preferential-lite
shadow

Payment Terms For Your Computer Consultancy

Payment terms are the one thing that even your best customers will abuse if you let them.  When you set your payment terms you need to look out for yourself.  You don't want to get into the habit of extending credit and giving discounts when they are not warranted. Here are some tips and tricks to get the most mileage out of your payment terms.

Setting Payment Terms

Another term for payment terms is stolen discounts.  When you have payment terms like net 30, people assume you're giving them credit.   Use net seven or net ten instead.

Avoid saying payment on receipt. How do you know when they receive it? It's very ambiguous.

Always put a specific payment due date on your invoice.

When payments go past due, then you have to deal with the issue of collecting your money.  Some tips to use when faced with this situation include:

When a customer is slow at paying, pull your own reigns back and delay their appointments for another week.  Typically the invoice clears pretty quickly, especially if there's an emergency.

Pick up the phone, phone calls work better than faxes or letters. You are likely to get the news you want to hear when they have to talk to you.

Even better than phone calls are personal visits.

Don't let late payments get beyond two terms.  If they were supposed to pay in 14 days and it is now 28 days, you need to move in quickly to recoup your money.

The Bottom Line on Payment Terms

The best offensive if often a good defensive.  When you think about setting your payments terms, make decisions that are in your best interests.  Collect money up front whenever possible and do not allow invoices to go long over due.  The more credit you extend to your customers the more likely you are to lose.  Keep your payment terms tight and get the money you are owed into your bank account quickly.

Copyright MMI-MMVI, Small Biz Tech Talk. All Worldwide Rights Reserved. {Attention Publishers: Live hyperlink in author resource box required for copyright compliance}

Quickly and Easily Blow Up Their Bank Accounts, Explode Their Traffic

Brand New SEO Software Has Web Hosts Everywhere SCREAMING...

"Cut The Bandwidth...Quick!"

Uncover The Brutally Effective SEO Software That "Average Joes and Janes" Are Using To - Quickly and Easily Blow Up Their Bank Accounts, Explode Their Traffic, and Triple Their Sales - With Little Or No Extra Work...

Version 4.0 Just Released!

From: Brad Callen

Indianapolis, IN

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Dear Traffic Seeker,

It's become the 'secret weapon' of choice these days...

...And anyone can have it!

You see...what you're about to discover is far more than the latest software.

It's a piece of cutting-edge technology powered by the cries of regular people just like you and me who were sick and tired of being kicked around the internet by their competition and the "big" SEO firms.

I say "big" because after I released this software to the world, a whole lot of things have changed online because...

Big SEO Firms Have Lost Their Iron Grip!

They no longer control the masses - they no longer control YOU.

...Because this incredible software has empowered the average person, any person, including you...to take command and control your internet traffic with just a few clicks of your mouse!

Imagine this 'secret weapon' at your fingertips helping YOU get to the top of Google, Yahoo, and MSN much quicker than any other way, and here's undeniable video proof...

It defies belief, but this could be YOUR reality sooner than you think cos...

This Secret Weapon Is The Missing Link!

Perhaps the skeptic in you is violently protesting...

"Brad, cut the crap. There's no way my checks and sales reports are gonna look like yours!"

I feel ya.

It seems like only yesterday when I felt like throwing in the towel because my checks just wouldn't get any bigger no matter how much harder I tried!

Trying Is NOT The Answer...

I've walked a mile in your shoes before, so I know exactly how downright frustrating it is to 'try' and keep 'trying'.

Fact: The key to HUGE checks and windfalls of profit is really MORE traffic!

Think about it...

Having all the traffic you want allows you to make all the profits you want.

It'll make marketing your products and services seem almost effortless - you'll know exactly how and who to promote your products to… you'll be able to beat every other internet marketer out there at their own game without having to resort to shady programs or having to compete to be noticed and

The Finding deals for Christmas shopping

So what do I even mean by that? Simple, they are special offers that shops and companies make more money during the holidays. Some people search the hall town to find a good deal on a Christmas present or gift for their friends and family relatives. After all who doesn’t want to save some money?

Haven’t done it before?

Why not? Ask yourself why you are throwing your money away if you could buy the same thing on a discount for 50%. So if you are buying a present for 100 euros, you could save up to 50$. And 50$ is quite some money. Think of it in this way. You are just giving it to some person whom you don’t know; you could even say you are throwing it out the window.

If you are buying a present for a friend or some far family relative, just try to get a discount price on the gift. They will say thanks if you spend 50$ or 500$ and you won’t have anything from it.

So you are too lazy to search the city for a discount price shop? That’s not a problem. Try searching the web for a bit. You could even bargain in some shops and save even more money. So if you can do it, why don’t you take advantage of it and maybe use that money to buy a new car in a couple of years. Just ask the employees for a discount price, the worst thing that they could do is, says NO. And don’t be embraced, you aren’t the only one who is asking and looking to save some money. And after all the employees are paid to be there and consult you for the best item to buy and for how much can they lower the price.

So what are you thinking to buy, a new computer, television, or even a small gift like jewelry? It’s doesn’t really matter. The only thing that matters is that you search for a discount shop and start saving some money, which you could use in a better way in a few years than giving it to some shop owners wearing a tie and having a ton of hair gel.

Ever wondered how the really rich families are actually rich? Yea! You guessed it. They save even more money than the families that have really low pays. I mean think about it. That’s why they are rich. In society they are wearing “masks”, so you actually think that they can afford anything. But believe me. They are saving money on almost all of the items that they buy. Even if you live just once and you won’t be taking the money with you to the grave you should anyway consider being “economical”. Don’t try to save money on things like expensive food etc. Just get some Christmas deals.

So think about it and start saving some money. You could be living in style!

Make $400,000.00 in your FIRST year. Guaranteed!

"I Made Over $12,000,000 In My Years, All On The Internet. Now I'm passing On My Step-By-Step Guide To $400,000 Your First Year, With No Start Up Cost, No Experience Necessary, 98% Of The Work Already Done For You, And A 56 Day Money Back Guarantee."

Now I am giving a lucky few people the opportunity of a lifetime. A package complete with hundreds of websites you can use, products you can sell for every cent of profit, and step-by-step guides on how to use everything included to make thousands upon thousands your first month. Whether its the basics of making money on the internet, or using the newest top websites to make tremendous income, all the most well-kept secrets of making money are all being released right here for the first time EVER.

STOP! If you really want to take control of your finances, make your friends and co-workers jealous, work from home, make thousands a week, and do it all spending less than an hour on the internet everyday then you MUST keep reading this letter.

Because many years ago I decided that I was tired of the daily struggle. I didn't want to live my life paycheck to paycheck and I was determined to live life the way I wanted to. Now I take vacations when I want to, work when I want to, and make more money than everyone I know.

I've Been In The Internet Marketing Game For Over 15 Years, And I'm Letting Out All My Tricks, Methods, And Secrets!

Why am I doing this? Because I'm done! I've made my millions in this field and I want one last chance to change internet marketing.

I have the combined experience of hundreds of the top Internet millionaires, and for the last 2 years I've developed a never-fail, time tested blueprint that will expose the greatest money making secrets.

China: Getting Your Business Started

One would surely do everything he can in order to succeed in venturing into the industry of consumer market.  The demand seems to never die especially for the necessities.  The more choices the consumers have, the better the industry does.  So if you want to get a kick start on making a living in the industry of consumer market, stop wasting time and let’s get started.

Starting a business is a tough job.  You’ll have to decide on which type of market you’d like to get into, after which, you’ll have to learn the ropes of the certain type of market you’ve chosen.  Of course, there’s the application for a business permit, the capital to get you started and, of course, the resources of your business.  There’s so much to learn about getting into business and so much to do after you really get into it.  But all that hard work can easily be done right in the comforts of your business location.  The biggest task at hand would be getting the resources for your business.

Where to Get Your Resources

You may be on a budget since you’re only starting out.  It’s impossible to get the items you need without your own factory, let alone all the production done just by you.  Where to get help, you ask? Simple - China.  By this time, if you really are passionate about going into business, you should be aware of the huge role that China plays in the world’s industry of business.  China’s rapid economic growth has made them one of the most respected players in the game of business.  With their government strongly improving and promoting their wholesale industry, you’ll have plenty of options from which you can choose from regarding your resources.

How to Get Your Resources

When dealing with a foreign country, it is important to learn a little bit about their culture.  How you form your relationship with the people you’ll be interacting with in your wholesale business will be a vital key to your success.

To get your resources from China, you’ll need the help of an agent who knows how to get around the Chinese industry.  He will be your source of information and connection as to where and whom should you get your products from while assuring you of the quality and the affordability of these products.

Well, of course, the internet is always there to help.  When in doubt, the internet is loaded with information that could help you ease those anxieties.  Search the web and find some reliable China merchandise manufacturers and exporters or sourcing agent, you can start your own import wholesale business easily.

The concept behind a wholesaler that operates out of China is pretty simple. All of the different aspects of a wholesale company are still there, but the major thing to keep in mind is that since the wholesale company is not operating out of North America or Europe, there are certain advantages that they have. These advantages are multiplied by the fact that they are operating out of China. What exactly are the advantages that are inherent to a wholesaler that is able to operate out of China? Well, the two biggest advantages are a lower overall operating cost and a lower overall cost of living and therefore these combine for the overall lower cost aspect that makes China wholesalers appeal to a number of different people around the world.

Niche Marketing means different things to different people

The term niche marketing means different things to different people.Generally it is known to mean the developing of websites in sub mainstream market segments to profit from selling products, generating advertising revenue or other forms of website monetization.

Niche marketing is effective because it allows you to operate in markets that are less competitive meaning you have the potential as a new or seasoned marketer to capitalize on big opportunities with relative ease and far less cost.

Particularly for new marketers, niche marketing can be the key to riches because it allows you to compete on a level playing field. You don't have to jump into the ring with the heavy weights, you can develop your skills in the junior divisions before moving into the big leagues.

If you pick the right niche you can build your site, extablish yourself as an expert, sell your own products, recommend other people's products, the opportunities can be endless and good money can certainly be made.

The trouble is that as niche marketing grows in popularity, many of the markets we called niche markets are now not so nichey at all, they're almost as bad as mainstream markets in terms of their competitiveness and difficulty to profit from.

The markets that spring to mind are things like acne, dog training, or anxiety. Markets like these, while they can still be profitable will not make the average web marketer alot of money at all. Even the more nichey versions, acne treatments, dog training videos or anxiety relief are difficult for most people to compete in and make money.

Then there's the other extreme. You can go to the tiny tiny niches that get almost no search volume. You can find "long tail" keywords like 'pug training schools in atlanta" or "acne treatments that work in 2 days". The problem with these are, 1. that they often don't get enough traffic and 2. they are so specific that even if you can drive traffic, there isn't much you can do to serve those people except show them ads. Again this can be profitable if you know how to do it but it seems like there just has to be an easier way...

The niche marketers that really make the most money are those that know how to find the perfect balance between competition and search volume. Not only that but they know how to analyze the nature of a niche market to determine how much potential it really has before they enter it.

By doing this they find markets that can make them big money very quickly, faster than most people think possible.

Then when they do find markets they know how to make sites that will capitalize on them as effectively and efficiently as soon as possible. The result? Big profits, easily, and quickly.

There is no doubt that niche marketing although often a tricky game, can be wildly profitable when done right.

LLC – FAQ

LLC's: They don't have to be so confusing!

The limited liability company, or LLC, is a new concept for businesspeople in the United States. Internationally, LLC's are fairly common. However, investors, employees, and lawmakers aren't always quick to warm up to such a structure in America. Let's clear up some of the misunderstandings and confusion about LLC's and hopefully we can figure out what an LLC is all about in the process! Here are frequently asked questions about the topic; chances are you've stumbled upon the same ones in your own thought process.

How does an LLC differ from a corporation?

LLC's resemble partnerships or sole proprietorships in that they feature advantageous pass-through taxation. Economically, they make a lot more sense! But they also have the benefit of limited liability for their members, just like a corporation. Basically: the LLC is not a separate entity from its owners but its owners are still protected from personal liability. No double taxation and no liability – LLC's are  hybrids of a partnership and a corporation.

If LLC's are so great, why would you not structure your business in such a way?

Simply put – LLC's are like the new neighbors; a lot of people don't trust them. Shareholders aren't as eager to invest in them. Members get confused about what LLC means for them (they aren't forced by the state to be organized in any standard way). More importantly, in many states, an LLC becomes almost a corporation by default. Franchise taxes and other restrictions haunt many LLC's because lawmakers aren't as willing to give them more freedom and tax benefits than typical corporations.

Do you need more than one owner to form an LLC?

Nope – you only need one member!

Is it hard to form an LLC?

It's quite easy to form an LLC. In most states, you simply have to fill out an “articles of organization” form and pay a fee. If you already own a partnership or sole proprietorship, it's easy to switch over to an LLC. Some states have further requirements, however, and you'll want to research this on your own.

Can an LLC be taxed like a corporation?

If you so choose, the LLC can be taxed as if it were a corporation. This benefits LLC owners who want to keep more of their profits.

Is an LLC in Texas the same as an LLC in Maryland?

Not at all. LLC's in some states will thrive, while in other states, they might die. Local laws regarding LLC's, especially when it comes to the issues of taxes, are highly variable.

As the years pass, LLC's might become more and more appealing. The reverse situation could occur, however, if legislatures only become more and more restrictive and consequently make the LLC structure meaningless, as all its advantages will be offset by fees and regulations. However, if shareholders and businesspeople can wise up to the benefits of LLC's, they'll probably just grow in popularity.

You've taken a step in the right direction by reading this article. Your next step will be toward a corporation or an LLC; it's a very personal decision that depends entirely on the unique character of or your company and your state's laws.

Cold Calls – A New Way to Open – Cold Calling Tips to Create Openings for Real Conversation!

Most of us design our cold calling around scripts and strategies. Isn’t that how we’ve been taught by the sales gurus? Scripts are linear and systematic so you can move calls in the direction you want them to go. Sales strategies do the exact same thing.

That’s why as soon as we make a cold call, the other person knows right away that our agenda is not to have a conversation, but to make a sale. There’s something about scripts and sales strategies -- it always shows. We’re not being natural, and other people can sense within the first few seconds that we’re out to make a sale. Once that happens, potential clients are immediately put on the defensive. They don’t want to be maneuvered into a sale. As soon as they recognize that you’re a salesperson with a sales agenda, most of the time they just want you to go away.

I call this "The Wall." It goes something like this: "Uh-oh, another salesperson. I'm about to be sold something. How fast can I get this person off the phone?" In other words, it’s over at "Hello." Hence, the moment you use the old cold calling approach, which is using sales scripts and strategies, you’ve triggered the negative "salesperson" stereotype in the mind of the person you’ve called. That almost always means immediate rejection.

The problem is with how you're selling, not what you're selling. The traditional cold calling approach, which has been taught by the sales gurus for years, involves immediately giving a pitch about who you are and what you have to offer. However, this is a one-sided conversation.  In our normal lives, it would seem self-absorbed to start any conversation by talking only about ourselves. Yet, in cold calling we expect ourselves to do exactly that. We begin with a monologue rather than inviting a dialogue.

On top of that, we’ve all been trained to try to push prospects into a "yes" response somewhere within the first call. This creates sales pressure. Pressure from a stranger is never welcome. It feels intrusive to the other person.

The first step to overcoming this is to let go of your script or sales strategy as a crutch. This idea may sound scary at first because you’ve been programmed to think you have to have a script or strategy to make a successful cold call. I assure you that quite the opposite is true.

These old approaches create a "box" that doesn’t allow a conversation to flow. You’re thinking only about your agenda and following "the plan." The person on the other end of the phone senses this, and immediately begins to retreat.

Instead, start thinking about language that will engage people rather than language that will trigger rejection. If you can start a conversation that triggers a "What do you mean?" from the other person, you’ll find you can explain yourself in a natural way. This also creates a two-way dialogue, which lets you flow with the conversation without feeling you’re getting off-track.

Developing a problem statement makes this whole process much easier. Find out what issue or problem your potential client is likely to be experiencing, and build an open-ended conversation around that.

Here are three basic steps to opening up a dialogue and having a real conversation with your cold calls:

1. Begin with the question, "Maybe you can help me out for a moment?" The reply is almost always something like, "Sure, how can I help you?"

2. Continue with something like, "I’m just calling to see if your company is still having issues with unpaid invoices." The response probably will be, "Well, yeah, we are. Who’s this?"

3. You can then respond in a very relaxed tone, "This is John. I’m with XYZ Collection Agency. I’m just calling to see if you’d be open to some new ideas on how to better solve that problem." This makes it easy for the other person to reply, "What do you mean?" or "Tell me more." After that, the possibilities of your conversation are endless. Try these new cold calling ideas. You will be amazed at how much value you receive, both personally and professionally.

Gun Control Is Not Constitutional

On October 18th [2000], a Texas jury found San Angelo physician Timothy Joe Emerson not guilty of aggravated assault and child endangerment. In August 1998 his wife, who became involved in an adulterous affair with another man, had filed for divorce and applied for a temporary restraining order barring Dr. Emerson from, among other things, threatening or attacking her during the divorce proceedings. A few days later at a hearing, Mrs. Emerson claimed that her husband had threatened during a telephone conversation to kill her boyfriend. Largely based on that allegation, a county district court judge, without showing or finding that Dr. Emerson actually posed a threat to his wife or their four-year-old daughter, issued a restraining order enjoining him from threatening or physically harming

either. The judge also neglected to advise Dr. Emerson that he could face federal prosecution if found with a firearm, due to an obscure provision of the 1994 Violent Crime Control Act that prohibits possession of a gun by anyone subject to such a restraining order.

Following a confrontation between the contentious couple at his office on November 16, 1998, Mrs. Emerson claimed that Dr. Emerson had threatened her and their daughter by brandishing a handgun. He was indicted on the state charges of which he was recently acquitted, and was also indicted by a federal grand jury for allegedly violating the 1994 statute.

On March 30th of [1999], Judge Sam R. Cummings of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas dismissed the federal indictment, ruling that it violated Dr. Emerson's constitutional rights under the Second and Fifth Amendments. A key issue was whether or not the Second Amendment secures an individual right to keep and bear arms, or was intended by the Founders to apply only to a collective entity such as the National Guard. Basing his opinion on cogent historical analysis and copious documentation, Judge Cummings held that "a textual analysis of the Second Amendment supports an individual right to bear arms" and that "the very inclusion of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights shows that the framers of the Constitution considered it an individual right." After all, the Bill of Rights protects individual rights to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc.,

from government. Why would the Founding Fathers add to such a list a collective right of government to possess arms?

Judge Cummings' ruling is particularly significant since it is the first time a federal court invalidated a gun control statute on grounds of the Second Amendment. Prosecutors promptly appealed this ruling to the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in June. A decision is expected by year's end, but regardless of the outcome, United States of America v. Timothy Joe Emerson is likely to eventually reach the Supreme Court. What began as a rather routine divorce squabble has metastasized into what could become the most important Second Amendment case in our nation's history. [In 2001, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's opinion. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.]

America's legacy of freedom

The historical record clearly supports Judge Cummings' analysis and opinion. The "collective" interpretation of the Second Amendment is a 20th century invention conjured up by anti-gun academics and pressure groups determined to disarm ordinary Americans and thereby grant government entities a firearms monopoly (gun control has never been about the elimination of guns, but about who will control them). The reference to the "Militia" in the Second Amendment is not a reference to the National Guard, which did not even exist at the time, but to the people themselves. As George Mason, the author of Virginia's Bill of Rights, explained, the militia consists "of the whole people, except a few public officers."

David E. Young, editor of The Origin of the Second Amendment: A Documentary History of the Bill of Rights in Commentaries on Liberty, Free Government & an Armed Populace 1787-1792 (1995) has noted, "There were NO comments by ANYONE that any of [James] Madison's proposals, or those in Congress, related to 'collective rights.'... In fact, the 'collective right' terminology so popular today among advocates of government gun control was never used during the Constitutional Era by anyone." The founding generation, Young continues, "did not interpret the Second Amendment and predecessor Bill of Rights language as related to the militia powers of government or the authority of the states, but rather as related ONLY to private rights to keep and bear arms."

America's legacy of freedom is heavily predicated on the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the Second Amendment is arguably the most important constitutionally protected right of all, since it serves to safeguard all others (free speech, freedom of the press, religious freedom, etc.). As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story explained in his authoritative Commentaries on the Constitution (1833): "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."

Keeping arms is a duty

The Revolutionary War itself was triggered when the British attempted to confiscate private arms stored by the American colonists in private homes at Concord. Before sunrise on April 18, 1775, scores of colonists armed with loaded muskets gathered on and near the Lexington green. When the British arrived, the officer in charge ordered the rebels to "disperse, you villains-lay down your arms," but they refused. The officer then gave the order to surround the rebels, and in the ensuing confusion shots were fired. Three British soldiers were wounded and eight militiamen were killed.

Following that initial skirmish, the British continued their march to Concord, but when they began tearing off planks of the bridge spanning a strategic river, American militiamen rallied to stop the destruction. Again, shots were fired by both sides, and British officers ordered a retreat during which, as described by historian Donzella Cross Boyle in Quest of a Hemisphere (1970), "the regulars were fired upon from behind walls and trees, houses and barns, by marksmen, who seemed 'to drop from the clouds.'" Thus began the long, bitter military struggle for American independence that could never have succeeded if the colonists had allowed themselves to be disarmed.

Fortunately, the colonists had refused to do so. In 1671, more than a century before Lexington and Concord, King Charles II imposed legislation to disarm Englishmen, while his royal governor for the colonies did the same to disarm Americans. Attorney Steven Halbrook, an authority on the Second Amendment, writes in That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitution Right (1984): "Thus, arms control laws in the English experience served not only to subjugate domestically the poor and middle classes and religious groups, but also to conquer and colonize the Scots, the Irish, the American Indians, and finally the English settlers in America." When the "embattled farmers stood" at Concord Bridge in 1775 and "fired the shot heard round the world," they did so with an unregistered and

unconfiscated gun.

Today's anti-gun hysteria is in sharp contrast to the attitude of early American colonists regarding firearms. A 1982 report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee recalled, for instance: In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were "well armed"; in 1631, it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to "bring their peeces [sic] to church." In 1658, it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and, in 1644, it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.

Writing in the Michigan Law Review for November 1983, attorney Don B. Kates further noted that "the duty to keep arms applied to every household, not just to those containing persons subject to militia service. Thus, the over-aged and seamen, who were exempt from militia service, were required to keep arms for law enforcement and for the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies. In at least one colony a 1770 law actually required men to carry a rifle or pistol every time they attended church; church officials were empowered to search each parishioner no less than fourteen times per year to assure compliance."

The intent of the Founders

Our country's Founders, though at odds with each other about many other matters, were united in their belief that private citizens, armed with their own firearms, were vital to a free nation. Anti-Federalist icon Patrick Henry, in his famous "give me liberty or give me death" address to Virginia's Second Revolutionary Convention on March 23, 1775, underscored the importance of an armed citizenry when he declared: "They tell us ... that we are weak-unable to cope with so formidable an adversary [as the British]. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in he holy cause of liberty ... are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." The Census Bureau estimates that the population of the colonies in 1700 was 2.1 million, and that by 1780 it reached 2.9 million. Henry's reference in 1775 to "three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty" clearly encompassed all competent citizens, not merely those qualified by age and gender for militia service.

Years later, when the Constitution was considered, Henry further expressed his unequivocal support of the individual right to keep and bear arms. During Virginia's ratification convention he objected to the omission of a clause in the proposed Constitution that would forbid the disarming of individual citizens (the Second Amendment was adopted to solve that problem). "The great object," he declared, "is that every man be armed.... Everyone who is able may have a gun."

Thomas Paine, who voiced the colonists' demands for freedom in his famous pamphlet Common Sense (1776), wrote in an earlier essay entitled "Thoughts on Defensive War" (1775): "The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property." And in The Federalist, No. 28, Alexander Hamilton stated: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government." In essay 29 of The Federalist, Hamilton further observed that "little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped," since "this will not only lessen the calls for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army an never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to hem in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."

In a similar spirit, James Madison pointed out in The Federalist, No. 46, that "notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms," since, were the people armed and organized into militia, "the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

On June 18, 1789, 10 days after James Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in the House of Representatives, Tench Coxe, a Federalist and friend of Madison, published in Philadelphia's Federal Gazette (under the pen name "A Pennsylvanian") what Steven Halbrook describes as "probably the most complete exposition of the Bill of Rights to be published during its ratification period." Coxe's analysis included this comment: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed

by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." "In short," Halbrook states, "what is now the Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the right of the people to have 'their private arms' to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select militia [such as today's National Guard]."

It is worth noting that Coxe sent a copy of his article, with a cover letter, to Madison, and that the father of the Constitution expressed no objection to his comments. Rather than disagreeing that the proposed amendment protected the possession and use of "private arms," Madison stated in his reply that ratification of the entire package of amendments "will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen." Halbrook points out that a "search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected

A fundamental right

Federalist Noah Webster (of dictionary fame), in a pamphlet aimed at convincing Pennsylvania to ratify the Constitution, warned that "before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe." But he believed that the "supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."

Thomas Jefferson also favored individual gun ownership. In the model state constitution he drafted for Virginia in 1776, he included the guarantee that "no free man shall be debarred the use of arms in his own hands." He had earlier copied into his Commonplace Book (the source for his ideas on government) these sentiments from On Crimes and Punishments (1764) by criminologist Cesare Beccaria:

False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if so dear to the enlightened legislator-and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed

man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.

According to a nephew, Jefferson was given a gun at age 10 and believed that every boy should receive one at that age. In a letter to another nephew, Jefferson wrote: "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the Body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks."

Throughout our history, young Americans have used firearms responsibly for recreation, hunting, and defense of their homes, families, and nation. For examples, see "Young Patriots at Arms" in the July 31, 2000 issue of The New American.

The Second Amendment is absolute

It is important to note that the Second Amendment is absolute in its wording. While some inherent rights are protected by the Bill of Rights in rather vague, general terms (such as the Fourth Amendment's ban of only "unreasonable" searches and seizures), the Second Amendment unambiguously prohibits any interference (the right to keep and bear arms "shall not" be infringed). Halbrook suggests that since the Second Amendment "is written in a universal form," it "provides protection against both federal and state infringement. In contrast to the language of the

First Amendment, which states only that 'Congress shall make no law,' the Second Amendment provides generally that the right 'shall not be infringed.'... Thus, there is strong support for the proposition that the absolute and universal language of the Second Amendment precludes any federal or state infringement whatever."

Adding further weight to that conclusion, Attorney Don B. Kates points out in his Michigan Law Review article that "a state would directly infringe the congressional prerogative [to call forth an armed citizenry when necessary to execute the laws, suppress rebellion, or repel invasion] if it prohibits firearms possession by the constitutional militia, i.e., the military-age male populace." And in Presser v. Illinois (1886), the Supreme Court held that "it is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general power, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [i.e., the Second Amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource

for maintaining the public security and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government."

Steven Halbrook perceptively points out that if, for the sake of argument, we accept the modern anti-gun view that the Second Amendment's reference to "the people" means only a select militia such as the National Guard, and that its reference to "arms" means only militia-type arms, then "the Ninth amendment's guarantee of all preexisting unenumerated rights would encompass the natural and common-law rights of the individual to keep and carry arms for such purposes as self-defense and hunting." In other words, either the inherent right of peaceful individuals to keep and bear arms is secured by the Second Amendment, or it falls under purview of the Ninth Amendment, which

reads: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Yet make no mistake about it, Halbrook maintains, "the intent of the state conventions that requested adoption of a bill of rights and of the framers in Congress ... was that the Second Amendment recognized the absolute individual right to keep arms in the home and to carry them in public."

The lessons of history

History is replete with examples of would-be tyrants who have sought to disarm the people they intended to enslave. Julius Caesar, in his account of the Gallic wars, recognized the difficulty of conquering an armed people, as indicated by such observations as "all arms were collected from the town" and "there could be no terms of surrender save on delivery of arms," and his claim that he had "cut off the hands of all who had borne arms" and had slain "a great number of them and stripped all of their arms."

During the 20th century, totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have used gun registration records and other means to confiscate firearms from those who might otherwise jeopardize their rule. Stringent gun laws established by the anti-Communist Cuban government of Fulgencio Batista, for instance, enabled Communist despot Fidel Castro to solidify his control after toppling Batista. Under Batista, gun owners had to register their firearms with the police, which made it a simple matter for Castro's agents to locate and collect the guns.

In Nazi Germany, as documented in "Gun Control": Gateway to Tyranny by Jay Simkin and Aaron Zelman (1992), a pre-Nazi law of 1928 required the registration of anyone having anything to do with firearms or ammunition. When the Nazis assumed power, they simply declined to renew the relevant permits, thereby justifying the confiscation of firearms and ammunition and clearly demonstrating how registration paves the way for confiscation. In 1938, the Nazis' own draconian gun control legislation further deterred effective opposition to their increasingly oppressive rule. It included a provision under which Jews were "prohibited from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons."

And in his early years as Italy's Fascist ruler, Prime Minister Benito Mussolini, in a speech delivered at the Italian Senate on June 8, 1923, asserted: "The measures adopted to restore public order are: First of all the elimination of the so-called subversive elements.... They were elements of disorder and subversion. On the morrow of each conflict I gave the categorical order to confiscate the largest possible number of weapons of every sort and kind. This confiscation, which continues with the utmost energy, has given satisfactory results."

Government oppression thrives when a people are disarmed. But when the people are armed, exactly the opposite is the case. Which is why the Founding Fathers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights.