The American Roots of Gun Control.

[Jerry Pitts]

Hopefully, all of us in this 'modern' society, realize that 'slavery' is not isolated along the barriers of skin color. Even though in the past, skin color and failure of the particular people to show cultural or industrial advancement, were the primary reasons that slavery was 'justified', slavery still exists today, but in more subtle forms and under seemingly harmless disguise.

Members of more advanced societies, would prowl the world scape, to find these differing people that were not a threat physically, economically, or socially, and would set about to 'conquer' these nations for the sole purpose of making those people the servants of the masters who sent the troops looking for unsuspecting souls. This process amounted to the ability of the more advanced country to acquire the energy involved in labor with little of no cost to the conquering nation. Color of skin, was handy, because with the lack of 'i.d. cards', skin color served as a perfect 'identification' of a sort. If the color of skin was close to the same as the contending nation attempting to conquer, then once the conquering was a past tense issue, then language or other items, peculiar to the conquered nation, became the identification at issue.

Roman civil authorities were not a dumb butts. They knew that if they did not find a way to bring the people together in some fashion that was acceptable to the whole, then the battles and struggles of the past were all in vain. So they conferred with one another in this fashion, what is the common denominator amongst all people of the world. They all have some form of belief system, whereby the people of a particular nation are drawn together in unity of spirit and of mind. Using subtle persuasion from that point forward, a unique system of battle was formulated wherein, over the span of a short few years, or even a couple of centuries, the continued application of this plan would eventually bring all the people of the world under a one world government controlled by the heads of the sly, and stealthy Roman Empire. That same battle is still being fought today, and the legalistic leaders of the world all work together to sew up the loose ends that will finally put everyone into one crocker sack to once and for all be placed in the sea of slavery. So what is that common denominator? What has been the announced basis of most wars that have been recorded in history? RELIGION. Regardless of 'race'(nationality), each have had their own form of religious belief, and any encroachment of those belief systems would result in a 'holy war'.

What we are experiencing today, is just a continued variation of the same war that was engaged centuries ago and will continue until the final episode takes place. Today, it is recognized as (at least by a few) "Legalism" vs "all other religious" beliefs.

The tool utilized as the primary weapon of "mass" destruction is deception through 'legal' engagement. Do you really believe that WMD's would be found in Iraq? Not until a forced democratic society was shoved down the throats of a sovereign nation/race of people.

Just my suggestion, that everyone reading this, turn their attention to what race/nation they truly desire to be a member of.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
Gun Control Dueling, Racism, Elitism.

The whole idea of 'Miscegenation' or laws against "mixed marriages" is said to have a basis in the Bible. OK so Abraham didnt want his son marrying a non-believer makes sense. But genetic distinctions appear to be primarily a USA-ian invention.

Elitists who had pale-skinned servants and brown-skinned servants apparently didnt like the idea of uprisings. So they created a system to divide them using 'race mixing laws'. [How is it that simply lack hormones to produce melanin which is a among other things protective to the body make an entire 'race' or 'genetic stock'?] The 'miscegenation' [how does homo sapiens mixing with homo sapiens amount 'race mixing?] laws eventually greated division between pale-skinned servants who began to shun marital or familial relations with dark-skinned ones when the dark-skinned ones were being expected to be slaves for life and in an hereditary manner. Eventually the illegal and unlawful menstealing and the bigotry gave way to justification for lifetime enslavement of so-called called "Negroes". This created a division. Consider where there were far more dark-skinned servants the elitists served to greatly reduce the likely number of servants who would be involved in any uprising and also at the same time found a way to remove any sense of unity or comraderie among servants or those they deemd to be of a 'lower class (race)'.

Along comes gun control laws. You have the united states indorsing unlawful manstealing, contravening their own own laws ... on the road to self-destruction. Perhaps the easy money made them forget about the law of nations or God's laws or ..something along those lines. But so they arent wanting those slaves to have guns because its harder to opress them. Oh and then you have free men called "Negroes" [just being called "Negro" doesnt make you a "Negro"] and you have folks additcted to money and power centered around manstealing oh hmm back to the same issue as above. How do divide them. It was easier to divide the pale-skinned ones from the dark-skinned ones by appearance. So along come the Gun Control Laws. Now ...Gun Control "laws" [carefully or sometimes deceptively worded] had a lot to do with dueling in the South among pale-skinned folks. But it perhaps all was lumped together.

Free dark-skinned men had the right [a right that existed before Colony of Lousiana or the United States were even a thought] to carry weapons for their own defense. But perhaps the worry of slave uprisings being aided by free dark-skinned men and the love and drool over sweet easy money from slavery and manstealing and kidnapping encouraged greedy [CENSORED] in state legislatures to bend the rules and create "laws" to maintain the sweet lucractive positions of power and control and fiscal pocket-lining.

Oh even then the media participated in the confusion. The banks profited. Sound familiar?

Gun Control Laws - passed to reduce the number of honour killings or maimings among southern pale-skinned folk. Also to prevent freed slaves or slaves from owning or carrying guns.

[NOTE: The connection with banking is in the debtor being in some sense a 'negro'.]

Yeah make you think it was about something genetic so that your grammie and grampie would go along with it and go yee har and lynch some "Negroes" and chew cud and drink gin but really they were getting them to make the grav--er...bed international bankers want you to lay in.

There you have the history of U.S. Gun Control laws in a nutshell.

So roll the clock ahead to 2008, same or different motives? Oh the media is spreading fear of brown-skinned folk having WMDs [Iraq, Korea]--see its probably a little tough for them exterminate or enslave folks who have nuclear weapons but yeah get you to go along with it and you're probably next. Gun confiscations in Australia. PSYOPS induced frenzy about gun control in the USA. Hmm. Is it about "world peace" or someone wants a world-size piece?

When they went for the dark skinned folk's guns Jim Crow said nothing. Then they went for the Irishman's or the Italians and Jim Crow just looked on. Then they came for Jim Crow's and no one was around to help Jim Crow.

An old secular quote comes to mind:

The more things change the more things stay the same....

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.

Today, the forces that push for gun control seem to be heavily (though not exclusively) allied with political factions that are committed to dramatic increases in taxation on the middle class. While it would be hyperbole to compare higher taxes on the middle class to the suffering and deprivation of sharecropping or slavery, the analogy of disarming those whom you wish to economically disadvantage, has a certain worrisome validity to it.

Without Prejudice.

December of 1835[2], A South Carolina Governor named George McDuffie in an official message asserted that slavery was the very cornerstone of "our republican edifice"[1], adding that the laboring population of ANY COUNTRY, 'bleached or unbleached', was a dangerous element in the body politic, and predicted that within twenty-five years the laoboring people of the North would be virtually reduced to slavery." [1 & 2]

1 - The Vindication of Liberty pp. 71
2 - Slavery and Anti-Slavery pp. 415

Approximately twenty-six years later, January 1861 South Carolina forces shot at the U.S. Ship called STAR OF THE WEST. April 1861, South Carlolinians shot at Ft. Sumter. The Civil War broke out. What did GEORGE MCDUFFIE know back in 1835?

The Fugitive Slave Act was also being applied to pale-skinned women. The U.S. pro-slavery camp were not only kidnapping Indians/Moors and calling them African slaves they were kidnapping and selling even Irish, German chidren and selling them into slavery.

Even back in the 1800s elitist pro-slavery types were stealing even Irish children and...well...

Rev. George Bourne, of Virginia, Presbyterian minister, who wrote against slavery there as early as 1816, gives an account of a boy who was stolen from his parents at seven years of age, immersed in a tan-vat to change his complexion, tattooed and sold, and, after a captivity of fourteen years, succeeded in escaping. The tanning process is not necessary now, as a fair skin is no presumption against slavery. There is reason to think that the grandmother of poor Emily Russell was a white child, stolen by kidnappers. That kidnappers may steal and sell white children at the South now, is evident from these advertisements.

So do you think the new U.S. camp is trying to push for requiring ID and the like to travel on planes? Just maybe its for DEBTOR/SLAVE TRACKING under the Fugitive Slave Act.

[fulltitle]

Without Prejudice.
This might provide even more insight into what is going on today:

The Establishment has created the misnomer of "indentured servitude" to explain away and minimize the fact of White slavery. But bound Whites in early America called themselves slaves. Nine-tenths of the White slavery in America was conducted without indentures of any kind but according to the so-called "custom of the country," as it was known, which was lifetime slavery administered by the White slave merchants themselves.

In George Sandys laws for Virginia, Whites were enslaved "forever." The service of Whites bound to Berkeley's Hundred was deemed "perpetual." These accounts have been policed out of the much touted "standard reference works" such as Abbott Emerson Smith's laughable whitewash, Colonists in Bondage.

I challenge any researcher to study 17th century colonial America, sifting the documents, the jargon and the statutes on both sides of the Atlantic and one will discover that White slavery was a far more extensive operation than Black enslavement. It is when we come to the 18th century that one begins to encounter more "servitude" on the basis of a contract of indenture. But even in that period there was kidnapping of Anglo-Saxons into slavery as well as convict slavery.

In 1855, Frederic Law Olmsted, the landscape architect who designed New York's Central Park, was in Alabama on a pleasure trip and saw bales of cotton being thrown from a considerable height into a cargo ship's hold. The men tossing the bales somewhat recklessly into the hold were Negroes, the men in the hold were Irish.

Olmsted inquired about this to a shipworker. "Oh," said the worker, "the niggers are worth too much to be risked here; if the Paddies are knocked overboard or get their backs broke, nobody loses anything."

By making the divide based on appearance for over 100 years they may have served to distract significantly from the truth of an intent to enslave without bias.

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/office...tml#post140017

Originally posted by Jerry Pits - Hopefully, all of us in this 'modern' society, realize that 'slavery' is not isolated along the barriers of skin color. Even though in the past, skin color and failure of the particular people to show cultural or industrial advancement, were the primary reasons that slavery was 'justified', slavery still exists today, but in more subtle forms and under seemingly harmless disguise.

[netwrkranger]

I missed you guys =). I just returned from a symposium in Missouri.

Jerry Pitts wrote:
Members of more advanced societies, would prowl the world scape, to find these differing people that were not a threat physically, economically, or socially, and would set about to 'conquer' these nations for the sole purpose of making those people the servants of the masters who sent the troops looking for unsuspecting souls. This process amounted to the ability of the more advanced country to acquire the energy involved in labor with little of no cost to the conquering nation. Color of skin, was handy, because with the lack of 'i.d. cards', skin color served as a perfect 'identification' of a sort. If the color of skin was close to the same as the contending nation attempting to conquer, then once the conquering was a past tense issue, then language or other items, peculiar to the conquered nation, became the identification at issue.

Most excellent point! I had the good fortune of buying the book "The Spirit of Laws" by Montesquieu for my trip. I recommend everyone buy and read the classics that inspired the Founding Fathers and famous jurists throughout time. From reading a quarter of the book, the primary master-slave relationship of most civilizations were the privileged class v. the exploited class. In Greece, it was unlawful for the elite class and citizens to engage in work or commerce, that task falling to the lower classes. The appropriation of the lower classes' work, time, energy, and efforts by the elites amounting to theft, IMHO.

Jerry Pitts wrote:
Roman civil authorities were not a dumb butts. They knew that if they did not find a way to bring the people together in some fashion that was acceptable to the whole, then the battles and struggles of the past were all in vain. So they conferred with one another in this fashion, what is the common denominator amongst all people of the world. They all have some form of belief system, whereby the people of a particular nation are drawn together in unity of spirit and of mind. Using subtle persuasion from that point forward, a unique system of battle was formulated wherein, over the span of a short few years, or even a couple of centuries, the continued application of this plan would eventually bring all the people of the world under a one world government controlled by the heads of the sly, and stealthy Roman Empire. That same battle is still being fought today, and the legalistic leaders of the world all work together to sew up the loose ends that will finally put everyone into one crocker sack to once and for all be placed in the sea of slavery. So what is that common denominator? What has been the announced basis of most wars that have been recorded in history? RELIGION. Regardless of 'race'(nationality), each have had their own form of religious belief, and any encroachment of those belief systems would result in a 'holy war'.

This reminds me of George Gordon's show concerning the Levitical Priesthood of Kentucky (the adversarial system aka "justice" system). The law that you follow is the god that you worship.

I'm saddened I haven't found anything definitive on birth certificates and slavery. So, I may have to throw that theory out the window, however I haven't perused Am. Jur., Corpus Juris Secondum, or the works of Blackstone and Coke. I'll check it out sometime soon and report back.

If you will excuse me, I have some Naruto to torrent =).

Happy to be home =D!!!!!
- netwrkranger

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

Most excellent point! I had the good fortune of buying the book "The Spirit of Laws" by Montesquieu for my trip. I recommend everyone buy and read the classics that inspired the Founding Fathers and famous jurists throughout time. From reading a quarter of the book, the primary master-slave relationship of most civilizations were the privileged class v. the exploited class. In Greece, it was unlawful for the elite class and citizens to engage in work or commerce, that task falling to the lower classes. The appropriation of the lower classes' work, time, energy, and efforts by the elites amounting to theft, IMHO.

Good someone doing something other than studying internet yarns.

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

This reminds me of George Gordon's show concerning the Levitical Priesthood of Kentucky (the adversarial system aka "justice" system). The law that you follow is the god that you worship.

There was an old book on political science from the 1800s I believe that indicated that a State is like a religion or 'church" itself.

Originally Posted by netwrkranger

I'm saddened I haven't found anything definitive on birth certificates and slavery.

Thousands of slaves were accepted as collateral for loans by two banks that later became part of JP Morgan Chase.[more]

In Sudan not that long ago and it might even be so today, the fundamental unit of currency was 'the slave' which equaled about 20 francs. Anglo-Saxons [saxon relating to the word 'sax' meaning sword or knife not to 'Issac's sons'] were also said to have used slaves as a medium of exchange or money.

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Members of more advanced societies, would prowl the world scape, to find these differing people that were not a threat physically, economically, or socially, and would set about to 'conquer' these nations for the sole purpose of making those people the servants of the masters who sent the troops looking for unsuspecting souls.

Its questionable as if they were really more advanced. Were they just carnal warmongers given advanced weaponry or were they advanced spiritually and mentally as well? The notion of manstealing or reducing men to chattel being unlawful comes to mind for some reason. See also: just war or jus ad bellum.

This touches on the 'right of rescue':

"Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

A link to classic works regarding 'just war'. Modern day Vikings or the like might not like such notions.

[netwrkranger]

This is interesting....

In France under the Ancien Regime, the registration of births, marriages, and deaths was the domain of the clergy.

The Clergy was known as the 'First Estate' of this system.

The Ancien Regime retained many aspects of the feudal system and was basically an aristocratic system/philosophy.