainder, should have been presented with papers signed by a Grand Jury, individually (pre-facto).
-Furthermore, a person whose case was already heard before a jury prior to the bill passage, is being put into double-jeopardy. Because they were finished serving whatever the courts saw fit and now, years later, the Senate and former President want to make them pay for their 'crime' again. They have been deprived of liberty, property, and sometimes life.
-Still further, the taking of their posessions was supposed to be compensated, which has yet to happen. - In my case, I was compelled by the court to plead "No Contest" which they marked as a guilty plea and so I was forced as a witness against myself (by not contesting the charges), even though I was trying to tell the judge that I was the one screaming for help and for the police. Turns out that my ex was a booty buddy to the judge and in a separate case (at a later date) (where I was accused of kidnapping because nobody could find her), they took almost 2 years to bring it to trial (what speedy trial? - WTF?).
6. "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
As ex post facto law, the defendant will never receive that public trial because he/she was never informed that a guilty plea or no contest plea would affect them years down the road, when they were in court prior to the time in which bill was (supposedly) signed into law (which is exactly what makes it an ex post facto law).
And, in my case, I was never granted a right to counsel, never granted a right to speedy and public trial, never granted a jury of my peers, never granted the right to confront my accuser, and never granted the right to obtain witnesses in my favor.
7. "In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law."

8. "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
-Excessive fines are imposed and cruel and unusual punishment is being inflicted daily, upon the person falling under this ex post facto law/bill of attainder. The fine being all of his guns are removed from him/her (plus lawyer fees, court costs, and fines) and the punishment being that he is no longer permitted to legally purchase firearms (being quite cruel and extremely unusual according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights).
9. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The right to keep and bear arms is one of these rights!
10. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The power to remove a persons rights to own firearms has NEVER been deligated to the federal government and therefore falls to the state(s) or to the People (WTF?).

Just for Kicks!
I wanted to list the other 2 articles that were included in the first draft that presented the Bill of Rights. They were written as "Article the First" and "Article the Second", listed respectively. "Article the Second" was ratified into law in 1992. "Article the First" is still on the board from 1789, but yet to be passed into law.
1. "After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred representatives, nor less than one representative for every forty thousand persons,until the number of representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than two hundred representatives, nor more than one representative for every fifty thousand."
2. "No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."

Please, God forgive us our SINS, whatever they may be, and heal our land!
When is it a 'good' idea to break the law to pass a law that is unConstitutional, thereby being unlawful and unJust in itself; then forcing every person in the nation to break the law, by enforcing an UNLAWFUL ORDER? (NEVER!!) They must be lost, but either way, they should not be recognized as authority.

A Bit of History!

The Church came together as One Bride 1000 years ago, under the protection of Christ in order that the False prophet be thrown down and defeated. The Seven Churches had to fall into each other that the religion of the false prophet be removed from their land. The Vatican City (Rome) was the only place of refuge for anyone (not-muslim). The Seven Churches came together as One Bride (in Vatican City) and offered refuge to all who would defend the Bride of Christ (even non-Christians). Although historians tell it differently, the truth is that the Seven Churches did not come back out from the Vatican City until they felt safe in doing so. Historians claim that we all are "derivatives" of the Catholics. The Seven Churches were established long before the first "Crusades". As muslims had conquered Southern Asia (Prussia/Indo-China), North-Africa, all of East Europe, West Europe, and all of the Middle-East, the only safe place (for non-muslims; people who refused to be muslim) was Italy and France (France being under siege). At that time, the Bride of Christ (the Seven Churches) was already called together, but was in process of being organized. After over-throwing the muslims (with the aid of 1000's of "non-Christians" that were willing to defend the Church, which only asked for 10% of their booty), the Pope became nervous of any non-Christians. This nervousness did not subside for another 400 years. However, many of the church "leaders" still used their power to influence those who were ignorant of God's Word (ie. convincing others that something was against the Bible, even though the Bible made no mention of it; then procured hangings, burnings at the stake, be-headings, etc.). That ignorance did not get relinquished until about the 19th Century (1800's), when education (most especially reading/writing) in America became a standard for all citizens. UNDERSTAND: Just because someone claims to be a Christian does not make them Christian. UNDERSTAND: Just because someone is Christian does not make them infallible, whether they are high-up Church leaders or just lowly citizens. Just because someone claims to be a jew does not make them a jew, nor does it make their point of view just, whether they are jew or not. Christ has been here for about 1000 years.

There is a "bill" that is being enforced as law, even though that bill is unConstitutional and unJust; the apparent passing of the bill was just as unConstitutional and unJust; the enforcement of that bill is unConstitutional and unJust. That bill (of attainder) is also an ex post facto law. The name of that bill is Lautenberg Domestic Gun Ban (H.R. 3610: Sec. 658; Attached to DOD Appropriations Act, 1997; CR page H-11743); http://www.gunowners.org/klamd.htm