Watchman Willie Martin Archive



��������������� WHILE THE BAND PLAYED THE SIREN'S SONG AMERICANS LOST

��������������� THEIR COUNTRY WHILE THEY SING -- IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE

���� It was clear that all the government had to do was wait. The multitudes of demon-

strators in the immense government square had shrunk to a few thousand, and more were

drifting away every day. But the hardliners {rulers} were determined that the demon-

strators shouldn't escape unscathed; such protests could lead to open rebellion and

violent revolution {so they said - to justify their actions} -- like the one {the

Civil Ware} that had created the present government.

���� With the heads of government divided and wavering, the Army {secretly acting

under the orders of the President} decided {we are told} to act. Obeying the orders of

the president, the commanding general of the army lined up his forces facing the

demonstrators and ordered them to disperse. The demonstrators didn't think the Army

would attack.

���� It did. Tanks rolled into and across the demonstrators' ramshackle huts. marching

soldiers with fixed bayonets and assault rifles and tear gas followed the tanks,

clubbing, bayoneting and shooting those assembled. The Army later said the demon-

strators rioted; the generals claimed armed soldiers were attacked. {But the results

were that} Many of the demonstrators were wounded; the number who died will never be

known -- the government claimed it was only one.

���� The commanding general declared that the demonstrators were driven by "the

essence of revolution," and that it was "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that the

demonstrators had been about to seize control of the government.

��������� The commander was Douglas MacArthur.

��������� THE PLACE WAS WASHINGTON, D.C., not Beijing or some other foreign country.

��������� The date was 1932, not 1989.

��������� The "assault rifles" were bolt-action Springfield Model 1903s, not AK-47s.

���� The peaceful demonstrators weren't students in Tiananmen Square demanding the

equivalent of our First Amendment rights of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and

the right to petition the government for grievances.

���� The demonstrators on the Washington Mall and nearby Anacostia ALREADY HAD THOSE

RIGHTS; their problem was that THEY� USED THEM. THEY WERE AMERICANS -- WORLD WAR I

VETERANS, THROWN OUT OF WORK BY THE GREAT DEPRESSION {Caused by the Federal Reserve},

lobbying for government to immediately pay their promised Veteran's Bonus.

���� No, the attack on the Bonus Marchers, bad as it was, wasn't the brutal mass

murder unleashed upon the students in Beijing. The American people wouldn't have

tolerated it -- and had the means to stop it. What happened at Tiananmen Square was

the kind of ruthless tyranny that has occurred in other lands through out history, and

is precisely what the Founding Fathers feared might be done by the powerful central

government they were creating under the United States Constitution.

���� That's why the people refused to ratify that Constitution until it was amended to

guarantee certain individual freedoms known today as the Bill of Rights. That's why

the First Amendment guarantees of {free} speech {Which today applies as long as the

government approves of what is being said or written}, assembly {As long as it serves

the purposes of the one-worlders} and petitioning the government {as long as it is

Jews demanding money so they can continue murdering young children in the Mid-east}

were backed up by the Second Amendment guarantee that the right of the people to keep

and bear arms was not to be infringed. And when, during debate on the amendment, some

senators attempted to limit the right to apply only to "the common defense" -- which

is what some people today say it is -- the Senate rejected it. That piece of "legis-

lative history" clearly shows that the Second Amendment was intended to be an

individual right -- not merely a "collective right" of states to have militia.

���� Most of the world's constitutions, even the Constitution of Soviet Russia, con-

tain beautiful words promising freedoms that only U.S. citizens enjoy. The reason, as

unintentionally acknowledged by the anti-gun {anti-Christ, anti-American}

crowd, is that only in the United States {have} do individual citizens have such

relatively free and unfettered access to firearms. But instead of glorying in that

unique freedom, and the freedoms it guarantees, SOME {our enemies} IN THE ESTABLISH-

MENT ARE ATTEMPTING TO ELIMINATE IT -- with too much success.

���� This nation existed for 150 years without any federal gun laws. The National

Firearms Act, attempting to tax out of existence machine guns and short-barrelled

shotguns {the bill originally included handguns} was enacted in 1934. Don't kid

yourself that the reason was Thompson-toting hoodlums like Pretty Boy Floyd, John

Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde. The reason was the fear put into the Establishment by

those Bonus marchers, and the March 7, 1932 march on the Ford plant in Dearborn,

Michigan, where police killed four and wounded 50.

���� The government's fear was summed up by one of the co-sponsors of a bill to ban

private possession of "military weapons whose only purpose is to kill people." During

the hearings he blurted it out: "What scares me is the thought of those veterans going

against police; Vietnam veterans know how to use those guns." {What's new about that?

All military personnel know how to use guns!}.

���� The legislator was testifying in Maryland hearings earlier this year {1989} on a

California-type bill banning the possession of AK-47 rifles and other military-style

semi-automatics. I was there; I heard him say it. {The only reason a government would

fear its citizens owning weapons is because that government has turned outlaw -- for

only outlaws fear honest men with weapons!}.

���� New Jersey State Police Col. Clinton Pagano, a determined advocate for prohibi-

tive gun laws, has said many times that "GUN CONTROL IS PEOPLE CONTROL." He is exactly

correct. That objective never changes, only the excuses used to promote it.

���� The first major gun control push in this country wasn't "to control crime," it

was to control freed slaves. The first Supreme Court decision on the Second Amendment,

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), so proudly cited by anti-gun "liberals," held that the

"right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by the Congress,

that the Second Amendment did not prohibit the Ku Klux Klan from conspiring with local

officials to prevent freed slaves from possessing guns and attending political meet-

ings.

���� The next major wave of "gun control" was supposedly to deny guns to "anarchists"

-- which was a code name for immigrants -- during the waves of immigration around the

turn of the century. For the first time the criminal element began actively using and

promoting "gun control" AS A MEANS OF DISARMING POTENTIAL VICTIMS.

���� Immigrant shopkeepers, accustomed to being bullied by thugs, corrupt police and

government in Europe, had willingly paid "protection money"



Reference Materials