The article that incised this writer was �ICHC: Support Needed for Two Illinois Bills� written by the Illinois Citizens for Handgun Control in reference to HBs 1941 and 1945. The bills were described as �two vital pieces of anti-crime legislation� and that �These bills do not affect sportsmen, hunters, or citizens who want to protect their homes, that they are aimed at the criminals who terrorize our streets throughout Illinois with lethal weaponry purchased �legally� for illegal distribution.�

The article further states that the BATF determined that 52 percent of crime gun traces found the source to be licensed firearms dealers in Illinois (H.B. 1941 - State Licensing of Gun Dealers). And that the Bureau also found that 20 percent of illegal gun sales originate in gun shows (H.B. 1945 - Closing the Gun Show Loophole).

Big deal. A hundred percent can be determined to have been bought from a manufacturer who can no more be held accountable for a weapon being used in a crime than a auto manufacturer/dealer can be held accountable for an intentional attack on other people by a person using an auto as a murder weapon. Or, one of the favorites for getting rid of political enemies - small aircraft that mysteriously crash while carrying the political enemy.

Besides, what no one wants to discuss is how many confiscated weapons by law enforcement end up back in the hands of known criminals. And whether or not the confiscations were originally done lawfully without the rights of owners being violated. If rights were violated, then law enforcement ersonnel/agencies became criminals with illegally obtained firearms.

Anyway, the degree of illogic with such bills is astounding. Who the devil dreamt up the theory that licensing gun dealers and background checks in gun shows is going to decrease crime? The Brady Bill and 20,000 other gun control laws have resulted in increased crime, not decreased crime. It doesn�t take much rational thinking to conclude that controlling guns does not control crime or criminals but only places undo and unlawful restrictions on law-abiding citizens.

Don�t any of these people (speaking mainly of private anti-gun citizen blockheads since government has the hidden agenda of establishing the NWO) correlate the increase in gun control to the increase in crime? My gosh, it is so obvious that only a nincompoop could determine otherwise. The two are directly proportional. Thus, one would by rational logic conclude that additional gun control laws would serve only to increase crime once again while doing little or nothing to decrease crime.

Facts that have been stated time and time again prove decreased gun control results in decreased crime. The examples are just far too numerous to list but one of the best indicators is the city of Kennesaw, Georgia, in which homes are required to have firearms. The results of the city ordinance must thoroughly confuse advocates of gun control. Nearly zero crime even while the population increased three-fold.

But, as with any government intrusion, the advocates of gun control do not want facts. They rely on misinformation, pleadings to the emotions of people who don�t have the facts, and out and out lies. There has never been a gun control law that did not affect law-abiding citizens or one that affected the true criminal element. Thus, these unconstitutional laws serve only to thwart the safety factor inherent in the people being armed.

Review the facts concerning Australia, England, the District of Columbia, states with concealed carry verses those without concealed carry, to name a few. If done, a rational person can only conclude that increased carry and arming of private citizens results in decreased crimes of all types, including rape (check this out MMM people), armed robbery, in-home invasions, assaults, and so on.

But, then, the key here is �rational� person. That description usually excludes gun control advocates who have the characteristic of decisions based on facts being foreign to them.

As for reporting by the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Tobacco, first of all, we don�t know how they determine �illegal� firearms in their so-called "research" and findings. Just what determines an �illegal� firearm for research purposes in the minds of these Gestapo-like agents? By the Constitution of the united States of America, there isn�t any such item except possibly an imported firearm brought in which avoided import tax. But, then it isn't the firearm that is illegal - it is the non-payment of the import tax that is illegal. Quite accureately then, one must consider "illegal" to be a catch-all category for out-of-control officials/agents of the bureaucracy concerning any weapon they want to taken away from law-abiding citizens.

If a convicted felon (should only be one who has used firearms to victimize since all felons are not dangerous, vicious anti-social, psychotic criminals. A case in is the people being convicted as tax evaders are made felons by a liability and crime that doesn't exist for most Americans. And if a dangerous felon has a firearm, then there are punishments that may be applied to him rather than punishing everyone else. And, if the felon in question is dangerous and has been convicted as such, why is he walking the streets? What I am getting at is that not all felons are felons created by a violent and viscious crime.

Consider. The BATF regularly raids innocent people�s homes and often kills innocent people. But, it may report a firearm as being illegal in its endeavor to terrorize and control through coercement when, in truth, the firearm confronted in the home was legal. Who is to know since this organization, just as the other pseudo-agencies of the federal government, can say and do anything desired with apparent impunity. Or, does one think the government reports the truth when hiding its mistakes? Or, are they mistakes? Much evidence now supports the "mistakes" are not mistakes but planned executions (the Donald Scott case, for example).

The one absolute we people who think rationally and objectively is that the first fact considered when dealing with government reporting is that the government manipulates facts in order to justify its illegal and unlawful dealings with the citizens of the 50 States. If the unwarranted conclusions (lies) are analyzed, then we sometimes arrive at the truth which, in the case of arms, leads everytime to the inherent decrease in crime by increases in armed citizens.

To sum this up into two axioms (held true through the written history of Mankind so I feel confident using the term �axiom�), we can state:

1. Increases in crime is directly proportional to increases in the control of arms. In other words, as gun control has increased, so has crime.

2. Crime is inversely proportional to increases in the bearing of arms. Thus, as bearing of arms increases, crime decreases.

There is also this. The BATF does not have any constitutional authority for its agents to even set foot in any State of the Union while on official business except when dealing with collecting import tax. Review the Constitution with the intent of finding the article and clause giving this bureau any authority in the 50 states.

In regards to alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, the federal government does not have authority to make any law applicable to the citizens of the 50 states with the exception of assuring import tax is paid on imported items falling into these three categories. Then, as one can see, the law is on the �source� of the item and the item's due import tax, whether from this nation of states or imported, and not on the individual. Think about that.

States are Republics joined in common effort to defend the rights of citizens. This, of course, includes the rights being infringed upon by useless and inefficient gun control laws. Thus, any representative of the people at large, regardless of the level of government, who votes for any gun (or drug) control law, or supports the laws, actually are violating their oaths of office, committing breach of contract (oath subscribed to), and treason (violation of trust).

Because of lack of jurisdiction, no State has to allow any federal agent to enter its boundaries except to get to a federal enclave. That is the law established by the Constitution of the united States of America. Certainly, no agent has the right to raid a person�s homes. In fact, no level of law enforcement has the constitutional right to break into a person�s home armed to the teeth and ready to kill. It is private property and, as such, may not be constitutionally entered in a forceful manner regardless of any search warrant. All statutes and rulings stating otherwise are unconstitutional and have violated the trust of the people.

The fact that has been forgotten is that while a search warrant duly issued does authorize a search of private property, the people inside still have rights. One of those rights is to not be terrorized with one�s sense of well-being destroyed by a bunch of armed, murderous thugs breaking down doors and/or their lives taken by these actions of law enforcement personnel. Christ, how many families have been destroyed by these un-American (wish I could use the words and phrases I have in mind) terrorists under the guise of fighting bogus wars against crime and drugs?

By allowing unlawful break-ins to �find� illegal weapons (only those on which import tax has not been paid) and drugs since the BATF is a mixed effort, the door was opened to killings of innocent people when a knock on the door in a gentlemanly manner would have sufficed. Good Lord, why is it so hard to understand that any person could be arrested under probable cause outside the home and that a human life is far more valuable than the extra time to assure probable cause does indeed exist concerning a certain property and person. Isn�t this what is called �an investigation,� a very necessary act in avoiding violating rights of innocent, law-abiding citizens?

The claim is almost always made that there were drugs suspected and the evidence might be flushed away in these gun-drug attacks on citizens. So what? Is that worth killing an innocent person when acting on a bogus tip - or getting the wrong address - or for the intent of getting someone out of the way of the government - or because a resident of the house has a gun in hand due to wanting to defend his life, his family, and his property? Besides, every law controlling the use of the so-called illegal drugs by American citizens of the 50 States is also unconstitutional.

Here is a valid claim for you. When agents are allowed to kill innocents, then the agents are the criminals and should be prosecuted for first degree murder since they went in fully armed and ready to shoot. The plan was made; it was carried out - Shoot to kill if slightly threatened (or not) by a person defending his home. How could any person concerned with justice determine otherwise, including when the numbers of people killed by being shot in the back as they laid on the floor or ground are brought to the light of day?

So, as with all unconstitutional laws dreamt up by tyranny-seeking legislators and those who stupidly back them, additional gun control will only apply additional unconstitutional controls over matters the federal, State, or other levels of government does not have any bona fide, constitutional authority.

All that will be accomplished is a widening of the door already opened by unconstitutional laws and kept open by unconstiutional measures of terrorism. With passage of such bills, we can expect an increase in infringements upon people�s rights in far more areas than that of dealing with illegal firearms sold at gun shows or through licensed dealers.

Which brings up a point - why the devil would a reputable dealer risk his life and business to sell a firearm to a person he knew was a vicious felon or to keep an illegal firearm on the premises in order to sell it to a criminal? Of course, there may be unscrupulous dealers but, no matter what laws were enacted, they would remain unscrupulous and ignore any additional gun laws just as they do at the present. Methinks the feds are stretching the truth of the matter way beyond the degree integrity can stand. And, not being rational, gun control advocates fall for it.

At any rate, passage of such bills will result in an increase in the numbers of armed federal personnel. If the feds follow the normal pattern, the 15 alluded to will soon be 15 or more per show in full battle gear presenting a threatening posture to all who attend the show and enough personnel to raid many innocent, law-abiding businesses and homes simultaneously. And, to assure convictions and justification, there will be an increase in the fabrication of evidence and probable cause, especially with over-zealous attackers (the feds) acting as if they are making an Entebbe-like raid to kill (or terrorize) innocent people.

Thus, Folks, this writer must say to the backers of such bills that they create a vacuum within themselves which absorbs only that which is irrational and expounded by non-thinkers or those with hidden agendas.

In the vernacular, they suck.