There’s an old story about a cowpoke who was walking alongside his horse one day when he noticed a movement out of the corner of his eye. He turned to see a rattlesnake coiled to strike. Thinking fast, the cowboy jumped out of the way just as the snake struck, barely missing him.
      Latter, after telling his friends about the incident, one of them said, "You barely missed having one serious accident."
      The cowpoke thought about it a moment and drawled, "That wouldn’t have been an accident, that critter aimed to bite me."
      That’s the same sort of thing we’re seeing now. The school shootings and various criminal assaults that are causing so much national grief aren’t accidents. They’re being done by people intent on killing and maiming, wanting to harm those around them in serious ways.
      The political actions that have brought this situation are no accident, either. It’s no accident that these murderers are able to do their work almost unchecked.
      The most recent shooting in LA (on August 10, 1999) is the perfect example of how our governmental gas bags have betrayed us. They’ve made it impossible for school officials to carry a gun for self defense, turning our schools into shooting zones for the lawless cowards looking for a place to do damage with little chance of running into any resistance. We should all take a moment to say thank you to the National Educators Association and gun grabbing politicians for letting these cowards kill our children.
      Am I being too hard on leaders who want to disarm citizens? I don’t think so. Because most gun grabbers aren’t stupid. They’ve seen how concealed carry laws reduce violent crime. They know that the 20th Century’s genocides were all proceeded by stringent gun control laws. They know all the pro-gun arguments you could probably make are most likely correct.
      Why, then, does the anti-gun crowd continue to call for more restrictions on guns?
      The first hint at the awful truth comes when you realize that for the most part, those intent on taking away our guns are also pro-abortion. How do these two views fit together and what do they mean?
      At first they seem illogical. Wouldn’t you think that someone who was pro-abortion — especially someone who was pro-abortion to the point that making partial-birth abortion legal — would also be pro-gun. After all, if guns really kill people the way the anti-gun crowd claims, and if we really wanted to reduce the excess population, surely we would then want to dispense guns left and right instead of taking them away from people.
      Or would we?
      Studies show that guns in the hands of honest people reduce crime. And they do so for the most part without a shot being fired. Guns most often save lives by preventing the violent confrontation that takes place when the criminal is in charge, rather than a gun-welding citizen. Guns in honest people’s hands aren’t often used, but do stop a criminal in his efforts and force him to flee. Criminals with guns may kill, but honest citizens with guns seldom do. And honest citizens with guns often stop criminals before they can kill.
      Net result: Citizens with guns prevent deaths of innocent people. Citizens without guns result in more deaths of innocent people.
      If your intent is to reduce the population, then it makes perfect sense to be both pro-abortion and anti-gun.
      But are there people who really want to get you or your children killed by violent murderers in order to reduce the population? What would be gained in doing so?
      The motivation for getting the population of Earth from growing is hard for moral men and women to fathom. But if you throw away morality the benefits of reducing the population become chillingly logical. In the words of conservative commentator Lee Bellinger (writing in "Revealed: Why the Left Push So Hard for Population Control," The American Sentinel, No. 613, April 1998): ;

Growing populations create pressure for competitive economies…. Leftists in general, and environmentalists in particular, favor strong policies to reduce population growth (hence their anti-family agenda, including subsidized abortion, partial birth abortion and advocacy of teenagers being able to terminate pregnancies without parental consent or knowledge)….       Consider: Growing populations cannot be fed by socialist economies. As the leaders of the now-defunct Soviet Union learned, unrestricted population growth creates unwelcome pressure for social and economic innovation. Unfortunately for socialists, the only proven system capable of generating advances in science and technology sufficient to accommodate global populations is free-enterprise... Were global population to decline, as leftists want, the sharing-in-scarcity credo of environmental socialists would become far more manageable (at least in their view)….       Take North Korea — its citizens starve from a "famine," when just a few miles South of the 38th Parallel the South Koreans are well nourished. Cuba and the remaining outposts of socialism in Africa have the same dilemma as North Korea. Their state-run businesses are incapable of meeting basic social needs.       Totalitarian dictators cannot allow people the freedom necessary to feed themselves. These rulers correctly see limiting population as their best defense against social change — a "sharing in scarcity" regime prescribed by so many environmentalists…. Population control: The left's counterpoint to free-enterprise. Internationalists know that population growth forces innovation, and that innovation is best achieved through the hated free-enterprise system. This is the hidden reason why leftists support policies that are anti-family and pro-abortion — socialism simply cannot sustain a growing work force.

      Reducing the population can keep the standards of living high for survivors while keeping the government in control and reducing the independence of the population. This also explains why the more liberal a politician is, the more interested they tend to be in taking away your guns and making sure women have the "right to have an abortion." To those wanting to cut down on the population, it makes perfect sense to take guns away from honest people and make sure criminals have guns and can operate freely without fear of running into an armed citizen.
      Think I’m being a little extreme here? Do you think that surely those anti-gun, pro-abortionists aren’t quite that blood thirsty?
      Well, let’s take a look at the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, did and said about her goals. While the mainstream media and supporters of abortion rights have done their best to hide it, in fact Sanger took Darwinian logic to its extreme, just as the Nazis did in Germany. Not surprisingly, during the 1930s Sanger openly supported the Nazi’s goal of achieving eugenics to create what was supposed to be a "super race." In truth, Planned Parenthood’s 1985 "Annual Report" proclaimed members were, "Proud of our past, and planning for our future." (reported by George Grant, "Killer Angel," Reformer Press, p. 105.)
      Among Sanger’s notable goals and sayings:

•      She wrote that society needed to go about the task of the "extermination of ‘human weeds’ ...the ‘cessation of charity,’ ... the segregation of ‘morons, misfits, and the maladjusted,’ and ... the sterilization of ‘genetically inferior races.’" ("Killer Angels" page 65)
  
•       In "The Birth Control Review" magazine Sanger threw her support behind the "infanticide program" promoted by the Nazis during the 1930s. (Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, New York: Bretano’s, pp 101, 108, 123.)
  
•       Sanger publicly lauded Hitler’s theory of Aryan white supremacy. (Pivot of Civilization)
  
•       Sanger commissioned Ernst Rudin, a member of the Nazi Party who would later become a the director of the German Medical Experimentation Programs; he served Sanger’s advisor until the hostilities leading to W.W.II broke out. (Pivot of Civilization)
  
•       Sanger opened one of her early birth control clinics in the Brownsville section of New York; the reason apparently was because this area was populated by newly immigrated Slavs, Latins, Italians, and Jews — groups she considered inferior to other races. (Linda Gordon, Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, New York: Penguin Press, p204.)
  
•       In 1939, Margaret Sanger organized a "Negro project" to eliminate what she called an "inferior race." She claimed, "The masses of Negroes ...particularly in the South, still breed carelessly and disastrously, with the result that the increase among Negroes, even more than among whites, is from that portion of the population least intelligent and fit." (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, p. 332.)
  
•       Sanger wrote that she intended to hire three or four Afro-American ministers "to travel to various black enclaves to propagandize for birth control…. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the Minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." (Killer Angel, p. 74.)
  
•       Sanger also wrote that religious groups should be singled out for destruction because they were "dysgenic races" which included "Fundamentalists and Catholics" as well as "blacks, Hispanics, (and) American Indians." (Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right, pp. 229-334)
  
•       Sanger wrote, "Birth control appeals to the advanced radical because it is calculated to undermine the authority of the Christian churches. I look forward to seeing humanity free someday of the tyranny of Christianity no less than Capitalism." (Killer Angel, p. 104.)