Make a Difference;
We don't need Change.
Bill Nees in 2012!
U.S. Government for Kids, learning tools for K-12 students, parents, and teachers. These resources teach how our government works. Teach your Children Well, Youth are Our Leaders of Tomorrow!
What the current Gun Grabbers are up to. Is it Gun Control; or just Control they want?
God Bless the Veterans that have fought and given so dearly for this Nation.
Women taking part in the politics of this Nation.
American Citizens Book Store, Biographies, History, Inspirational, Activism, Memorabilia, Childrens K-12 for the American Citizens' Education.
All American Citizens Movie Theater, Inspirational Movies for the American Citizen.
Front Page Edition
Tell The Nation
Find It Here
Study our ForeFather's Freedom Documents in depth. Know and understand your rights in detail.
The thirteen States set forth a decree to set them free from the taxation and burdens of British Government.
Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states. Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777 In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781.
Both the Federalist (85 documents) & Anti-Federalist (85 documents) Papers. A study in the debate of the People in the days of the drafting of our Constitution. No serious student of the Constitution can be without both sides of the story. The 170 documents of the Federalist & AntiFederalist Papers are a must read.
Quite possibly one of the greatest documents ever written to govern a Nation.
The Constitution of the United States, an In Depth Study of Its Sources and Its Application.
The 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights tells the government what they must never do!
Our Flag of the United States, It's History and Meaning.
Highlights of Our American Heritage. Got 30 minutes? Find out who you really are as an American Citizen!
Study Resources for the events of Early American & World History.
These Materials are a Must Read! This section is like a Patriot Citizens' Handbook. Some articles are submitted by visitors to our site. Read what American Citizens really think today.
Have a Story?
If you have an issue not being covered by the Media or just an interesting incident to tell about try submitting it here. Submit your Article or Story here. They will then be reviewed by our administrators for posting on this website.
Contact RightsOfThePeople !
You can do a lot to help our cause with just a small amount effort!
Even with a busy schedule you can pass the word and help educate many more Americans. Please do your part.
These Documents set forth what every Responsible Citizen must teach their Children!. More
Why are there so many converts who have changed their minds on gun control?
My Transformation From Anti-Gun Feminist To Armed Feminist
Most people who support the
Second Amendment have probably wondered at one time or another how to change the thinking of anti-gunners. Since I was once a staunch gun-control proponent, including being a member of
Handgun Control Incorporated (HCI) in the 1970's, but am today a fervent and virtually no-compromise Second Amendment supporter, perhaps the story of my mental shift will be of interest . . .
Immigration To Freedom
As an immigrant from a country whose citizens do not possess guns, I was amazed, even appalled, that private citizens could own guns. I grew up believing that only the police and military had a
right to carry guns because of the nature of their work. I lived through four military takeovers of an elected government. Each time, many of us lived in fear, powerless to do anything about military excesses. I personally witnessed people bludgeoned with the ends of bayonets. I read reports of innocent people killed because some policeman's pride had been injured. On one occasion, I was forced to flee the capital and live with friends because stray bullets shattered the windows of our home. We had no
right to defend ourselves. We never questioned that. He who has never known freedom does not miss it . . .
One Man's Journey From Potential Victim To Armed Hero
Grenades were exploding everywhere. Pews were shattering. Bullets were flying. People were diving under chairs and grasping for whatever cover they could. The church at St. James in Cape Town, South Africa was under attack by guerrillas armed with automatic machine guns. The worshippers that night were sitting ducks, except for one man, Charl van Wyk. "Instinctively, I knelt down behind the bench in front of me and pulled out my .38 special snub-nosed revolver," Charl says. "I always carried it with me." . . .
Look At Who Else Is Converting, Too
Dr. Gary Kleck. A criminologist at Florida State University, Kleck began his research as a firm believer in gun control. But in a speech delivered to the National Research Council, he said while he was once "a believer in the 'anti-gun' thesis," he has now moved "beyond even the skeptic position." Dr. Kleck now says the evidence "indicates that general gun availability does not measurably increase rates of homicide, suicide, robbery, assault, rape, or burglary in the U.S." . . .
Many people know first-hand the truth of the maxim: Guns Save Lives.
How to Stop A Rapist
Maria Pittaras awoke with a strange man lying on top of her. The digital clock by her bed read: "2 a.m., August 9, 2000." In a gutteral voice, the man said, "Cooperate and you won't get hurt." It came to her in a flash. She'd heard that voice before. It's not a friend, she thought, nor even an acquaintance. But she'd met the man somewhere. In the dim light, she saw that her assailant wore a mask. When the intruder pressed the blade of a knife against her throat, Pittaras began to hyperventilate . . .
Armed Citizens Criticized For Saving Lives
The gun-banners' arguments against armed self-defense are so weak as to be caricatures of lunacy. Three examples will suffice. Walmart hero rebuked by Handgun Control, Inc. After Sandra Suter, a Florida permit holder, used her handgun to stop a knife-wielding assailant at a local Walmart, Kim Mariani, Spokesperson for Handgun Control, Inc., weighed in. "God forbid something went wrong," she said. "It just escalates the situation, and a lot of times it's unnecessary." The assailant had already slashed two employees, and was rampaging about the store threatening others. Suter drew her pistol and ordered the madman to stop. Looking down the barrel of a .40-caliber semiautomatic gave him a quick burst of sanity. He quietly surrendered to the grandmother . . .
True Stories Of Armed Self-Defense
The month of January, 2001 brought numerous reminders of why many Americans own guns. But these stories were nowhere to be seen on ABC, CBS, CNN, or NBC. They weren't news to editors of the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Los Angeles Times. Overlooked by the mainstream media, these accounts show how lives are saved when law-abiding citizens own firearms . . .
Unseen Self-Defense Stories
On September 11, 2001, after two jets crashed into the Twin Towers in New York, the major television networks were faced with a crucial decision. Should they show the frightful scenes of victims jumping to their deaths from upwards of eighty stories? NBC, CNN, ABC, and CBS chose not to. Whether or not you agree with the networks, there is little doubt that their refusal to show all the news affected our attitudes about the attacks. Had those scenes been shown, American resolve to crush the terrorists might have dug even deeper. The major networks affect opinion by what they don't show as much as by what does appear on our television screens. Nothing illustrates this more clearly than the unseen side of the gun issue. For instance, when was the last time the networks interviewed someone who used a gun in self-defense? Since these cases are almost never shown in the national media, millions of viewers assume that they never happen . . .
There's a reason why you rarely hear about the "good" uses of guns.
The Media's Intentional Bias Against Guns
Dr. John Lott is an economist and former Yale University School of Law researcher best known for his book More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws. In that book, he detailed research arguing "allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes, without increasing accidental deaths." Lott -- now a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank -- said Monday that he understands why some negative stories about the use of guns get more coverage than stories about people using guns to stop crimes . . .
Media Blind To Guns Used To Stop School Killer
In Utah, according to USA Today (1/14/2002), Bernie Machen, President of the University of Utah, says he's willing to go to court, if necessary, to defend his school's campus gun ban. And he says this despite the fact that Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff's legal opinion is that such a campus gun-ban would violate the state's concealed-weapons law. President Machen does not get it. Having people on campus with guns, people who know how to use guns, will actually save lives. A recent case-in-point involves the man who shot six people -- murdering three of them -- on the campus of the Appalachian School Of Law (ASL) in Grundy, Virginia.
U.S. Press Ignores Another Armed Citizen-Hero
"Are you guys ready? Let's roll," said Todd Beamer before leading fellow passengers in a suicide charge to retake United Airlines Flight 93. The whole world knows Beamer's story. But another hero in the War on Terror has been ignored. He is 46-year-old Israeli shoe salesman William Hazan. Everyone makes mistakes. It is understandable that U.S. wire services garbled Hazan's story in their early reports, painting him more as victim than hero. But it is less understandable why U.S. news outlets failed to correct the error, once the details became clear . . .
Does News Coverage Endanger Lives?
It's an interesting question. Are there serious consequences because of the way the media handles stories where guns are involved? Dr. John Lott, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, says "yes." In the April 29, 1999 issue of the Investor's Business Daily, Dr. Lott shows how the media not only downplay the benefits of firearms, but in doing so, keep Americans ignorant as to their best form of defense. Even though guns are used far more often in self-defense than they are in crimes, Lott has found that the media simply refuse to report these facts . . .
Tragically, many people -- disarmed by law -- die needlessly.
How A Gun Could Have Saved My Parents' Lives
Texas state Rep. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp is recognized worldwide as one of the leading advocates for an individual's right to carry a concealed firearm. Several years ago, while testifying in opposition to additional gun control legislation, she related the emotional account of how she lost both of her parents to a lone gunman in 1991. At the time of the attack, Texas did not allow private citizens to carry concealed. Let me make sure that you understand. I'm not here representing the NRA. I'm not even a member, OK? Secondly, I'd like to say, that in your opening statements, you commented specifically on my testimony saying that basically it had nothing to do with this issue and I had to chuckle because then I noticed he had Mr. Brady up here who was hit, not with an assault weapon, but with a .22 caliber revolver. So, getting beyond that, I didn't grow up in a house with guns. I don't hunt. I personally abhor hunting, but I was given a gun by a friend when I was 21, to carry in my purse for self-defense. And I was taught how to use it . . .
Gun Ban Prevents Army Veteran From Saving Coworkers' Lives
It was the day after Christmas in the year 2000, and people were back to work at Edgewater Technology in Wakefield, Massachusetts. Sandy Javelle, a widower and father of four children, was visiting with fellow employees. He normally worked out of the New Hampshire office, but today he just happened to be in the Wakefield building. Unfortunately for Sandy, this was the wrong day to be visiting the Wakefield branch . . .
Shouldn't We Repeal The Gun Laws... If It'll Save A Single Child?
Jessica Lynne Carpenter is 14 years old. She knows how to shoot; her father taught her. And there were adequate firearms to deal with the crisis that arose in the Carpenter home in Merced, Calif. -- a San Joaquin Valley farming community 130 miles southeast of San Francisco -- when 27-year-old Jonathon David Bruce came calling on Wednesday morning, Aug. 23, 2000. There was just one problem. Under the new "safe storage" laws being enacted in California and elsewhere, parents can be held criminally liable unless they lock up their guns when their children are home alone... so that's just what law-abiding parents John and Tephanie Carpenter had done. Some of Jessica's siblings -- Anna, 13; Vanessa, 11; Ashley, 9; and John William, 7 -- were still in their bedrooms when Bruce broke into the farmhouse shortly after 9 a.m. Bruce, who was armed with a pitchfork -- but to whom police remain unable to attribute any motive -- had apparently cut the phone lines. 9-1-1 doesn't always work . . .
When Gun Safety Locks Kill
It has been said that if you don't study history, you are doomed to repeat it. That's why Americans should take note of a horrible tragedy that occurred one year ago this month in Merced, California. It is a tragedy that could have been prevented. On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce was high on drugs. He slipped inside a home when the parents were away and began attacking the children inside . . .
Gun Control's Hidden Costs
State legislatures across the country are debating the imposition of "childproof" locks on guns_. Unfortunately, despite the obvious feel-good appeal of these rules, they are more likely to cost lives than save them. To understand why, consider first how many accidental gun deaths occur in the U.S. In 1995 there were 1,400 such deaths. Just 200 of those involved children under 15. In comparison, 2,900 children died in motor vehicle crashes, 950 children drowned, and more than 1,000 children died from fire and burns. Hundreds more children die in bicycle accidents every year than die from all types of firearms accidents. But which is more likely to make the "Eyewitness News"? And which is more likely to inspire legislators' attempts at a quick fix? . . .
Fact Sheet: The Unintended Consequences Of Gun Control
Bonnie Elmasri -- She inquired about getting a gun to protect herself from a husband who had repeatedly threatened to kill her. She was told there was a 48 hour waiting period to buy a handgun. But unfortunately, Bonnie was never able to pick up a gun. She and her two sons were killed the next day by an abusive husband of whom the police were well aware. Marine Cpl. Rayna Ross -- She bought a gun (in a non-waiting period state) and used it to kill an attacker in self-defense two days later. Had a 5-day waiting period been in effect, Ms. Ross would have been defenseless against the man who was stalking her . . .
The truth is, police rarely witness a crime in progress . . . they investigate afterwards.
How Long Does it Take to Die?
One of the arguments the gun-banners use is that victims of crime should call police and let the authorities handle the situation. As James Brady said, "For defense of the home -- that's why we have police departments." An examination of two cases, however, would seem to put the lie to that statement. On July 16, 2000, a woman at Greenwood Village Apartments in Denver, Colorado did just what Brady recommended. At 8:40 p.m., she dialed 911. Although she was unable to speak when dispatchers answered, they could hear the sounds of a struggle. Because the apartment's address didn't show up in the 911 system, it took eight minutes for police to find the location of the call. When they arrived, police found a man with a bloody knife standing over a dead woman. In another room, a three-year-old child was screaming. The murderer, a rejected lover, had attacked and killed his former girlfriend sometime during the eight minutes it took police to arrive. Contrast that with the following case . . .
Rethinking Gun Control
Who would ever have thought that a British paper would extol the virtues of private citizens bearing arms? That is what readers of the London Daily Telegraph must have been asking themselves last month when they read Simon Heffer's article entitled, "If the state fails us, we must defend ourselves." It turns out, the state has been failing British citizens in a big way. Heffer documents several gruesome murders, the most recent involving a gang of young thugs who repeatedly stabbed an unarmed, 82 year-old lady to death. Crime has gotten so bad, Heffer says, that Brits like himself are beginning to reexamine their long-held assumptions about the government's role in controlling crime. Heffer used to believe there was an implicit contract between law-abiding citizens and the state. The people surrender certain freedoms to the government, and officials would in turn use their power to control crime. He says it is clear to all, however, that "the state has broken that contract." . . .
The Police: No Duty To Protect Individuals
The Court's Decision: Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 12(b)(6). However, in a split decision a three-judge division of this court determined that appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. The division unanimously concluded that appellant Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of her complaint. The court en banc, on petitions for rehearing, vacated the panel's decision. After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal . . .
The Facts Speak Loud And Clear
The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. D.C. the court stated "courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community." Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only about 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities. Smith was asked why so many citizens in Dade County were buying guns and he said, "They damn well better, they've got to protect themselves." The Department of Justice found that in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence which were not responded to by police within 1 hour. The numbers clearly show that the police cannot protect every individual. In 1996, there were about 150,000 police officers on duty at any one time to protect a population of more than 260 million Americans -- or more than 1,700 citizens per officer . . .
By definition, criminals do not obey the law . . .
Washington, D.C.: A Case Study In The Failure Of Gun Control
Washington DC's unconstitutional gun ban laws have been in effect for more than 25 years. But, I am not aware of any credible study which shows these law have worked -- by which I mean that they have reduced crimes by individuals using guns. And the gun-grabbers and their allies are unable to cite any such study. One of the earliest backers of the DC gun ban laws was Charles Orasin. In late 1978, when the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals upheld the District's gun ban laws, Orasin, at the time a spokesman for the National Council To Control Handguns, said: "This is a victory for all the residents of the District." When called at his Virginia home recently and asked if he knew of any studies which shows that the DC gun ban laws have actually reduced crimes committed by people with guns, Orasin said: "I am not interested in discussing this subject." He hangs up the phone. Of course, that he would chose to live in the safety of Virginia which bristles with guns is perhaps all the discussion that is needed . . .
No matter how many times they say it, it's still not true.
Myth #1: A Gun In The Home Means You Are Three Times More Likely To Be Killed = FALSE
Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns.1 That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker . . .
Myth #2: Children Gun Deaths Are At Epidemic Proportions = FALSE
Fact: Twice as many children are killed playing football in school than are murdered by guns. That's right. Despite what media coverage might seem to indicate, there are more deaths related to high school football than guns. In a recent three year period, twice as many football players died from hits to the head, heat stroke, etc. (45), as compared with students who were murdered by firearms (22) during that same time period . . .
Myth #3: Gun Control Has Reduced The Crime Rates In Other Countries = FALSE
Fact: The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates. Fact: Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions. Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%." Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." . . .
Don't let emotions stand in the way of truth.
The Bible & Guns
The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view? Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing. Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say. The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon. God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons . . .
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives
Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict. Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse. Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig . . .
Fact Sheet: The Real Story On Kids' Deaths
Source: Figures are for 2000. National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition, at 10-11, 129. The "Ingestion of food, object" category is underreported in the first column since the NSC did not include death rates for "5 to 14 Years." . . .
A Majority Of Americans Favor
The Right To Keep And Bear Arms
Several polls show that Americans are pro-gun. While affirming that the potential for bias exists in any given poll, there are, nevertheless, several scientific polls indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is revered -- and gun control disdained -- by a majority of Americans today: In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own guns. Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns." A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" to stop a school massacre . . .
A Citizenship organization based on our great American Heritage and dedicated to educating
American Citizens of their historic Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights.