I'm very grateful to have a chance to be here today and, to address this, this group. It's kind of a somber day, really, in spite of the beauty of it.

I'd like to reflect a little bit, on, what it is that, we have in our Constitution, that was so involved in this case. And actually was so overlooked, and has been so overlooked by the government for so long. The much-maligned and the much-misunderstood Second Amendment. Incredibly enough, as maybe many of you know, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, was deeply offended, at a videotape that we had produced, in fact it's, uh, over at our booth right across the road. Called, "Breaking the Law in the Name of the Law." And what we did in that tape was to show that, the BATF had a pattern, of lying, to get search warrants, planting and tampering with evidence to get convictions- Kind of the same things that they did here in Mt. Carmel, except, normally they didn't kill quite as many people.

Why would, a group of people, simply owning firearms, be, such a problem, for a government, that is supposed to be bound, by some language that says this: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the, security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And "infringed" means, don't even touch around the edge, let alone sending a hundred crazed, stormtroopers, in to attack a compound of people that are, living there, bothering no-one.

I think the confusion in our age, and it's important that we understand this confusion, so that we can deal with it, and combat it. A lot of the confu-, confusion in our times, stems from the phrase, "well-regulated militia." People in our time and government, especially, have the idea in their heads that you can't have a regulation of anything, unless the government regulates it. But in the eighteenth century, our colonial forefathers weren't thinking about that at all! And let me give you some, a couple of examples, just to show, they were not talking about the government regulating, the militia. The militia regulated itself!

When, the British sent troops out from Boston, to Concord and Lexington, and, resulted in the shot that was fired round the world- heard round the world- the, the British were met by militia, led by the Reverend Josiah Clark. Who had well-regulated his men, many a day, many a Sunday, after services! And they hadn't asked the British troops, they hadn't asked the British, governor, they hadn't asked the British king- if they could have permission to shoot, at the British troops! They regulated themselves, on an almost weekly basis, and they were well-regulated when they met the British forces that day. And within two weeks, the same thing occurred, in Williamsburg, when Patrick Henry led a detachment, of militia, against the British governor, who had stolen powder from the people, from their magazine, and chased the governor onto a boat in the York River. And you can bet he didn't have the governor's permission to do that! The governor wasn't regulating that activity either!

That was the understanding of the Second Amendment, well into our, century. In fact, in a book published by the House of Representatives in 1936, for the sesquicentennial of the United States- the very Jeffersonian idea, of the militia, was expressed, that it was there in order to keep the government at bay. In fact, Jefferson put it this way, "When-" [applause] "When the government fears the people, there is freedom, but when the people fear the government, there is tyranny." And it seems to me, we've lost that idea, because now, in our time, the government, claims the right to be suspicious of us, and don't we even dare, question, the government! Well that's the talk of dictatorship! Let me get a little bit more specific, as to what I see underlying what happened here, what set the stage for what happened here, last, uh, when, when they burned down, uh, this, this complex. In 1968, something new, was introduced into American law. Into the firearms law. The Firearms Act of 1968 was passed, and also amendments were at the same time enacted, for the 1934 Firearms Act, National Firearms Act. When, when that, law, and those amendments were passed, for the first time, firearms were made out to be good and bad depending on which ones were suitable, for sporting use. You remember, within the last month or so, Secretary Benson, of the Treasury Department, declared streetsweeper shotguns to be not suitable, for sporting use, and therefore they became, destructive devices. All because he had that language, in the law, from the 1968 amendments, that were enacted at that time. Where did this concept come from, since it obviously didn't come, from our colonial forefathers, who wrote the Second Amendment. In fact, when they wrote- th-, the same Congress that approved the Bill of Rights, approved the Militia Act of 1792. And when they approved that act, they wrote language in there that said that everyone covered by this act, has to have a military firearm and the ammunition for it. In their home! Not in an armory, like the National Guard! Militia is, has the guns at home, because, having a gun is the emblem of a free man. And that's what they had in mind! So how in the world did we ever get this language, "suitable for sporting use?" Well, within the last year, we found out. It comes directly, imported from Nazi Germany. A group called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, published a book, that shows that section by section, the 1968 Gun Control Act of the United States tracks, with, the 1938 Nazi Gun Control Act, and that's where, "suitable for sporting use" came from. Now you may say, "Oh, surely that's just a coincidence?" Well, not really! Senator, the late Senator Thomas Dodd, who had been a prosecutor at Nuremberg, Germany- brought that law over, when he came back to the United States- from Nuremberg. And he had it translated, by the Library of Congress, and we have the copies, of the letters that he wrote to the Library of Congress, and the letter they wrote back to him saying, here's the translation that you asked for.

We have a Nazi gun control act, that's what established the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms! Was a Nazi gun control act! You ever wondered why they look so much like stormtroopers? Well, it's because that's the law that set 'em up! They are trying to do, in Washington, what George III and his redcoats, were unsuccessful, in doing, in 1775, and in a few following years after that. They're trying to disarm the militia. And now they've added the concept, that guns are good and some guns are bad, depending on their sporting use, a concept that came from Nazi Germany. And that is the enabling legislation for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. No wonder Congressman Dingell, discovered even during the testimony, without even knowing, this history of where the law really came from, "Gee, this looks like a Nazi act to me!" And one of his colleagues jumped down his throat, how could he, dare say such a thing. Well, Congressman was more right than he knew, and a few years later, after seeing how the BATF would operate, under such a Nazi act, he said, "This group is the American Gestapo!" Well, isn't it interesting that on April 19- a number of interesting things have occurred. One, was the battle of Lexington and Concord. When the British tried to disarm our colonial forebearers. On another April 19, the Nazis invaded the Warsaw Ghetto. And then on this April 19, United States tanks, tore down the home of women and children and men, who were living here in Mt. Carmel. We've got a very nasty, legal precedent that's been stuck into our law. It's unconstitutional, it needs to go- We need to tell our lawmakers that not only do we need, no more gun control laws, we need to take the Nazi Gun Control Act of 1968, and throw it away. That's the word that needs to come out of Mt. Carmel! Thank you very much. [applause]