Like most Americans, you and I depend on the press and television media to inform and educate us on current events. For many of us, if we don't hear it on the 6 o'clock news, we're either not aware that it happened or we are incline to disbelieve others who tell us about it. This is especially true when such an event counters our long-standing constitutional laws and social mores. Unless the media informs us, we're not likely to listen.

For just a moment, expand your mind and ask yourself this one, simple question: If I wanted to change the way folks think across this country, across the world, what would the best way be to do it? (You would want this transition to take place over as short a time period as possible.)

Well, I asked myself that same question and here is what I came up with:

Okay, with the above plan in mind, let me ask you this: Where did all the patriotic content in our media go? I don't mean these lame commercials that show the red, white, and blue, with patriotic music, but all they offer is a for-sale message. I mean the honest-to-goodness patriotic content that promotes the "Give me liberty or give me death" mentality, which this country was founded upon?

For example, where did the commercials and other programming go that promotes the second amendment and the right of all Americans to own, carry, and transport firearms? From where this author sits, this kind of content has almost totally disappeared from the major three networks.

Where's the balance that we once had in television content? Are we now witnessing the ninth (IX) level of the plan I just outlined above?

For those who are old enough to recall, can you still remember commercials that promoted the pleasure of hunting and shooting on the gun range? Many times these commercials simply told about gun education programs for adults and children.

Why have these commercials disappeared from the main three networks? Surely the NRA (National Rifle Association) and GOA (Gun Owners of America) would be advertising their pro-gun stance at this time, especially in light of the bad press they and the Second Amendment seem to be getting these days.

Case In Point

To answer that question, let me tell you what happened to the NRA in 1993, when they submitted a pay-for commercial that presented a close look at how many politicians decide on the issues they promote in their campaigns. It aptly illustrated how many choose emotion-packed issues using fear tactics to sell themselves and their agenda rather than real issues of concern using facts and truth as the vehicle. Well, all three major networks in Washington, D.C. refused to aire it!

Is that surprising to you considering that all trails seem to lead back to one point--the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), especially since the individuals at the head of these networks are listed as members of this organization?

In the NRA commercial a typical politician was shown with his campaign team in a brainstorming session. They were discussing the issue of gun violence and how the folks back home want something done about it. The team suggested that their man promise to enforce the current 20,000+ gun laws already on the books and that he promise to use stiffer penalties to curb the use of firearms.

Such a plan would certainly make sense, since it's the man who pulls the trigger and not the gun itself. Getting hardened, seasoned criminals off the street, and keeping them off, would seem to make more sense than limiting or taking away the right of the law-abiding, honest man and woman to own and carry one. After all, long after the honest person is prevented from having one, the criminal will continue to carry a gun. (By nature, criminals do not obey the law--that is why they are called CRIMINALS.)

Well, in response to his team's suggestions, this particular politician, like so many others, pointed out that there are not enough prisons and that suggesting the expenditure of more money to build new ones would not be popular with the voters.

In the next scene a criminal, watching the politician outline his plan to curb gun violence on television, was seen laughing and laughing when he said "my gun control program will curb crime by preventing criminals from getting and using guns." The commercial ended with laughter.

Why do you suppose the main three networks refused to air this NRA commercial? It couldn't be due to the pro-gun stance itself, for these same networks freely and graphically promote gun ownership and gun use through GUN VIOLENCE each and every day on our televisions, and at unprecedented levels! Do you see the contradiction here? They say one thing but do another? What's the game?

Like the politician in the commercial that was prevented from airing, society is more willling to criminalize honest folks instead of addressing the real problem, which is criminal behavior. Guns have been readily accessible since the beginning of the new world. Why have we not hereto seen the high levels of gun violence we see today?

Perhaps you can answer that question yourself by thinking back to the kind of programs and movies that Hollywood use to produce. Do you recall the motion picture industry standards that these movie producers once abided by, but not anymore.

If Not More Gun Control
Then What's The Answer

Instead of addressing the real problem here, our government seems to be willing to make "new criminals" out of honest, hard working men and women (responsible gun owners) who have never broken the law in their lives!! Perhaps they need to reserve all this extra jail space for the real criminals out there, those who do harm to others using a gun, not those who have one for protection and enjoyment (trap and target shooting, gun sports, and legitimate hunting).

Perhaps we need to start at home, right in our own living rooms. How? By turning the channel when a violent show comes on. By policing the viewing habits of our children. This includes teenagers who are still highly impressionable. If you are unable to do so, find a way to do it electronically. You have to give it a try, for your childrens' future is at stake. We can mandate all the gun laws we want, even outlaw honest folks from having them, but the dishonest criminals will still have them, which means that both we and our children will still be at risk.

Most importantly, society's children will still be able to obtain a gun. How do we know that? Listen to the findings of a report published by the National Institute of Justice in January, 1997:

"A higher percentage of arrestees than people in the general population have ever owned a firearm. They acquire firearms readily, and a substantial number have used them to commit crime. Arestees say guns are easy to obtain, and the ease with which this is done suggests the illegal market is the most likely source. In fact, more than half the arrestees say it is easy to obtain guns illegally."

"The study suggests that some of the current approaches to reducing gun violence--particularly legal sanctions related to ownership and use--are not as effective as they might be. An approach that focuses on several intervention points by multiple agents is worth exploring."

"The study helps confirm the link between guns and gang membership and guns and drug markets. Among the arrestees, the groups that have the easiest access to firearms are drug sellers and gang members," the DoJ report said. (Illegal Firearms: Access and Use By Arrrestees, National Institute of Justice, January 1997)

The bottom line, as pointed out by this U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) study, criminals come by guns outside of legal channels. This means that criminals and children in gangs will continue to get guns if they want them. The DoJ report also makes it very clear that legal sanctions to limit gun ownership is not and will never be effective in curbing gun violence. In fact, the more that the public is misled to believe this, the more disappointed they will be in the result.

This will almost certainly lead to more gun control and, eventually, the banning of firearms from society. The honest, law-abiding citizen will no longer have the right to own one. Those that do will automatically be criminalized. And yet, the security of our nation may very well hinge on an armed populous, especially since our military might has been consciously degraded from more than 3 million to approximately 1 million (about 700,000 fighting personnel).

All of this leads us to one final thought.

• The complicity of the networks to stifle almost any legitimate mention of guns,
• The airing of extremely graphic gun violence on a daily basis,
• The current pressure being exerted by the White House to create even more gun laws when we already have the necessary gun laws in place to prosecute real criminals;
• does all of this seem to point to a hidden agenda?

In conclusion, the message of today's commentary is this: It is not just the Second Amendment (gun ownership) that is under attack here, for the First Amendment is likewise.

Unless YOU and I do something about it now, our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and so forth may not grow up in the same kind of country that we did. The powerful men and women who are behind this plan to change the thinking of Americans will stop a nothing to see their plan to fruition. Are we going to sit back and allow them to have their way? What can you and I do about it?

1. We can fight back by NOT watching the filth and violence on television and in the movies.
2. We can fight back by CARING about others as much, or more as we do ourselves.
3. We can fight back by WRITING LETTERS to those networks who air such filth and violence.
4. We can fight back by CARING more about our children than job, wealth, and position.
5. We can fight back by WRITING our Congressmen and telling them we are tired of the direction in which Washington is headed.
6. We can fight back by SUPPORTING politicians who, themselves, support the entire Bill of Rights, not just select portions.
7. We can fight back by UNDERSTANDING that there are powerful folks in high places who wish to control every aspect of our lives, and we're not going to allow it.

Thanks for listening.

Al Colombo