Gun Control: A Study in the Doctrine of Unintended Consequences!

December 14th 2012 By Jack Graff

AZ Gun Fighter's Gear Good-To-Go

In light of the most recent act of unnecessary and unjustifiable murder rampage by the Tucson shooter, and the most recent shooting at the grade school in Connecticut and the subsequent upsurge of demand by some misguided individuals for stricter gun controls, I thought it necessary to write the following report on gun control legislation and how it has worked in the past: Most gun control legislation hinders our Constitutional rights and promotes crime because it is aimed at the wrong people. There is a growing concern across America regarding the legislation of firearms. Members of Congress have gone to great lengths to investigate an ever increasing rise in crime and how to stop it. Gun control has been widely tried with varying degrees of success. Newspaper and magazine articles have reported on the success or failure of current laws on the possession of firearms. The statistics speak loudly for themselves. Gun laws today are aimed at the wrong segment of society. Rather than helping the average American feel safer in their own home, the laws have managed to promote crime. Only one city in America, Roseburg, OR has successfully enacted legislation that had made a difference in decreasing crime within the community. According to the Star Telegram, Roseburg became the only city to enact a law requiring each of its home-owning citizens to own a gun. Further, the use of the gun was condoned as a matter of self-defense of one's own domain." Interestingly enough, the crime rate in Roseburg decreased by 32 per cent within a year after enacting the legislation. The difference this law has had on the small community of Oregon has given rise to many questions about decisions made in other cities wherein the possession of firearms is restricted or controlled by laws and law enforcement agencies. Strict control of possession of firearms by the citizens of the community of Boston created the following situation. The World Press stated, "New legislation in Boston, MA has made the 'Saturday Night Special' an easy object for any crook to own, but has virtually taken the ownership of a gun out of the hands of the average citizen." In that article it tells the story of a man who tried to buy a .38 revolver, more commonly known as a 'Saturday Night Special'. After waiting the 10-day waiting period now required by the city of Boston, the man was told it would be another 30 days before he could legally obtain the gun because of a special hold 1

authorities had on issuing permits for this type of gun. An altogether different set of circumstances were found to be true with two black men who had been arrested for aggravated assault in Boston. According to the police files, the men "had arranged for the purchase of" exactly the same kind of gun, and had "obtained a 'Saturday Night Special' within 48 hours of parole." It took 40 days for the honest citizen to own a gun, but less than two days for a pair of criminals to find the same type of revolver and have it in their possession. Perhaps the most widely publicized gun control law on record is the legislation enacted by the city of Morton Grove, IL. No one is allowed to own a gun within the city limits unless it is an antique and registered with the Sheriff's department. "Burglaries in the city of Morton Grove increased over 23 per cent for the first year and have continued to mount." according to the Field and Stream magazine. This is a drastic contrast tot he decreased crime rate of Roseburg, OR. In a congressional investigation conducted by Ted Kennedy, firearms law authority, Don B. Kates, Jr., testified, "According to available manufacturing and import figures since 1989, America has between 55 and 60 million handguns. Even taking the lower figure, less than one out of every 6,000 handguns is used in homicide and less than one out of every 400 is used in any kind of violent crime. (Note that murderers may, and robbers generally will use the same weapon on several different offenses.) "Mr. Kates went on to state that, "...we already have 20,000 Federal, state and local 'gun control' laws that are effective to the very limited extent that any anti-gun law can control the kinds of people who misuse weapons." Chip Elliott wrote in Esquire Magazine on the upsurge of crime in San Francisco, "In the spring of 1976, we were living in the San Francisco bay area. Our friends, Boris and Ute a Yugoslav sculptor and a German painter had just bought a house on Venice, and we quickly rented a house nearby on Electric Avenue. But it quickly became apparent that all was not as it seemed on Venice." He goes on to tell of a neighborhood shooting, a robbery two blocks from where they lived, a fatal stabbing, a rape, and several assault incidents. "We bought a new revolver, a .38 Special Smith and Wesson, and had the hand-grips filed down so my wife could hold it easily. The two weeks while we waited for the permit to go through were the most terrifying of my life." While over 20,000 laws have been enacted to help decrease the crimes committed with the use of hand guns, the facts and figures still attest to the fact that crime rates are rising at alarming speed. The laws have simply not met the challenge before us. Outdoor Life Magazine writes, "Here we have Morton Grove and by now, probably several dozen similarly righteous hamlets (to say nothing of San Francisco, Chicago and New York); and states such as New York, Massachusetts, New Jersey and others sure to come; all eager to finesse tough problems like crime with easy 'solutions' such as keeping firearms out of the hands of honest people." In an article entitled "The Press Takes A Second Look At Gun Control" it states, "The major media are beginning to report the views of the pro-gun faction a major shift from their usual anti-gun coverage. And we say it's about time!" At that point in time the press was taking a second look at their coverage of anti-gun legislation, and they had taken a positive step forward in addressing the opposite side of that coin.

Until recently, the press had remained somewhat mute on the subject, but since the new President, Barack Obama, has come on the scene; that shift has once again taken a drastic step in the wrong direction, both blaming 'political' and highly regarded members of the 'conservative community' for inciting such actions with incendiary speech, i.e. speech that is not politically correct according to the current administration and the mainstream media news reporters (if one can even call them 'news' reporters.) Rather than legislation that takes a negative stand on trying to solve the rising crime rates nationwide, we need to take positive steps forward in addressing the problems at hand. Our Constitutional right as stated in the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution reads in part: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The intent of this Amendment is made more clearly stated with the following quotes: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.) The "whole body of the Militia" means the whole body of the people! "The great object is that every man be armed Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.) "The advantage of being armed the Americans possess over the people of all other nations is this 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." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.) Our average, law-abiding citizen is directly affected by the current laws regulating the ownership of firearms. Most laws today are sadly misdirected and misguided. There has been error made on the part of many local authorities who believe stricter gun control works. Through the press and misinformation voters have been duped into believing the legislation will help. This type of useless legislation needs to be reevaluated. Far from helping the typical man-on-the-street, the laws have restricted him so severely in some instances that he cannot even own a gun with which to protect himself. Laws do often inhibit the activities of the law-abiding rather than the criminal. This has been especially true of our gun rules. Crime has continued to increase despite the attempts made to curb ownership of firearms. As citizens of the United States, we are entitled through the sanctity of the Constitution of the United States of America to carry a firearm for our own protection. If laws are to be used to control criminal activity, then they should be directed at the criminal and not at the average man-on-the-street. As it currently stands, our gun control legislation limits our Constitutional right to own a weapon: it encourages even helps promote crime, and is grossly negligent in its aim. Rather than helping the innocent individual, it hinders and 3

restricts his inherent freedom, and places him in jeopardy as a prime target for criminals. The city of Roseburg, OR stands as the ONLY city to make a practical and workable law that actually addresses the subject of diminishing crime as figures have indicated above. As a nation the "whole body of the people" is to "always" have the right by the Constitution to keep and bare arms.

AZ-Gun Fighter

The Only Way to Stop a Gun is With a Gun

December 14th 2012 By Jack Graff

America now has its second worst mass shooting. And it, as usual, accompanied by calls for gun control. Its no coincidence that we have had quite a few spree killings in such a short time. The lavish coverage of every shooting by the media encourages every shooter to think that he will be famous if he goes out and kills. And that is exactly what happens. Our shooters are creatures of the media, not the NRA. A media that turns killers into celebrities and then warns that the only way to stop more shootings is by cracking down on firearms. But no amount of media coverage ever stopped a man with a gun. It only encouraged him. It takes a gun to stop a man with a gun. That is the hard truth of human affairs. It is why we have a Second Amendment, it is why we have armies and police, and it is why people own guns. There is no going back to a time before people owned guns. There is no going back to a time when violence did not exist. There is only the reality that killers stalk the streets and that we can either defend against them or take comfort in empty outrage. Guns stop shootings. Not all the time and not every time, but they do. Gun control does not. Media coverage calling for gun control does not. Gun crime was up 35 percent in the UK which has harsh gun control laws. And Europe has had plenty of its own school massacres. Figures showed the number of crimes involving handguns had more than doubled since the post-Dunblane massacre ban on the weapons, from 2,636 in 1997-1998 to 5,871. Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children in the Dunblane school massacre in 1996 using 4 handguns. In Germany, in the Winnenden school shooting in 2009, Tim Kretschmer, killed 16 people, including 9 students. In the Erfurt massacre in 2002, Robert Steinhuser killed 16 people with a handgun and a shotgun. In Finland, in the Jokela School shooting of 2007, Pekka-Eric Auvinen killed 8 people. In the Kauhajoki School shooting, Matti Juhani Saari killed 10 people. 5

The media will pretend that this sort of thing only happens in America. It doesnt only happen in America. It happens where killings do. Gun control isnt about putting an end to horrors, its about controlling people. And people who are used to being controlled have even less ability to cope with the uncontrolled and the uncontrollable. Regulators think about the big picture. They dont think about the individual. They think only about how to control people who follow rules. But shooters, by definition, do not follow rules. They are men who have stepped outside the system and care nothing for its rules. They want to kill, and they will find a way. And when they come, the only way to stop a gun is with a gun.

Left Mobilizes to Politicize School Shooting

A terrible and awful thing has happened in Connecticut at a school in Newtown, Connecticut, Im told. A shooting at a school, 26 people dead, including 18 children. Its just awful. It is terrible, incomprehensible. But Im going tell you something. As we sit here at this very moment, you know it and I know it, there are liberals trying to find a way to blame this on conservatives and Republicans. It may sound a little hard-edged to say that, but Ive lived through these things for 25-plus years. Every such incident as this, even Hurricane Katrina, they tried to blame on Bush. We actually had people saying he didnt care. He wanted to steer it if he could have to get rid of the population there. So we shall soon see. It wont be long. Gabby Giffords shooting, you name it. Any incident like this. There was The Dark Knight Rises shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Brian Ross, ABC News, blamed it on the Tea Party. So it may sound a little hard-edged to say it, but Im telling you, there are elements of the mainstream media who are doing everything they can, their number one objective is to see if theres anything they can blame on conservative media or Republican policies or the Second Amendment. I dont care what it is, you know that thats coming. I just want to get it out there and prepare you for it.

Horror in Connecticut
6

The Solution to our Nations Gun Problem

December 15th 2012 By Jack Graff

Killing people is a moral problem not a societal problem. There are few people who want to talk about morality these days. Its no wonder that there are no longer any moral taboos. What was considered immoral 40 years ago is being made formally legal today by voters, legislators, and our courts. I believe there is a relationship between defining deviancy down and an increase in the disregard for other people. An uptick in Moral Misfitsis the result. The usual suspects are out in force calling for additional gun-control measures. School children are most vulnerable to gun violence. They cant defend themselves, and neither can the teachers. Schools are Gun Free Zones, but only for the law abiding. Criminals dont care about gun laws; thats why theyre criminals. Thieves dont care about laws against theft, and rapists dont care about laws against rape. The same is true about drinking and driving. Weve just had a high profile drunk driving arrest. Dallas Cowboys nose tackle Josh Price-Brent was arrested early Saturday morning December 8, 2012 on intoxication manslaughter charges involving a car accident that killed teammate Jerry Brown.

Laws wont stop people intent on doing harm.

So what do the law-abiding citizens do? They arm themselves just like they would in war. There are terror insurgents in the United States hell-bent on destroying others. Thats a fact. Just the other day a young woman was murdered when she told three teenage thugs to get a job. More people are killed in the United States through violent means than are killed in our current foreign wars. In March of this year, violence in Chicago had left 52 people dead more than 7

twice as many as died in the March of 2011. There were 39 Coalition Military Fatalities in Afghanistan during the same month. Schools should immediately develop a program where every teacher is trained in how to handle a firearm. All teachers must comply to get hired. If Israel can do it, why not America? Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America wrote the following in 2008: In the mid-seventies, a terrorist attacked an Israeli school bus, murdering over 30 children. A majority of Israelis found a compelling reason for putting guns in schools terrorists would get guns whether Jews were armed or not. As a result, schools in border areas, and school buses, were manned with gun-toting teachers or others assigned to be at the ready. Signs should be posted around the school that read: The teachers and administrators of this school are armed and trained in deadly force. Anybody attempting to enter the school intending to do harm will be shot on sight. Instead, if a student draws what looks like a gun, hell be suspended for ten days. And what should we do with those who are involved in a murder spree? They should be executed. The man who shot and killed a number of people at Gabrielle Giffords campaign rally and the man who killed the people in the movie theater are still alive. There is no doubt that these men killed these people. Their mental state, either before or after the shootings, is irrelevant. They should be dead by now. We need some public executions to send a message.

Lets stop blaming law-abiding citizens and go after the criminals. "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington

Lott schools CNNs OBrien on Gun-Free-Zones

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C6Wkkabcbs&feature=player_embedded#! Despite the patient explanations by John Lott, author of the seminal book More Guns, Less Crime, CNNs Soledad OBrien keeps trying to understand, but at the end she said she was just as boggled as she was in the beginning of her interview. She "just doesn't get it'. Mainly S because of her Victim Disarmament aka Gun Control, Guns are bad no one but the Government or LE should have any semi-automatic gun of any kind. I dont care that EVERY other Mass School Shooting occurred in a Gun Free Zone and the other shooting in the theater in Colorado as well as Malls also occurred in Gun Free Zones. I dont care that the blood of innocent people is on my hands, no matter how many murdered innocent people it takes to push her suicidal sick twisted agenda and ideology of Victim Disarmament aka 8

Gun Control turning American Citizens into Slaves. This total inability to even comprehend that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun she wants to make ALL of America a target rich for EVERY violent criminal and psychopath with a gun who wants to murder as many innocent people as possible has a safe environment to work in. Not to mention genocide from governments in the 20th Century that totaled 56 Million people!

Gun Control Wont Prevent Tragedy

December 20th 2012 By Jack Graff

HYPERLINK "http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gun-SC.jpg" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Gun-SC.jpg"

\* MERGEFORMAT

Its not tougher gun control, stupid.

No matter how much tougher we make our gun laws, well never prevent future tragedies like last weeks murder of those innocents in Newtown, Conn. We wont stop future Newtowns if we outlaw every military-style assault weapon in America. We wont stop future Auroras if we outlaw semi-automatic pistols or rifles, or mandate that no magazine clip can ever hold more than 10 rounds. We wont stop future Virginia Techs if we make it tougher to buy a gun legally or if we shut down all gun shows on the continent for the rest of time. Lets get real. America has an estimated 300 million guns. We could make owning a gun a capital crime today; and by tomorrow, 100 million guns would be hidden in our closets and buried in our backyards. Good people, bad people, and crazy people would still have access to tens of millions of guns and the ammunition they need. All the strict laws Mayor Bloomberg or Sen. Feinstein can dream up wont change that. Some of the strictest gun laws in the country dont stop the gang-bangers of Chicago from slaughtering each other by the hundreds each year over drug turf. Connecticut already had tough gun laws. So did Norway, where last year an evil extremist used guns and bombs to randomly kill 77 people mostly teenagers. To politicians, banning all semi-automatic weapons or large magazines in guns sounds like a good solution to stop mass murders, but it isnt. 9

Those laws might keep the death toll in the single digits, but they wont stop another killing spree like the one at Sandy Hook Elementary from occurring in the first place. I want to prevent mass murders from happening in schools, not merely reduce their number of victims. Im not willing to accept six dead first-graders instead of 20. Im not willing to accept a single dead teacher or principal or schoolchild. And the only way to bring the death toll down to zero in our schools is to put trained armed guards in every one of them. Not a retired policeman or a fat guy in a cheap uniform who sits in a chair all day. A real guard (Gun Fighter) with a real loaded gun that he or she knows how to use and is authorized to shoot. It could be a local police officer or a private security guard. And taxpayers would be willing to pay the price for knowing their kids were being protected by more than security cameras and locked doors. Security is never foolproof. President Reagan was shot in 1981, he was the most protected person in America, surrounded by heavily armed and trained bodyguards. The disturbed man who tried to kill him didnt use an assault rifle or a semi-automatic to carry out his plan. Before he was wrestled to the ground, he got off six shots in 1.7 seconds with a revolver. Ill never forget what Mike Luty, the head of the Secret Service detail when asked in a press conference on National TV said, How can you allow this to happen? Luty said, We train 24/7, but we cant stop the crazies. We cant stop every crazy in America who is intent on committing mass murder, either, but we can try. We need to fix our mental health system so its better able to identify potential killers before they kill, and we need to find ways parents can provide help to their kids over 18 without needing a court order. But no matter what we do, evil people, crazy people, and troubled suicidal young white males will always have access to guns; and theyll plan their lethal attacks in secret and carry them out. More gun control and gun-free zones wont stop them, but guns will. Putting armed guards with loaded weapons in our schools is the only sure way we can keep our future mass murderers from hurting any more of our innocent children. One thing was for sure though gun control would become the topic of discussion very soon. Hardly did I or anyone else know, within moments of the news breaking worldwide, that liberal pundits and those who are pro-gun control began to spin a terrible tragedy into a few political shenanigans as they blamed the guns for killing innocent people. However, it wasnt the guns that were used. It was a 20 year-old man named Adam Lanza a very crazed and abnormal man. Needless to say, America was about to succumb to the narrative that we had faced each and every time a tragedy of this magnitude occurs. 10

Gun Control. Oh, how I hate the term gun control. I hate that people want to blame the guns for killing 27 innocent people. I hate that the president wants to take our guns away; and in doing so, he has created a task force to solve the problem of gun violence in America headed by none other than the magnificent Joe Im a walking gaffe Biden. Lets get a few things straight, shall we? First, it wasnt guns that murdered 27 innocent people; it was a single man with free-will to do so. We all should be blaming him, and not the guns. Its called personal responsibility something our society lacks to a great deal. Secondly, every shooting tragedy that I can remember has happened in a gun-free-zone. Now, shouldnt this tell us something? Criminals who are dead-set on going on a shooting rampage arent going to go shoot up a police station or a gun range. Why? Because THEY ALL HAVE GUNS AND WILL DEFEND THEMSELVES. A gun-free school would make a perfect target because no one on campus has a gun, especially if its a place like an elementary school where resource officers are not likely to be present, unlike at a Middle or High School. Let me be clear: Saturday afternoon, when the reports of the heroics of the staff at the school were first surfacing, it was told that the principal of the school and the school psychologist were the first two people to make contact with Lanza. Now, if either of them would have had a weapon and were properly trained on how to use that weapon to defend themselves and the children at the school, I strongly feel like the only person who would have died at that school would have been Lanza himself. So what am I proposing? I would like teachers at every school in the country to be packing heat. Not every teacher of course, but possibly something like one handgun and one assault rifle per 50 students. Also, it would have to be known that the campus is not a gun-free zone. Most likely, this would probably deter any possible shootings at schools ever again.

Why No One Invades Switzerland!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ufkwTM82e4&feature=endscreen&NR=1 Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world, because the people are armed, basic military is mandatory for men, and after wards they are required to keep their weapon at home. A crook will think twice about breaking into houses knowing this, people who think the world should get rid of guns should think again.

11

What if one of the teachers had a gun?

Sandy Hook massacre begs question of how to protect children at school
December 15th 2012 By Drew Zahn wnd.com

Does making schools gun-free zones really protect children, or make them easy targets? The recent mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., has left many wondering how best to keep children safe from mad gunmen who ignore the gun-free zone laws and indeed any gun-control laws to open fire on our nations most innocent. According to news reports of the Connecticut massacre, Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother Nancy dead at their family home, then drove to the school, where he gunned down six more adults and 20 children, before killing himself. But what if one of the teachers had a gun, too? Could Lanza have been stopped and many of the childrens lives saved? The question isnt new. Back in 1999, the year of the Columbine school shooting, an organization called Jews For The Preservation of Firearms Ownership interviewed Dr. David 12

Th. Schiller, a leading gun-rights advocate in Europe on how to combat the school shootings that even then were deemed quite common on U.S. soil. Schiller cited the example of Israel in the 1970s, which had suffered a string of horrific attacks on schoolchildren by Palestinian terrorists. After this a controversial debate erupted in Israel in regards to guns, self-defense, etc., Schiller said. We heard, of course, the same dumb arguments by some good people you always hear on these occasions, like, We do not live in the Wild West here! or, Guns dont solve problems! or similar silly things. But then, Schiller explained, Israel dumped its strict gun laws dating back to British rule over the area and opened the doors for concealed carry permits. Teachers and kindergarten nurses now started to carry guns, schools were protected by parents (and often grandpas) guarding them in voluntary shifts. No school group went on a hike or trip without armed guards, Schiller explained. When the message got around to the PLO groups and a couple infiltration attempts failed, the attacks against schools ceased. Too much of a risk here: Terrorists and other evildoers dont like risks. The only thing we can do is protect possible victims, Schiller concluded. And laws written in some books will not achieve that. Never have, never will. In the U.S., the question of teachers with guns has been debated since Columbine if not before and has come up again following the tragedy at Sandy Hook. According to the Associated Press, Oregon State Rep. Dennis Richardson contends the Connecticut massacre is another heartbreaking failure of school personnel to ensure protection and evidence that teachers should be allowed to carry guns in the classroom. Richardson wrote in an email to three southern Oregon school superintendents that gun bans on school property must be overturned. If I had been a teacher or the principal at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, and if the school district did not preclude me from having access to a firearm, either by concealed carry or locked in my desk, most of the murdered children would still be alive, and the gunman would still be dead, and not by suicide, he wrote. Richardson added, We need to ensure that our children are safe, and we cant do that by disarming those who are on the scene. In Medford, Ore., where the school district faced a lawsuit over barring a high school teacher from bringing her gun to school in 2009, Police Chief Tim George argued Richardson is misguided. Teachers dont go into teaching to be police officers, they want to teach kids, George said. In crisis situations there are a lot of very complex things happening all at once, and you have to constantly train for deadly force incidents. Medfords schools Superintendant Phil Long agreed, saying he believes its best if teachers focus on getting children to safety if a shooting happens. 13

I know (Richardson) is well-intentioned when he says this, Long said. But we cant jump to conclusions immediately after a tragedy like this occurs.

Already armed
In 2008, the tiny school district in Harrold, Texas, made national news when it approved a policy change permitting employees to carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings. In order for teachers and staff to carry a pistol, the Associated Press reported at the time, they must have a Texas license to carry a concealed handgun; must be authorized to carry by the district; must receive training in crisis management and hostile situations and have to use ammunition that is designed to minimize the risk of ricochet in school halls. Superintendent David Thweatt argued there was just too little protection for the children, when his schools lie more than 20 minutes from the nearest sheriffs office. When the federal government started making schools gun-free zones, thats when all of these shootings started, Thweatt told the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Why would you put it out there that a group of people cant defend themselves? Thats like saying sic em to a dog. Texas law typically outlaws firearms on school campuses, unless pursuant to the written regulations or written authorization of the institution. Four years later, following the Connecticut shooting, the Star-Telegraph revisited Thweatt and the Harrold school districts guardian plan. Thweatt said there has not been an incident on his campus since implementing the policy and he doesnt expect one. Is that 100 percent? No, Thweatt told the newspaper. Nothing is 100 percent. But what we do know is that weve done all we can to protect our children. Thweatt explained his district has also installed special locks and cameras, but that isnt enough. He doesnt want a plan where you lock yourself in your closet and hope that an intruder wont hurt you. So what we came up with was a policy that would protect. He also said his heart was heavy after learning of the shooting in Connecticut: Its just tearing me up. I have children of my own. I cant stand to think of my little guys just getting slaughtered like that. My heart just bleeds for these people.

Other efforts to arm teachers

Lawmakers in a number of states in recent years have made arguments similar to Thweatts, attempting to clear the way for trained teachers or officials to protect schools with firearms. The aforementioned Oregon, after a school shooting in 1998 when student Kip Kinkel killed his parents at home, then drove to Thurston High School in Springfield and opened fire in the cafeteria, killing two and wounding 25 others has drafted a number of bills to permit concealed carry in schools. The bills, however, have failed to pass. 14

After a string of school shootings in Wisconsin, Colorado and Pennsylvania in the span of only a few weeks in 2006, Wisconsin State Rep. Frank Lasee pushed for legislation that would allow teachers, principals, administrators and other school personnel to carry concealed weapons. To make our schools safe for our students to learn, all options should be on the table, Lasee told the AP. Israel has well-trained teachers carrying weapons and keeping their children safe from harm. It can work in Wisconsin. The director of school safety for Milwaukee Public Schools, Pete Pochowski, opposed Lasees proposal at the time. Statistically, the safest place for a child to be is in school, Pochowski said. We have problems in our schools, but not to the point where we need to arm our teachers and principals. Children in Israel are far more vulnerable to daily violence than students in America, he said. Just last year, Nebraska State Sen. Mark Christensen introduced a bill to allow teachers, administrators and school security guards to carry concealed guns. Christensen told the Lincoln Journal Star he introduced his bill in response to a 2011 shooting at Millard South High School, where 17-year-old student Robert Butler Jr. shot Assistant Principal Vicki Kaspar and then shot Principal Curtis Case after Kaspar had suspended Butler from the school earlier that morning. Kaspar died of her injury, while Curtis recovered. Do we want a situation where somebody can just walk in and start shooting teachers and all kinds of kids? Christensen asked at the time. His measure, had it been on the books, might have allowed someone to stop Butler, he argued. We might have been better off, Christensen said. To me, its much better to be able to deal with the situation quickly. We can stop additional lives from being taken. Three months after Christensen proposed the legislation, it was tabled indefinitely.

Gun-control laws failed Connecticut children

December 15th 2012 By Drew Zahn wnd.com

Facts of crime reveal shooter violated at least 3 statutes already in place!!!

In the wake of the horrific school shooting in Newtown, Conn., voices across nation, and indeed across the globe, have been calling for stricter gun-control laws. Yet what gun-control measure could have prevented this crime? 15

The state of Connecticut already has certain gun-control laws in place, at least three of which the shooter broke, as he could have only obtained the weapons through illegal means. According to news reports, Adam Lanza, 20, shot his mother Nancy Lanza dead at their family home before driving to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, where he gunned down more than two dozen people, 20 of them children, and then killed himself. The Associated Press reports Lanza brought three guns into the school: a Glock pistol, a Sig Sauer pistol and Bushmaster rifle, which the New York Post further reports was a semiautomatic assault rifle chambered for a .223 caliber round, matching casings found at the crime scene.

Lanza, therefore, if you count theft, murder and breaking and entering since CBS New York now reports it likely Lanza broke into the school through a window to circumvent a lockeddoor and intercom security system would have violated half-dozen laws in his crime, including the following gun-control statutes: First, Connecticut law requires a person be over 21 to possess a handgun. Lanza was 20. Second, Connecticut requires a permit to carry a pistol on ones person, a permit Lanza did not have. Third, it is unlawful in Connecticut to possess a firearm on public or private elementary or secondary school property, a statute Lanza clearly ignored. Fourth, with details on the Bushmaster rifle still sketchy, its possible Lanza may have violated a Connecticut law banning possession of assault weapons. Of course, these laws were violated because Lanza did not own any of the firearms in question, but rather stole them, and he clearly had no regard for the law in committing his crime.

The Associated Press reports the weapons were registered to Lanzas first victim, his own mother, according to a law enforcement official not authorized to discuss information with reporters and spoke on condition of anonymity. 16

The facts of the case mark one of the largest quandaries with cries for additional gun control: The guns already exist, and the criminals who have broken laws to use them have also demonstrated theyre willing to break laws to obtain them. Unless the government somehow mandates and is able to effectively destroy the millions of guns already in circulation, gun-control laws primarily affect the already law-abiding, rather than the criminal element. Yet legislators have been swift to suggest the answers lie in even more laws. In Congress, Fox News reports, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a leading gun-control advocate on Capitol Hill, has called for members to address the issue when a new session starts in January. I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about Americas gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life, said Feinstein, who co-sponsored a 1994 bill that resulted in a 10-year ban on many semiautomatic guns classified as assault weapons. We have been through this too many times, President Obama agreed. Were going to have to come together and take meaningful action to prevent more tragedies like this, regardless of the politics. New York Citys Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a leading voice for more gun-control legislation pushed the president to do more. Calling for meaningful action is not enough, said Bloomberg, who leads the group Mayors Against Illegal Guns. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. The New York Times reports at least one Capitol Hill Republican, however, argued tighter control is not the answer. Thats one thing I hope doesnt happen, New York Rep. Mike Rogers told the Times. What is the more realistic discussion is how do we target people with mental illness who use firearms? The New York Daily News reports Lanza was dark and disturbed, a deeply troubled boy who suffered from a troubled mental state, perhaps related to Aspergers syndrome or a form of personality disorder.

17

Horror in Connecticut Would Gun Control Have Prevented Mass Murders at Connecticut Elementary School?
December 15th 2012 By Kevin Fobbs On Friday, December 14th, 20 innocent children walked into their schoolroom class at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and before noon, Adam Lanza, 20, had gunned them and his mother down, according to Fox News sources. Recently, this horrific scene has been played out far too many times in malls, movie theaters, and at universities. This time, the unthinkable has occurred. The innocence of childhood was stripped away by this lone gunman, and left a town, and a nation in mourning. Yet, in the midst of this very tragic day, the routine calls for tighter gun control laws have again raised its ugly head. While there is no reported connection to alleged shooter, Adam Lanza and illegal firearms, the calls are spreading, as they did earlier in the week, when another masked gunman entered a Portland, Oregon area mall, and shot and killed two victims. According to Fox News, a U.S. Justice Department source indicated that weapons used in the murderous assault, including a .223-caliber rifle, had been legally registered to the shooters mother. There is a serious problem in this nation, but with this tragedy and the one on Tuesday in Portland, Oregon, it was not the gun, but those with stolen weapons that was the problem. In a nation where there are over 50 million legal gun owners, there is no clear reason how the outbursts of violence by mentally unstable individuals whose weapon of choice is a gun, can be used as a rationale to curtail constitutionally protected Second Amendment rights. The two are not even logically synonymous. Gun control laws that are not strict enough did not fail these families who are undergoing this very grievous period of mourning for their dead loved ones. What may have failed, even though speculative, is whatever social service system that did not intervene or pay attention to domestic issues that were occurring inside the home of the dead shooter. 18

The answers to what motivated Adam Lanza, to head into the school where his mother taught and into the very room where she was a teacher and open fire on precious little kids, shows anger that was perhaps motivated by revenge, or some other deep unsettling motive. But a gun control law is not the culprit in this tragic scenario. How much tighter should the state of Connecticuts laws be, if the weapons were purportedly registered to the shooters mother? The State of Connecticut gun laws specifies in part: It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony. It is unlawful to possess a handgun if convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes. The mother did not appear to be a felon, nor was she a convicted delinquent. She was a teacher in an elementary school who was, according to published reports from Fox News, murdered by her own son, who stole the weapons from her home. She was a not victim of a right-wing fringe element. She was murdered by her son. There is no gun control legislation in America or on Earth that will prevent an unbalanced person from picking up a knife, gun or any other weapon and assaulting or killing another human being. A case in point was O.J. Simpson, who used a knife to murder his estranged wife and her friend. Knives were not outlawed as a result. Guns are not the problem, and guns do not murder innocents. People who are determined to harm or murder another person is as old as the bible, with Cain murdering his younger brother Abel. One clear solution which atheists and their fellow liberal secular travelers avoid is, bringing God back into the schools, and into the public discourse. People of faith can and should draw the line in the sand and stand up for a nation that does not allow murderers to get a free pass for their behavior by blaming heinous actions on a gun. Instead examine the failed social system which disarms children of their access to prayer in the schools, and practice of biblical respect and other behavioral principles which guided Americas founders. The nation should look inward, and truly examine how can each person begins a new narrative, which does not abandon God and Christ by replacing them with material gift giving. The reason for the season is not Santa in a sleigh, but Jesus Christ, the son of God, in a manger. Whatever set this young man on a dangerous downward spiral, may have been avoided, if he and those around him could have heard and notified authorities to whatever inner turmoil challenge he was facing. There is no excuse ever for murdering children or any other person. Gun control laws would not have protected society from his inner demons. In fact, by disarming a nation of its constitutional right to protection, its citizens increasingly will become victims of more murderous mayhem, violence and death.

This, America will never permit!

19

On Cue Left Politicizes Murders of Children

December 15th 2012 By Tad Cronn Once again, the guns did it, and its somehow conservatives fault. Fridays murders in Newtown, Connecticut, of 20 children and six adults are a sad tragedy, yet it seemed as if the bodies were not even cold before the Left jumped in, eager to make use of this latest opportunity to spread their anti-gun dogma. President Obama got the ball rolling with a tearful call for meaningful action. That was all that was needed for the minions to crawl out of their dungeons and go to work. New York Citys nanny Mayor Michael Bloomberg called for a national gun policy: President Obama rightly sent his heartfelt condolences to the families in Newtown. But the country needs him to send a bill to Congress to fix this problem. Calling for meaningful action is not enough. We need immediate action. We have heard all the rhetoric before. What we have not seen is leadership not from the White House and not from Congress. That must end today. This is a national tragedy and it demands a national response. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino also weighed in, echoing Bloomberg: As a Mayor who has witnessed too many lives forever altered by gun violence, it is my responsibility to fight for action. Todays tragedy reminds us that now is the time for action. Innocent children will now never attend a prom, never play in a big game, never step foot on a college campus. Now is the time for a national policy on guns that takes the loopholes out of the laws, the automatic weapons out of our neighborhoods and the tragedies like today out of our future. It evidently makes no difference that there do not appear to have been any automatic weapons used in the shootings, or that theres no evidence so far that the killer exploited any loopholes in the law to obtain his weapons.

20

As for the line of thinking that somehow a gun law could have stopped the massacre, its more reasonable to think that if some adult at that school had a gun, then there could have been more children and adults still alive today. What drives a person like Adam Lanza to snap and turn into a mass murderer could be any number of causes and may never be entirely clear. But the media wasted no time in laying the groundwork for somehow blaming conservatism with the story line that his mother was a gun enthusiast and she was very strict. By contrast, early indications are that the shooter had a serious personality disorder, raising the more sensible question of why there is a lack of mental health facilities for someone who could probably benefit from institutional treatment. Instead, the Huffington Post deluged its front page with at least two dozen stories with different takes on why we need to eliminate guns, interspersed with stories blasting the GOP and questioning where was God? so as to indict Christians. ABC was a little less blatant about its agenda, but even it hauled out stories on gun control laws and the history of recent mass shootings. CNN was somewhere in the middle with fairly sedate news coverage but a raft of anti-gun opinion pieces.

The deaths of so many people are tragic enough without the Left trying to use those deaths to further its political agenda.

Horror in Connecticut
21

Blame A Society In Decay NOT Guns

December 15th 2012 By Tim Powers

In the majority of the mass killings that have happened over the past few years (five on Obamas watch), the Liberals/Communists are quick to blame the guns used and push for more gun control. I beg to differ with their point of view. We have become a society of watchers and followers and not the primary teachers of our children. We are encouraged to constantly praise our kids and not humiliate them in front of others. Tim outs have replaced grounding and a good old fashioned paddle on the butt. We as a society have become so wrapped up in basic survival due to a Liberal-dominated economy that our kids are now babysat by uncensored blood-andguts video games, high-paid, Liberal, union-label teachers, and absolute filth coming across the TV (otherwise known as an electronic income reducer). Our kids have become social zombies in an ever-changing world. They are not taught critical thinking or coping skills. They are not taught anything about faith or freedom. They are only taught how to play follow the leader. Well, how is that working out for us? Innocent people are getting killed. 22

As for guns, the establishment run by the Liberals/Communists is 100 percent responsible for these mass murders. They have taken away parental rights to properly raise our children in an effort to take our 2nd Amendment rights away. An armed population is a free people; an unarmed population is a subject of the state. If our Communist leaders want to blame guns for these murders, why not blame knives as well? Why not blame cars for drunken driving deaths? Why not blame eating utensils for obesity? Does this sound far-fetched? Unfortunately, it is the mindset of these Liberal/Communist leaders who live in their glass bubbles. It is way past time that we the people put the blame where it is due, directly on the backs of the people who think they know whats best for our kids. We must take the responsibility to stand up and say no more and raise our own children minus the outside influences. It is our duty to rebuild our society as our founders have set it up. As always, my fellow Patriots, stay safe and be aware of your surroundings.

MSNBC Railroads Conser vatives In Gun Control Debate

December 15th 2012 By B. Christopher Agee

Editors note: This column was penned before the tragedy yesterday in Connecticut.) Using the recent shooting at a mall in Oregon as a launching pad, MSNBC presented a onesided look at the issue of gun control. Considering the source, I doubt I need to clarify which view the network endorsed. During a segment touted as a debate on the issue, the anchor invited just one guest a gun control activist with the Brady Campaign to discuss the merits of gun-grabbing legislation. The newsman began the interview by asking his guest this hard-hitting question: Why cant we get the weapons, though, specifically like whats being described that was used in this incident most recently in Portland, off the streets? Despite the anchors rather clumsy phrasing, his guest called it a good question and went headlong into his leftist talking points. Without a conservative guest to challenge the politically correct position, the conversation maintained an anti-Second Amendment vibe.

23

Americans dont want to live in a country that has shootings in malls and movie theaters and places of worship but we also dont want to live in a country where there are 32 murders every day, he replied. No one brought up the fact that Americans also dont want to live in a country where our constitutionally afforded rights are stripped because of the irresponsible acts of a few murderous lunatics. No one argued that murders and assaults occur consistently in our country without the use of a gun. No one chimed in with statistics proving that responsible gun ownership actually decreases crime. This is what passes for debate on MSNBC. The only voice in favor of the Second Amendment came from a clip of Sen. Lindsey Graham recorded during a CNN interview. Graham rationally explained why he supports gun ownership and, in a broader sense, personal liberty. If my individual rights under the Constitution are limited by the sensibility of others, I dont have a whole lot of rights, he said in the clip. Instead of treating Grahams remarks with respect as he did with those of his in-studio guest the MSNBC anchor said they made him nuts. Im sure this network talking head received a hearty pat on the back from his bosses for a job well done; but outside of that leftist enclave, such unbalanced reporting is yet another obvious sign of bias.

Liberals Exploit Fear to Go After Guns Again

December 15th 2012

Never trust a liberal who wants to have a conversation. At least when theyre screaming at conservatives to shut up, theyre being honest. But when they say they want to talk to you, watch out, theres an agenda. And after Fridays school shootings in Connecticut, liberals are feeling very chatty on the topic of guns. Its the same script weve lived through before. Some madman kills a bunch of people, then before the country can even process the details of what happened, the Left is all over the media and the social networks blaming guns and conservatives, and calling for more gun control laws. 24

For the ruling Left, its not a tragedy, its an opportunity to once again exploit Americans fears about guns and about their childrens lives so that they can push their dogmatic anti-gun agenda. In the case of the Connecticut murders, police werent even certain of the shooters ID Adam Lanza before people on the Left were racing to be the first to condemn our gun culture and call for tougher laws. This time, the call is for national restrictions, probably because Connecticut already has a reputation for having some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Despite that, the guns were apparently obtained legally by Adam Lanzas mother, whom the media has portrayed as a gun enthusiast. There has also been talk from politicians about automatic weapons and supposed loopholes in gun laws, even though there dont appear to have been any automatic weapons used or loopholes exploited by the gunman. The shooter was also wearing some sort of paramilitary uniform. Perhaps we should ban online clothing purchases as well. Coincidentally, on the same day in China there was a report of a man who snapped and attacked a bunch of school kids with a knife, wounding nearly as many as the Connecticut shooter killed. Liberals are pointing to this and actually suggesting that it proves youre less likely to kill people if you dont have a gun, when the truth more likely is that the Chinese attacker simply wasnt trying to kill people. The news from Newtown is that Lanza forced his way into the school. No safety precautions will prevent someone from hopping a fence or breaking a window or forcing a door if thats what theyre intent on doing. And none of the restrictions liberals want on guns would have changed what happened. Question for liberals: If guns are really the problem, then why do we give the police guns when we expect them to stop trouble? The bottom line is this: The Connecticut shooter was an emotionally disturbed young man who snapped, took his mothers guns and killed as many people as he could. A knife, a baseball bat, a chainsaw or even his bare hands could have had the same results. The conversation we should be having is whether there are ways to identify such troubled individuals early and intervene with appropriate mental health services so that the Adam Lanzas of the world never get to the point of picking up a gun or any other weapon.

But thats a conversation the Left wont sit still for!!!

25

Why? Failed Gun Control Policies of the Left aka Victim Disarmament

Celebrities Use Tragedy To Bash Conser vatives

December 16th 2012 By B. Christopher Agee

Michael Moore: Fat Dumbass Did Spoons Make You Fat??? Mere hours after a murderous lunatic killed more than two dozen individuals mostly young children and himself at an elementary school in Connecticut, leftist celebrities took to social media to opine about a utopian world without guns. Instead of holding the gunman accountable for the unconscionable carnage, these airheads automatically react by calling for responsible gun owners to give up their Constitutionally 26

Protected right to bear arms. Most conservatives realize, of course, that this would instantly create millions of new victims since anyone intent on carrying out such a heinous crime is probably not going to heed Big Brothers call to turn in his or her weapons. Furthermore, as Oklahoma City bomber Tim McVeigh tragically proved, the absence of a gun does not prevent the risk of random and unexplainable violent acts. To the notoriously shallow Hollywood left, though, restrictive gun control legislation would be a panacea resulting in nothing short of world peace. Thanks to social media sites such as Twitter, we can instantly see the gut reactions of these self-righteous entertainers, including screenwriter Kevin Williamson. We need gun control, he tweeted. Stop defending your right to bear arms. Youre stupid. Support of the Bill of Rights constitutes stupidity to this ideological lightweight. Its a bit ironic for Williamson, whose credits include such gems as the Scream trilogy and I Know What You Did Last Summer, to blame gun ownership for senseless murder. Theres a reason those movies are called slasher not shooter films. Obviously, those of us not affected by this massacre could never imagine what the victims and their loved ones are going through. They need our fervent prayers for Gods comfort, not the bloviations of bloated blowhard Michael Moore. Too soon to speak out about a gun-crazy nation? he tweeted. No, too late. Moore, who clumsily and dishonestly attacked the issue in Bowling for Columbine, continued his tirade by claiming that the way to honor these dead children is to demand strict gun control, free mental health care, and an end to violence as public policy. In other words, the Second Amendment is government-sanctioned murder. Is that right, Michael? Similarly opportunistic Piers Morgan took to his keyboard to ask Barack Obama if he has the courage to stand up to the American gun lobby, later unilaterally declaring that No American needs more than one firearm at home and calling those with other views idiot and their argument absolute nonsense. Unsurprisingly, there are countless other examples of celebrities calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. When leftists express outrage, it is nearly always directed at the wrong target. Instead of the monsters behind these horrendous acts, they blame the inanimate tool used. Of course, this is often not because they actually believe guns are responsible, but because they believe that government control should trump personal liberty. I along with millions of my fellow Americans disagree and will continue to cling to my Bible and guns.

27

Liberals Call For Murder Of NRA President, Members & Repeal Of Second Amendment!
December 15th 2012 By Tim Brown When I wrote yesterday about the liberals coming out against guns, I had no idea just how some people would react. What once would have been unthinkable to blast out into public seems to be becoming more normal via things like Twitter and Facebook. Below is a selection of Tweets that are clearly anti-Second Amendment and even calls for the murder of the National Rifle Association President David Keene, along with NRA members.

28

Isnt that just like liberals? They are ticked off over a shooting that took innocent lives and they turn right around and want to murder innocent people that have done them absolutely no harm! But that wasnt all. There were cries of those wanting to do away with the Second Amendment and banning the NRA.

Sixteen US Mass Shootings Happened in 2012, Leaving at Least 88 Dead

December 17th 2012 29

February 22, 2012Five people were killed in at a Korean health spa in Norcross, Georgia, when a man opened fire inside the facility in an act suspected to be related to domestic violence. February 26, 2012Multiple gunmen began firing into a nightclub crown in Jackson, Tennessee, killing one person and injuring 20 others. February 27, 2012Three students at Chardon High School in rural Ohio were killed when a classmate opened fire. (Gun Free School Zone Means Target Rich Environment with more dead victims and higher body count) March 8, 2012Two people were killed and seven wounded at a psychiatric hospital in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, when a gunman entered the hospital with two semiautomatic handguns and began firing. (Gun Free Business Zone Means Target Rich Environment and more dead victims and higher body count) March 31, 2012A gunman opened fire on a crowd of mourners at a North Miami, Florida, funeral home, killing two people and injuring 12 others. April 2, 2012A 43-year-old former student at Oikos University in Oakland, California, walked into his former school and killed seven people, execution-style. Three people were wounded. (Gun Free School Zone Means Target Rich Environment with more dead victims and higher body count) April 6, 2012Two men went on a deadly shooting spree in Tulsa, Oklahoma, shooting black men at random in an apparently racially motivated attack. Three men died and two were wounded. May 29, 2012A man in Seattle, Washington, opened fire in a coffee shop and killed five people and then himself. July 9, 2012At a soccer tournament in Wilmington, Delaware, three people were killed, including a 16-year-old player and the event organizer, when multiple gunmen began firing shots, apparently targeting the organizer. July 20, 2012James Holmes enters a midnight screening of The Dark Knight Rises and opens fire with a semi-automatic weapon; twelve people are killed and fifty-eight are wounded. (Gun Free Business Zone Means Target Rich Environment and more dead victims and higher body count) August 5, 2012A white supremacist and former Army veteran shot six people to death inside a Sikh temple in suburban Milwaukee, Wisconsin, before killing himself. August 14, 2012Three people were killed at Texas A&M University when a 35-year-old man went on a shooting rampage; one of the dead was a police officer. (Gun Free School Zone Means Target Rich Environment and more dead victims and higher body count) September 27, 2012A 36-year-old man who had just been laid off from Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, Minnesota, entered his former workplace and shot five people to death, and wounded three others before killing himself. October 21, 201245-year-old Radcliffe Franklin Haughton shot three women to death, including his wife, Zina Haughton, and injured four others at a spa in Brookfield, Wisconsin, before killing himself. December 11, 2012A 22-year-old began shooting at random at a mall near Portland, Oregon, killing two people and then himself. (Gun Free Business Zone Means Target Rich Environment and more dead victims and higher body count) December 14, 2012One man, and possibly more, murders a reported twenty-six people at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, including twenty children, before killing himself. (Gun Free School Zone Means Target Rich Environment and more dead victims and higher body count) There were 17 shootings in 2012 for a total dead of 88 people. Compared to 40,000 Killed on US roads every year one wonders why the liberal Progressive politicians and 30

Obama are not shedding tears for a number that is 450 times higher than the mass shootings. In 7 of those mass shootings or over 40% law abiding citizens with CCWs were lawfully prevented from stepping one foot onto 5 of the shootings at Gun Free School zones and 2 other Gun Free Business Zones!

Motor vehicle crashes in the United States result in more than 40,000 deaths per year, says the Institute in the journal Injury Prevention.
This number is almost 450 time the amount killed with gun in the US but liberal politicians and Obama are NOT calling for a BAN on cars or as is the cause of many of the motor vehicle death drunk drivers (alcohol). So NO ban for alcohol either. Gun Control (aka victim disarmament) is only about control and disarming the law abiding citizen!!!

GUN CONTROL FACT-SHEET (2004) - Gun Owners of America

http://gunowners.org/fs0404.htm Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year r about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. Concealed carry laws have reduced murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which reviewed crime statistics in every county in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their rate of murder by 8.5%, rape by 5%, aggravated assault by 7% and robbery by 3%. 31

Concealed Carry vs. Waiting Period Laws. In 1976, both Georgia and Wisconsin tried two different approaches to fighting crime. Georgia enacted legislation making it easier for citizens to carry guns for self-defense, while Wisconsin passed a law requiring a 48 hour waiting period before the purchase of a handgun. What resulted during the ensuing years? Georgia's law served as a deterrent to criminals and helped drop its homicide rate by 21 percent. Wisconsin's murder rate, however, rose 33 percent during the same period. Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rate in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state. FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. More guns, less crime. In the decade of the 1990s, the number of guns in this country increased by roughly 40 million even while the murder rate decreased by almost 40% percent.7 Accidental gun deaths in the home decreased by almost 40 percent as well. CDC admits there is no evidence that gun control reduces crime. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has long been criticized for propagating questionable studies which gun control organizations have used in defense of their cause. But after analyzing 51 studies in 2003, the CDC concluded that the "evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these firearms laws." Gun shows are NOT a primary source of illegal guns for criminals. According to two government studies, the National Institute of Justice reported in 1997 that "less than two percent of criminals reported obtaining firearms from a gun show. And the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed in 2001 that less than one percent of firearm offenders acquired their weapons at gun shows. Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker. As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Women and Guns At least 17 million women own firearms in the United States.(141) And according to the National Research Opinion Center, 44 percent of adult women either own or have access to firearms. As many as 561 times a day, women use guns to protect themselves against sexual assault. In 89.6% of violent crimes directed against women, the offender does not have a gun; and only 10% of rapists carry a firearm. Thus, armed women will usually have a decided advantage against their attackers. A man can kill a woman with whatever he has at hand, but she can usually only resist him successfully with a gun. Don Kates, a civil rights attorney who specializes in firearms issues, cites a Detroit study showing that three-quarters of wives who killed 32

their spouses were not even charged, since prosecutors found their acts necessary to protect their lives or their childrens lives. Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The error rate for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

Assault weapons: fact or fiction?

Definition of real "assault weapons" According to one of the preeminent experts in the field of firearms, Dr. Edward Ezell, a key characteristic of a true assault weapon is that it must have the capability of "full automatic fire." Similarly, the U.S. Defense Department defines real assault weapons as "selective-fire weapons" meaning that these guns can fire either automatically or semi-automatically. Anti-gun pundits in recent years have managed to define "assault weapons" as semiautomatic firearms which only externally resemble a military firearm. Dr. Edward Ezell notes that true assault weapons "were designed to produce roughly aimed bursts of full automatic fire" something which a semi-automatic firearm does not do. Semi-automatic "assault rifles" are no different than many hunting rifles Officer William McGrath: "These semi-automatic assault rifles are little different than the semiautomatic hunting rifles that have been on the market since before World War II. The main difference between an assault rifle and a semi-automatic hunting rifle is that the assault rifle looks more military. "The term assault rifle is really a misnomer as a true assault rifle is a selective fire weapon capable of switching from fully automatic to semi automatic and back with the flip of a lever."

"The charge that the assault rifle holds more rounds than a legitimate hunting rifle shows either a lack of knowledge or a deliberate twisting of the facts, as 10, 20 and 30 round magazines for legitimate hunting rifles have been on the market for decades without the world coming to an end." So-called assault weapons have never been the "weapon of choice" for criminals (All of the following figures pre-date the "assault weapons" ban passed by Congress in 1994) Police View: Over 100,000 police officers delivered a message to Congress in 1990 stating that only 2% to 3% of crimes are committed using a so-called "assault weapon." New Jersey: The New York Times reported that, "Although New Jersey's pioneering ban on military-style assault rifles was sold to the state as a crime-fighting measure, its impact on violence in the state has been negligible, both sides agree." Moreover, New Jersey police statistics show that only .026 of 1 percent of all crimes involves "assault rifles." 33

Nationwide: The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in 1993 that violent criminals only carry or use a "military-type gun" in about one percent of the crimes nationwide. Knives more deadly: According to the FBI, people have a much greater chance of being killed by a knife or a blunt object than by any kind of rifle, including an "assault rifle." In Chicago, the chance is 67 times greater. That is, a person is 67 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death in Chicago than to be murdered by an "assault rifle." Cops own guns more deadly: So-called assault weapons are not menacing police officers nationwide. The FBI reports show that before the 1994 ban on semi-automatic "assault weapons," no more than three officers were killed in any one year by such guns. In Contrast police officers were more than three times as likely to be killed by their own guns than by "assault weapons."

It would seem one can't have it both ways. If Congress wants to ban weapons that are dangerous to police, then it should begin by pushing for a ban on police officers own weapons, since these guns kill far more often than "assault weapons." The same is true with knives and blunt objects. These instruments kill policemen more often than semi-automatic "assault weapons." Sarah Bradys own figures show that so-called assault weapons are not the criminals "weapon of choice." A study published by Handgun Control, Inc. in November of 1995 shows that the overwhelming majority of guns used to murder police officers are not "assault weapons." The irony is that HCI used a very inflated definition of "assault weapon" and still could not demonstrate that they are used in over 50% of the crimes. Does tracing of crime guns show that "assault weapons" are the weapons of choice for criminals? No. Gun control advocates will often make the claim that so-called assault weapons are frequently used in crime. To justify this claim, such advocates will cite as "evidence" the fact that law-enforcement run a high percentage of traces on these types of firearms. But this is a classic example of circular reasoning: law enforcement arbitrarily run a high percentage of trace requests on "assault weapons," and then this figure is used to justify the "fact" that these guns are frequently used in crime. Consider the following: Tracing requests are not representative of all guns used in crime. The Congressional Research Service states that, "Firearms selected for tracing do not constitute a random sample and cannot be considered representative of the larger universe of all firearms used by criminals."(116) (Emphasis added.) Moreover, BATF agents themselves have stated that, "ATF does not always know if a firearm being traced has been used in a crime." Tracing requests are not random samples. CRS notes that "ATF tracing data could be potentially biased because of screening conducted by local ATF agents prior to the submission of the tracing from." This means that police could, if they wanted, only trace so-called assault weapons. Would this mean that they are the only guns used in crime? No, it would just mean that law enforcement have a particular interest in tracing "assault weapons" over other guns. Tracing in L.A. That tracing is an unreliable measure of a guns use in crime is clear. For example, in 1989 in Los Angeles, "assault rifles" represented approximately only 3% of guns seized, but 19% of gun traces.

Semi-automatic "assault weapons" are excellent for self-defense

34

Police Capt. Massad Ayoob: "The likelihood of multiple opponents who move fast, often wear body armor, know how to take cover, and tend to ingest chemicals that make them resistant to pain and shock, are all good reasons for carrying guns that throw a whole lot more bullets than six-shooters do." "All four of these factors make it likely that more of the Good Guys bullets will be expended before the Bad Guys are neutralized. All of these factors, therefore, militate for a higher capacity handgun in the hands of the lawful defenders." Drugs and alcohol can make criminals resistant to pain Arkansas: A drunk opened fire on an officer, who responded by firing 29 shots 15 of them striking the criminal. It was only the last bullet which finally killed the drunk and effectively stopped him from shooting. Illinois: Police shot a drug-induced criminal 33 times before the junkie finally dropped and was unable to shoot any longer. Hi-capacity semi-autos can help decent people to defend themselves Los Angeles riots: Many of the guns targeted by so-called assault weapons bans are the very guns with which the Korean merchants used to defend themselves during the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Those firearms proved to be extremely useful to the Koreans. Their stores were left standing while other stores around them were burned to the ground. The Korean merchants would probably agree with Capt. Massad Ayoob. When one is facing mob violence and the police are nowhere to be found, one needs a gun that shoots more than just six bullets. A ban on large capacity semi-automatic firearms will only harm one's ability to defend himself and his family. The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own military rifles and handguns Report by the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution (1982) "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a military-style firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a militia, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard." The Supreme Court In U.S. v. Miller, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and that when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Firearms statistics
General Death Rates Cause
Heart disease

Number
710,760

35

Cancer Stroke (cerebrovascular disease) Chronic lower respiratory diseases Doctor's negligence Influenza and pneumonia Motor-vehicle Suicides (all kinds, including firearms) Firearms (Total) Suicides Homicides Accidents Accidents (six causes) 1) Falls 2) Poison (solid, liquid) 3) Choking on food or other object 4) Drowning 5) Fires, flames 6) Firearms Homicides (all instruments)

553,091 167,661 122,009 98,329 65,313 43,354 29,350 28,163 16,586 10,801 776

13,322 12,757 4,313 3,402 3,377 776 16,765

Source: Except for the figure on doctor's negligence, the above information is for 2000 and is taken from National Safety Council, Injury Facts: 2003 Edition, at 10, 19-20, 129. The number of yearly deaths attributed to doctor's negligence is based on the Harvard Medical Practice Study (1990) which is cited in Kleck, Point Blank. *The total firearms death figure above is a summary of the "Suicides," "Homicides" and "Accidents" subcategories. The Total excludes two categories: Legal Intervention and Undetermined.

Eight Common Gun Control Myths

A. Myth 1: If one has a gun in the home, one is three times more likely to be killed than if there is no gun present. 1. Fact: Guns are used more often to save life. Dr. Edgar Suter has pointed out that studies which make the claim that guns are more likely to kill the owner are flawed because they fail to consider the number of lives saved by guns.(146) That is, such claims ignore the vast number of non-lethal defensive uses with firearms. Criminologists have found that citizens use firearms as often as 2.5 million times every year in self-defense. In over 90% of these defensive uses, citizens merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off the attacker. 36

2. Fact: A study claiming "guns more likely to kill you than help you" is a total fraud. Not surprisingly, the figure claiming one is three times more likely to be killed by ones own gun is a total lie. The author of this study, Dr. Arthur Kellerman, refused to release the data behind his conclusions for years. Subsequently available evidence shows why Kellerman stonewalled for so long: Researcher Don Kates reveals that all available data now indicates that the "home gun homicide victims (in Kellermans study) were killed using guns not kept in the victims home." In other words, the victims were NOT murdered with their own guns! They were killed "by intruders who brought their own guns to the victims household." In retrospect, Kates found, it was not the ownership of firearms that put these victims at high risk. Rather, it was the victims "high-risk life-styles such as criminal associations that caused them to own guns at higher rates than the members of the supposedly comparable control group."

B. Myth 2: Most homicides are committed by otherwise law-abiding people who end up killing a friend or relative. 1. While most murders do involve the killing of an acquaintance, it is fallacious to assume these are otherwise law-abiding people killing one another. In fact, sixty-one percent of murder victims themselves and an even greater majority of murderers have prior criminal records. This indicates that most murders occur between criminals who have already demonstrated a pattern of violence. 2. The problem? The criminal justice system is a revolving door which continues to throw violent offenders back onto the street. Nationwide, 70% of murderers (under sentence of death) have prior felony convictions. This number does not include criminals who have pleabargained their felonies down to lesser charges. C. Myth 3: Gun Control has reduced the crime rates in other countries. 1. The murder rates in many nations (such as England) were ALREADY LOW BEFORE enacting gun control. Thus, their restrictive laws cannot be credited with lowering their crime rates. 2. Gun control has done nothing to keep crime rates from rising in many of the nations that have imposed severe firearms restrictions. Australia: Readers of the USA Today newspaper discovered in 2002 that, "Since Australia's 1996 laws banning most guns and making it a crime to use a gun defensively, armed robberies rose by 51%, unarmed robberies by 37%, assaults by 24% and kidnappings by 43%. While murders fell by 3%, manslaughter rose by 16%." Canada: After enacting stringent gun control laws in 1991 and 1995, Canada has not made its citizens any safer. "The contrast between the criminal violence rates in the United States and in Canada is dramatic," says Canadian criminologist Gary Mauser in 2003. "Over the past decade, the rate of violent crime in Canada has increased while in the United States the violent crime rate has plummeted." England: According to the BBC News, handgun crime in the United Kingdom rose by 40% in the two years after it passed its draconian gun ban in 1997. Japan: One newspaper headline says it all: Police say "Crime rising in Japan, while arrests at record low."

3. British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States: 37

In 1998, a study conducted jointly by statisticians from the U.S. Department of Justice and the University of Cambridge in England found that most crime is now worse in England than in the United States. "You are more likely to be mugged in England than in the United States," stated the Reuters news agency in summarizing the study. "The rate of robbery is now 1.4 times higher in England and Wales than in the United States, and the British burglary rate is nearly double Americas." The murder rate in the United States is reportedly higher than in England, but according to the DOJ study, "the difference between the [murder rates in the] two countries has narrowed over the past 16 years." The United Nations confirmed these results in 2000 when it reported that the crime rate in England is higher than the crime rates of 16 other industrialized nations, including the United States.

4. British authorities routinely underreport murder statistics. Comparing statistics between different nations can be quite difficult since foreign officials frequently use different standards in compiling crime statistics. The British media has remained quite critical of authorities there for "fiddling" with crime data. Consider some of the headlines in their papers: "Crime figures a sham, say police," "Police are accused of fiddling crime data," and "Police figures under-record offences by 20 percent."

British police have also criticized the system because of the "widespread manipulation" of crime data: a. "Officers said that pressure to convince the public that police were winning the fight against crime had resulted in a long list of ruses to massage statistics." b. Sgt. Mike Bennett says officers have become increasingly frustrated with the practice of manipulating statistics. "The crime figures are meaningless," he said. "Police everywhere know exactly what is going on." c. According to The Electronic Telegraph, "Officers said the recorded level of crime bore no resemblance to the actual amount of crime being committed." Underreporting crime data: "One former Scotland Yard officer told The Telegraph of a series of tricks that rendered crime figures a complete sham. A classic example, he said, was where a series of homes in a block of flats were burgled and were regularly recorded as one crime. Another involved pick pocketing, which was not recorded as a crime unless the victim had actually seen the item being stolen." Underreporting murder data: British crime reporting tactics keep murder rates artificially low. "Suppose that three men kill a woman during an argument outside a bar. They are arrested for murder, but because of problems with identification (the main witness is dead), charges are eventually dropped. In American crime statistics, the event counts as a three-person homicide, but in British statistics it counts as nothing at all. With such differences in reporting criteria, comparisons of U.S. homicide rates with British homicide rates is a sham, a 2000 report from the Inspectorate of Constabulary concludes."

5. Violence by any other name is still violent. Many countries with strict gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. 38

6. The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe. Over the last 70 years, Europe has averaged about 400,000 murders per year, when one includes the murders committed by governments against mostly unarmed people. That murder rate is about 16 times higher than the murder rate in the U.S. Why hasnt the United States experienced this kind of government oppression? Many reasons could be cited, but the Founding Fathers indicated that an armed populace was the best way of preventing official brutality. Consider the words of James Madison in Federalist 46: Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.

D. Myth 4: Recent gun control laws have reduced the U.S. murder rate. 1. Murder rate was already decreasing before Brady and semi-auto gun ban passed. Those who claim that the two gun control laws enacted in 1994 have reduced the murder rate ignore the fact that the U.S. murder rate has been decreasing from the high it reached in 1991. Thus, the murder rate had already begun decreasing two to three years before the Brady law and the semi-auto gun ban became law. 2. Murder rate decrease results from fewer violent youths. The Democratic Judiciary Committee noted in 1991 that, "An analysis of the murder tolls since 1960 offers compelling evidence of the link the significant rise of murder in the late 1960's, and the slight decrease in murder in the early 1980's follows from an unusually large number of 18-24 year-olds in the general population. This age group is the most violent one, as well as the group most likely to be victimized and the murder figures ebb and flow with their ranks." 3. According to the Clinton Justice Department, crime has decreased even while the number of guns increased. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, the research arm of the Justice Department, reported in 2000 that while the number of firearms in circulation rose nearly 10% during a recent five-year period, gun-related deaths and wounding dropped 33%. 4. Concealed carry laws have dropped murder and crime rates in the states that have enacted them. According to a comprehensive study which studied crime statistics in all of the counties in the United States from 1977 to 1992, states which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%. E. Myth 5: The Courts have never overturned a gun control law, and thus, there is no individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. 1. U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982) Courts have used the Second Amendment to strike down gun control: Nunn v. State and in re Brickey are just two examples where the Courts have struck down gun control laws using the Second Amendment. An individual right protected: "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first 39

half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner." 2. U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990). "The people seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution and it suggests that the people protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community." U.S. v. Lopez (1995). The Court struck down a federal law which prevented the possessing of firearms within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court argued that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution in no way grants Congress the authority to enact such gun control legislation. Printz v. U.S. (1997). The Supreme Court ruled the federal government could not force state authorities to conduct so-called Brady background checks on gun buyers. Majority of the Supreme Court cases clearly point to an individual right. In a mammoth work produced January 2004, three authors reprinted and analyzed the dozens of Supreme Court cases that have referenced the Second Amendment. Their conclusion? "These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment right of the people to keep and bear arms as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments."

3. U.S. Congress: Fourteenth Amendment (1868): The framers of the 14th Amendment intended to protect an individuals Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms by striking down state laws that denied this right. As stated by a Senate subcommittee in 1982, "During the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress frequently referred to the Second Amendment as one of the rights which it intended to guarantee against state action." Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986): The 1986 Law affirms individual right to keep and bear arms: "The Congress finds that the right of citizens to keep and bear arms under the second amendment to the United States Constitution require[s] additional legislation to correct existing firearms statutes and enforcement policies."

4. Nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to pass gun control legislation (see U.S. v. Lopez, 1995). Since the adoption of the Constitution, courts have ruled on both sides of the issue, indicating that judges are just as political as the common man. F. Myth 6: The Second Amendment militia is the National Guard. The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Militia was composed of the populace at large. Both the Congress and Supreme Court have affirmed this definition of the Militia. 1. Founding Fathers

40

George Mason: "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty" Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them The mind that aims at a select militia like the National Guard, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."

2. U.S. Congress The Militia Act of 1792. One year after the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, Congress passed a law defining the militia. The Militia Act of 1792 declared that all free male citizens between the ages of 18 and 44 were to be members of the militia. Furthermore, every citizen was to be armed. The Act stated: Every citizenshall provide himself with a good musket, or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints"

The Militia Act of 1792 made no provision for any type of select militia such as the National Guard. U.S. Senate Subcommittee Report (1982). "In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined militia of the United States to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a military-style firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. There can be little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of the a militia, they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard." Current Federal Law: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 311. "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States"

3. Supreme Court: U.S. v. Miller (1939). In this case, the Court stated that, "The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense and that when called for service, these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

G. Myth 7: Trigger locks will help save lives. 1. Fact: Locking up firearms can cost lives during a life-threatening situation. Consider two different cases from California. Merced. On the morning of August 23, 2000, Jonathon David Bruce attacked a houseful of kids. Armed with a pitchfork and without a stitch of clothing on his body Bruce proceeded to stab the children. Two of them died. The oldest of the children, Jessica Carpenter (14), was quite proficient with firearms. She had been trained by her father and knew how to use them. There was just one problem: the guns were locked up in compliance with California state law. Unable to use 41

the firearms, Jessica was forced to flee the house to get help. Mr. Bruces murderous rampage was finally cut short when officers carrying guns arrived on the scene. San Francisco. Contrast the Carpenters tragic situation to that of A.D. Parker. In February 2000, he was awakened by strange noises outside his bedroom in the middle of the night. The 83-year-old Parker grabbed a handgun he had not even used in several decades, went to his bedroom door, and found himself face-to-face with a thug holding a crowbar. Thankfully, Mr. Parker didnt have to fiddle with a trigger lock, remember a combination, or look for a key in the dark room. He simply pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. That is why he survived the attack.

2. Fact: A trigger lock can be very difficult to remove from a firearm in an emergency. Maryland Governor Parris Glendening struggled for at least two whole minutes to remove a trigger lock at a training session in March 2000. If it can take that long to remove such a lock when theres only the pressure of being embarrassed in front of the cameras what will a trigger lock mean for a homeowner who needs to use his or her self-defense gun during an emergency, in the bedroom, in the dark? 3. Fact: The Mafia favors trigger locks for their victims. Mafia turncoat, Sammy "the Bull" Gravano, expressed his love for gun control in an interview with Vanity Fair: "Gun control? Its the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If Im a bad guy, Im always going have a gun. Safety locks? You pull the trigger with a lock on, and Ill pull the trigger. Well see who wins." H. Myth 8: A majority of Americans favor gun control. 1. Fact: Biases exist in almost any poll. Those who understand how politics work will realize that many surveys get the "desired result" by asking questions in a certain way. In fact, pollsters such as Harris and Gallup have been severely criticized for designing gun-related questions that will reach a preordained conclusion. 2. Fact: The poll that counts takes place on Election Day. Because of the potential for bias among pollsters, it is often helpful to see how voters respond to specific gun laws AFTER they are enacted. Even more to the point, it is helpful to see how anti-gun candidates have reacted to the elections where gun control was a hot button issue.

Gun rights were the number one issue in Bushs victory over Gore (2000) a. Gun control views handed Gore a loss in three key Democratic states (Baltimore Sun). "Had Al Gore carried Bill Clinton's home state (Arkansas), his own home state (Tennessee) or what arguably has been the most reliable Democratic state in the country (West Virginia), he'd had been president. But Mr. Gore lost all three. Professionals in both parties think his position on gun control was the reason why." b. Democratic governors faulted Gore for pushing gun control (The Christian Science Monitor). "A group of Southern Democratic governors recently told reporters that they believed the gun-control issue had hurt Gore in their region in November of 2000. We like to hunt; we like to fish and I think there was a perception in the last general election that Gore 42

was out of step with what most of us thought about that issue, said Gov. Roy Barnes (D) of Georgia." c. Gore officials lament how there is little voter "intensity" for gun control: The New Republic Online: Democratic Party strategists speak of an "intensity gap." "Guns are a motivating issue for a sizable number of voters on the right, but thats not matched elsewhere on the left," laments Gore spokesman Doug Hattaway. USA Today: "We lost a number of voters who on almost every other issue realized they'd be better off with Al Gore," Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, Gore's running mate, says of the gun issue. "They were anxious ... about what would happen if Al was elected. This one matters a lot to people who otherwise want to vote for us."

Gun control caused Democrats to lose their grip on Congress (1994) a. President Bill Clinton repeatedly blamed gun control (which he supported) as the reason that Democrats lost control of the Congress during the elections of 1994: January 14, 1995. "The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress and is the reason the Republicans control the House." January 24, 1995. "I dont think its a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for the Brady bill and the semi-auto ban arent here tonight because they voted for it. A lot of people laid down their seats in Congress." April 27, 1999. "There are some Democrats who would be on this platform today who lost their seats in 1994 because they voted for the Brady Bill and they voted for the assault weapons ban." June 4, 1999. "This Congress came to power after the 1994 elections because in critical races the people, who voted for more modest things, like the Brady Bill got beat. They got beat, Charlie." After the 1994 election, Campaigns & Elections magazine documented how the gun issue was a major factor in 55 races where pro-gun challengers beat sitting incumbents.

Voters often support pro-gun positions on initiatives around the country a. Washington voters shot down a trigger locks initiative by a whopping 71-29% margin in 1997. b. Wisconsin voters passed a Right to Keep and Bear Arms Constitutional Amendment by a 74-26% margin in 1998. c. Also in the state of Wisconsin, Milwaukee voters trounced a city-wide handgun ban in 1994. The initiative lost 67-33%. d. In 1982, California voters rejected (against heavy odds and a hostile media) Proposition 15, a statewide initiative which would have banned the possession of privately owned handguns. The handgun ban lost by a 63-37% margin. e. Even in liberal Massachusetts, voters overwhelmingly rejected a ban on handguns in 1976. More than 70 percent of voters cast their ballots against the ban. 3. Fact: Several polls show that Americans are still pro-gun. While affirming that the potential for bias exists in any given poll, there are, nevertheless, several scientific polls indicating that the right to keep and bear arms is revered and gun control disdained by a majority of Americans today. a. In 2002, an ABC News poll found that almost three-fourths of the American public believe that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the rights of "individuals" to own guns. 43

b. Zogby pollsters found that by a more than 3 to 1 margin, Americans support punishing "criminals who use a gun in the commission of a crime" over legislation to "ban handguns." c. A Research 2000 poll found that 85% of Americans would find it appropriate for a principal or teacher to use "a gun at school to defend the lives of students" to stop a school massacre. d. In a Time/CNN poll conducted just weeks after the September 11 terrorist attacks, 61 percent said they favored allowing pilots to carry guns. A subsequent poll conducted by Wilson Research Strategies found support for arming pilots had risen to almost seven in ten people (68 percent). e. Shortly after the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, Colorado, a Colorado News poll showed that 65 percent of people surveyed favored a concealed-carry law allowing private citizens to carry firearms. This finding shocked anti-gun spokesmen who felt that the then-recent tragedy should have suppressed support for gun rights in the state of Colorado. "What really surprises me is were at ground zero and I would expect our numbers to be higher," said Arnie Grossman, cofounder of SAFE, an anti-gun group in Colorado. "I think it means we have a big job ahead of us."

Americas Biggest Killers: The Chart AntiGunners Dont Want You To See
Mac Slavo January 5th 2013 SHTFplan.com What we are hearing from bloviating gun control advocates in America is nothing short of emotionally driven irrationality.

44

According to statistics assembled from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Center for Disease Control and the Federal Government, firearms related homicides are minuscule in comparison to other the other big killers in the United States. If we look at homicide statistics in the United States its clear that more murders are committed with knives, bats, hammers and poisons than with firearms. As Kurt Nimmo recently noted, the number of murders committed annually with hammers and clubs far outpaces the number of murders committed with a rifle. The facts, not the drivel being spewed by the anti-gun propaganda machine, leave us wondering why some State and Federal lawmakers are so adamant about restricting the sale and ownership of handguns and rifles, especially since the majority of gun owners close to 99% have never committed a violent crime in their lives, let alone used a gun to do so. Here is the chart they never want you to see:

The chart above proves that politicians and those who would disarm Americans by going so far as to call for a repeal of the 2nd Amendment have ulterior motives or theyre completely ignorant of the facts. Perhaps their goal is to trigger a revolution in an effort to implement a total police state over the American people. It wouldnt be the first time that a government has tried something like this.

Government The Guilty Accomplice Of Sandy Hook Killer

December 18th 2012 By Doug Book

45

Gun Free School Zone or What is Referred to in the Military as a Target Rich Environment Strange, isnt it, that cowardly mass killers never seem to ply their trade at pistol ranges or shooting events throughout the nation. No, they inevitably choose government-mandated gun free zones in which no prospective victim has the means to defend either himself or anyone in his charge. After the murders at Sandy Hook, gun grabbers are out in force demanding that something at last be done about the all-too-easy accessibility of firearms. The NY Times points out that Barack Obama wiped the corner of his eye during an address to the American public. Were supposed to believe it was the cruel murder of these children that caused a purportedly emotional response in the president. More likely, it was unbounded joy at the opportunity this tragedy provides in the lefts ongoing battle against the right of self-defense. After all, are we to believe that this lifelong supporter of infanticide gives a damn about the death of a few children who had simply escaped an earlier fate at the hands of Planned Parenthood? Does anyone remember the image of Bill Clinton suddenly beginning to weep at the funeral of Ron Brown after being unexpectedly caught laughing on camera at a joke someone had told him? Obama, the Brady Bunch, Michael Bloomberg, Diane Feinstein, and the rest of those who advocate gun confiscation under the guise of common sense legislation regret one thing only that even MORE children werent killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School so as to further weaken the resolve of the NRA and other 2nd Amendment rights organizations and supporters. There are more good guys than bad guys in the world, writes Oathkeepers founder Stewart Rhodes. But the good guys need to be able to stop the bad guys, and that means they need to be armed so they can stop the bad guys on the spot, without having to wait for official government approved good guys to respond. Self-defense was forbidden by government proclamation at Sandy Hook. Any notion of being prepared to defend ones life, or that of 7-year old child, would be met with fines and imprisonment, imposed by those who believe that the best response to violence is to render its victims defenseless! 46

The evil and deranged will be with us forever. To think they will somehow be deterred from horrific acts because their prospective victims are legally prevented from fighting back is an affront to common sense. Stewart Rhodes was right when he called the Federal Government complicit in the deaths of these children, and in fact an accessory to their mass murder, by forcibly disarmingall the teachers, all the staff, and any parent who may have been on school property. After the murders at Sandy Hook, Mayors against Illegal Guns founder and gun confiscation advocate Michael Bloomberg called for immediate action, saying its still almost impossible to believe that a mass shooting in a kindergarten class could happen. Impossible to believe, Mr. Mayor? How can that be when you and your ilk campaign so ardently for the implementation of gun free zones throughout the nation?! You demand that law-abiding Americans be disarmed and rendered defenseless, yet profess disbelief when a lunatic so predictably takes advantage! And killers are indeed taking advantage of your campaign against the right to keep and bear arms, Mr. Mayor. They are taking advantage of defenseless people in the gun-free zones that you create. Now why not have the courage of your convictions and explain that to the parents of Sandy Hooks dead?

Newtown Shooting

The Numbers Dont Lie: Banning Guns Means More Crime!

December 18th 2012 By Kevin Collins 47

As threatened as the Second Amendment looks right now, in the end, new attacks on our freedom to own guns will fail. The numbers will once again prove that the Lefts arguments are built on lies and distortions. In the coming weeks, disingenuous liberals will try to use the tragic murders of 20 children and 6 staff members at a Connecticut grade school to justify curtailing our Second Amendment right to own firearms. That this horrific crime was committed by a likely paranoid schizophrenic will mean nothing to the gun grabbers. That the ACLU recently defeated a Connecticut law that might have involuntarily put the monster that killed these innocent victims in an institution safely away from the rest of us will mean nothing to them either. In knee-jerk fashion, they will claim that anyone who does not want to limit our Second Amendment rights must be in favor of killing innocent children; and the media will run with these lies. Both the liberals and their media mouthpieces will ignore any evidence (however strong-see pages 28-40) that derails their cherished ultimate goal of confiscating all guns in America. They want to bring us closer to the enlightened position on firearms ownership held around the world (and especially Europe.) The Left will ignore the data from Kennesaw, Georgia, where a city ordinance that has been in effect for thirty years requires each home to have a gun. Kennesaw consistently reports crime rates below those of the national average. Moreover, during the years immediately following the 1982 passage of its firearms requirement, home burglary rates dropped by 82% (and other crimes followed suit.) There will be no discussion of the mass murders of innocent unarmed people in gun controlhappy Norway, where 77 people were methodically slain by a single armed killer. No one will reference the 2007 murder of 32 innocent unarmed students and facility members at Virginia Tech at the hands of a killer who knew he had nothing to fear from his defenseless victims on the proudly gun free campus. These incidents dont fit. Nevertheless, with these ugly stories sitting just subsurface, the bluster from the Left will eventually die out. The whole process will be carried out so that liberals can get fresh material for fundraising letters. Second Amendment supporters will have a similar edge in fundraising.

Rearm, Not Disarm!!!

December 18th 2012 48

By Jack Graff

AZ Gun Fighter's Gear Good-To-Go

Socialists convince many able Americans that government should monopolize use of force, even where law recognizes our natural right of self-defense. Incrementally, theyve limited corporal punishment, demonizing gun advocacy; and every generation plots to disarm law-abiding citizens at the expense of truly public safety. Ironically, liberal elected officials, including this president, have legions of armed police and service personnel for their personal protection. Average Americans have police and military service personnel protecting them too just not personally. They protect us collectively and thus arent responsible for our individual survival. Personal safety is just that, a personal responsibility. Within federal, state, and local guidelines, responsible Americans arm themselves, not in preparation for their best OK Corral imitation. We arm ourselves to keep the precious peace until relieved by law enforcement in rare instances when words arent enough. Allowing socialists to reload conditioned helplessness as now meaning literal helpless means the communist conquest of America is complete. Those believing otherwise had better be vigilant because the Second Amendment is in real danger. And so is everything we hold dear! What is the end result of gun control legislation? The complete control of the people. At this present time, we do not see a military takeover of America. What most people are worried about are (1) moral misfits who have no regard for the law and (2) Islamic sleeper cells that could position themselves to go after soft targets. Adam Lanza didnt try to enter a gun show; he went to a soft target elementary school where he knew that he would not meet any significant resistance. Reports say that the Sandy Hook principal, Dawn Hochsprung, and the school psychologist, Mary Sherlach, confronted the shooter and tried to stop him before both were shot dead. We have to know that Islamic extremists are watching and taking notes. They know where we are vulnerable, as E. Michael Maloof points out in his WND article Shooting Underscores Threat to Soft Targets:

49

In addition to schools and shopping malls, other soft targets include high-profile businesses, hotels, casinos, transportation facilities, airports and venues where there may be large audiences, such as theaters. My wife and I went to see a movie last night. I took a gun with me. I watched every person who came in. I checked the exits. We took aisle seats. Note: My gun in picture below is a high capacity .45ACP with 14 round magazine in a shoulder holster with dual off-set mag pouch with two additional 14 round magazines for a total of 43 rounds of +P 185gr. JHP .45ACP. SOG Tactical Folder 4.5 blade SureFire E2 Defender Tac Light and Mil-Spec Cell phone. And yes I still have a current CCW from the state of Arizona even NO longer required by law! Consider what happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany. These laws left Jews defenseless against unspeakable evil.

AZ-Gun Fighter: Good-to-Go

Why No One Invades Switzerland!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ufkwTM82e4&feature=endscreen&NR=1 Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the world, because the people are armed, basic military is mandatory for men, and after wards they are required to keep their weapon at home. A crook will think twice about breaking into houses knowing this, people who think the world should get rid of guns should think again.

Sandy Hook And The Second Amendment

December 18th 2012 By Susan Stamper Brown 50

With emotions running high in response to the heart-wrenching events that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary School December 14, many of my liberal friends and family members believe that now is the perfect time for gun control legislation. As heartbreaking as it is that 20 children in Connecticut will not have the chance to open Christmas presents, celebrate birthdays, go on a first date, drive a car, graduate, get married, and have kids, there are millions of kids out there who will. And they are the reason why the rest of us need to fight for the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution that Progressives are so predictably willing to give away. Before Americans were able to corporately exhale upon hearing the news about the Connecticut shooting, liberals hopped on the gun control bandwagon. One of MSNBCs many loose cannons, Ed Schultz, went on a rant saying, Hiding behind the Second Amendment doesnt cut it anymore and described our founders as slave-owning bigots. Its real hard to wrap your hands around the hypocrisy of those who cry giant crocodile tears over the loss of these 20 precious children (and they should) but care little about millions of children who will never see the light of day due to abortion. And here we go again; Progressives are manipulating the Sandy Hook massacre as a way to strike down the Second Amendment. Truth is, gun control is like putting a bandage on a gaping wound. Seems to me a better solution is to do something about the culture of violence currently destroying our society from the inside out and place armed guards in schools in the meantime. Chances are, had one been at Sandy Hook, I wouldnt be writing about it today. I may date myself here, but when I was a kid, I didnt stay inside playing violent computer games or watching violent movies; I played outside with real people who picked flowers in the spring, climbed trees in the summer, jumped in leaf piles in the fall, and ice skated on frozen ponds in the winter. And I grew up to be a responsible citizen and gun owner. As Ive written before, if you listen to liberals long enough, its not too long before you find yourself in Bizarro World. And in the case of the Second Amendment, Progressives like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) pretzel it into something it is not. On Meet the Press December 16, Feinstein inferred that arming school guards is a crummy idea because the rights of the few (i.e. the millions who own guns) would, in her world, somehow overcome the safety of the majority. Say, what? Bizarro. 51

As brokenhearted as we all are over what happened in Connecticut, gun control will not stop those lacking certain emotional filters from doing bad things to children and others. Policies in China, for example, make it largely illegal for private citizens to own and sell guns. Possession or sale of a gun can lead to anywhere from a 3 year prison term to the death penalty. I digress to mention that because the Chinese government has little regard for human life, gun laws were devised to protect the tyrannical Chinese government from its citizens rather than the other way around. Nevertheless, people find a way to do bad things; and in the case of the Chinese, crazy people are still hurting children. Oddly, on the same day the Sandy Hook massacre took place, a knife-wielding Chinese man stabbed almost two dozen children at an elementary school in central China. And he found a way to do it although the Chinese government recently enacted strict knife regulation measures after a spate of deadly knife and cleaver attacks on school children in China in 2010, killing 20 and wounding 50. Before long, the Chinese will be eating steak with teaspoons; and so will we if we relinquish our Second Amendment rights to those who would rather steal the rights of the masses than address our societys moral decline. With that in mind, the best gift we can give our kids this Christmas is a future filled with the promise of freedom.

The Shootings The Globalists and Gun Control: The 2nd Phase of Disarming Americans
December 18th 2012 By Carolyn Hamlett beyondthephysical.blogspot.ca The globalists know that an educated society armed with all the facts and the ability to rationally think and reason as individuals is a well armed society that is not easily overtaken. The globalists also know that such a society is wise enough and intelligent enough to realize that this is not a perfect world full of benevolent people that we live in and that by disarming society as a whole from protecting itself from greedy power hungry people is an invitation for trouble, not the assurance of safety. That is why the globalists have been working diligently through the last 50 years to dumb down and numb up Americans which is the most crucial step toward fully disarming and ruling the masses with the least amount of resistance. The problem is not the guns. The problem is that we are now an Illuminati controlled society that is reacting to mass programming. Common sense is no longer common. Americans have been conditioned to take the spoon feeding of the globalist prepackaged opinions channeled through the globalist run mainstream media, globalist run Hollywood, movie industry and publishing houses. We are an intellectually disarmed society, putty in the hands of the globalists and their agenda to further disarm us from physically protecting ourselves from them. It is one of the greatest conspiracies ever, and so successful that Americans just cant see it to save their lives. 52

I speak from my experience of being born and raised in the globalist organization, knowing of this plan to take over America and bring America to ruin. When I was a small child in the 1950s, I knew these types of shootings would be happening just prior to the beginning of the planned chaos that the NWO organization would bring. I also know that the globalist organization has been programming multitudes of individuals at least since the early 1950s, to be triggered to help bring the chaos and to perpetuate the planned chaos in America and in other locations throughout the world. Many of these programmed people are what I call sleepers because they are totally unaware that they have been programmed. The programming is dormant until the inner clock is triggered which engages the program. I believe that the movie, Avatar contains such triggers. I havent seen the Batman movie, so I dont have a personal opinion about possible triggers in that movie, however, going by the headlines of some articles I have seen in my mailbox, it appears that some people are thinking that the Batman movie might have some triggers in it. And dont you know that the creators of the Batman movie are making a killing on the profits as a result of the recent media hype? Dont you also know that the creators of the Zombie movies have also been making quite a killing? (Just a thought to factor into this whole equation.) The globalists are the biggest opportunists this planet has ever seen who play every avenue possible for their benefit. The globalist aim to enact strict gun laws and to finally disarm Americans. This has been a target goal for many years. Until the globalist enact strict gun laws, Americans can expect to be seeing more shootings, not just in schools, but in other public places, like malls, parks, libraries, religious meeting places, possibly subways and even airports. Such False Flag events were planned many years ago in order to instill fear in Americans so that they would be more willing to disarm themselves rather than be forced by the globalist to disarm. As a last resort, firearms will be taken by force. These planned shootings are also a means to motivate Americans to look to their globalist run government as their source of security and to see other Americans as their enemy, not the globalist run government who is the real enemy of the people. The globalists want Americans to turn against each other and to be spies and snitches for the globalists. Patriotism is being redefined before our sleeping American eyes. Keep in mind that if the globalists benefited by having Americans armed, then the globalists would be pulling off numerous False Flag attacks in America that would be thwarted by well armed citizens and of course be widely publicized. The fact is that there are many good armed citizens whose quick thinking has saved many lives. The media could very easily use such numerous instances to encourage a responsible armed American public, if having Americans armed was advantageous to those governing us and passing our laws. However, the fact is that gun ownership by American citizens is dangerous to our globalist run government. Think about this, what solider would not fear entering a country where it is a known fact that most of its citizens are armed? Think about the power of the globalist run mainstream media and how easily Americans could be influenced to support the benefits of having more guns, not fewer armed citizens with their concealed weapons permit.

53

It is true that taking guns away will not stop the criminals, but it will stop Americans from protecting themselves against the criminals who will always have plenty of weapons. The truth is that our government IS the terrorist organization that wants to take down America and they need to disarm Americans first. Their first step of disarming Americans has been successful in that we in America are no longer a thinking, reasoning society with all the facts. The next step is obvious. A final point I wish for you all to consider: Research all the laws that have been passed since September 11, 2001 and ask yourself what is keeping our globalist run government from enforcing all those laws. The answer should also be quite obvious. Similar/Related Articles Infowars Announces Next Phase in Fight Against Globalists U.S. to Surrender Military Control to UN While Disarming Americans To stop school shootings, we should let criminals have all the guns, argue gun control advocates Attacking the Globalists Stop Dictator Obama Contest Video Entries Phase 1 Nearing Close Poll: Americans Reject Media Hoax On Arizona Shootings Globalists Want Chinese-Style Control for Americans Under Agenda 21 Globalists Pull Out All Stops to Grab Guns After Obama Victory Alex Jones Issues Battle Cry to Secede from Globalists Weaponized Drones to Attack Americans Most Americans Dont Believe Cities Can Prevent Citizens From Owning Handguns

Gun Control is Evil Misspelled

December 18th 2012 By Daniel Greenfield

54

If you're the biblically minded sort, then the trouble began when a jealous Cain clubbed Abel to death, but if you're evolutionarily minded, then it's a "chicken and egg" question. Violence had no beginning, except perhaps in the Big Bang; it was always here, coded into the DNA. The issue isn't really guns. Guns are how we misspell evil. Guns are how we avoid talking about the ugly realities of human nature while building sandcastles on the shores of utopia. The obsession with guns, rather than machetes, stone clubs, crossbows or that impressive weapon of mass death, the longbow (just ask anyone on the French side of the Battle of Agincourt) is really the obsession with human agency. It's not about the fear of what one motivated maniac can do in a crowded place, but about the precariousness of social control that the killing sprees imply. Mostly it's about people who are sheltered from the realities of human nature trying to build a shelter big enough for everyone. A Gun Free Zone where everyone is a target and tries to live under the illusion that they aren't. A society where everyone is drawing unicorns on colored notepaper while waiting under their desks for the bomb to fall. After every shooting there are more zero tolerance policies in schools that crack down on everything from eight-year-olds making POW POW gestures with their fingers to honor students who bring pocket knives to school. And then another shooting happens and then another one and they wouldn't happen if we just had more zero tolerance policies for everyone and everything. Zero tolerance for the Second Amendment makes sense. If you ban all guns, except for those in the hands of the 708,000 police officers, the 1.5 million members of the armed forces, the countless numbers of security guards, including those who protect banks and armored cars, the bodyguards of celebrities who call for gun control, and any of the other people who need a gun to do their job, then you're sure to stop all the shootings. So long as none of those millions of people, or their tens of millions of kids, spouses, parents, grandchildren, girlfriends, boyfriends, roommates and anyone else who has access to them and their living spaces, carries out one of those shootings. But this isn't really about stopping shootings; it's about controlling when they happen. It's about making sure that everyone who has a gun is in some kind of chain of command. It's about the belief that the problem isn't evil, but individual agency, that if we make sure that everyone who has guns is following orders, then control will be asserted and the problem will stop. Or if it doesn't stop, then at least there will be someone higher up in the chain of command to blame. Either way authority is sanctified, control or the illusion of it, maintained. We'll never know the full number of people who were killed by Fast and Furious. We'll never know how many were killed by Obama's regime change operation in Libya, with repercussions in Mali and Syria. But everyone involved in that was following orders. There was no individual agency, just agencies. No lone gunman who just decided to go up to a school and shoot kids. 55

There were orders to run guns to Mexico and the cartel gunmen who killed people with those guns had orders to shoot. There was nothing random or unpredictable about it. Or as the Joker put it, "Nobody panics when things go according to plan. Even if the plan is horrifying." Gun control is the assertion that the problem is not the guns; it's the lack of a controlling authority for all those guns. It's the individual. A few million people with little sleep, taut nerves and PTSD are not a problem so long as there is someone to give them orders. A hundred million people with guns and no orders is a major problem. Historically though it's the millions of people with guns who follow orders who have been more of a problem than millions of people with guns who do not. Moral agency is individual. You can't outsource it to a government and you wouldn't want to. The bundle of impulses, the codes of character, the concepts of right and wrong, take place at the level of the individual. Organizations do not sanctify this process. They do not lift it above its fallacies, nor do they even do a very good job of keeping sociopaths and murderers from rising high enough to give orders. Organizations are the biggest guns of all, and some men and women who make Lanza look like a man of modestly murderous ambitions have had their fingers on their triggers and still do. Gun control will not really control guns, but it will give the illusion of controlling people, and even when it fails those in authority will be able to say that they did everything that they could short of giving people the ability to defend themselves. We live under the rule of organizers, community and otherwise, whose great faith is that the power to control men and their environment will allow them to shape their perfect state into being, and the violent acts of lone madmen are a reminder that such control is fleeting, that utopia has its tigers, and that attempting to control a problem often makes it worse by removing the natural human crowdsourced responses that would otherwise come into play. The clamor for gun control is the cry of sheltered utopians believing that evil is a substance as finite as guns, and that getting rid of one will also get rid of the other. But evil isn't finite and guns are as finite as drugs or moonshine whiskey, which is to say that they are as finite as the human interest in having them is. And unlike whiskey or heroin, the only way to stop a man with a gun is with a gun. People do kill people and the only way to stop people from killing people is by killing them first. To a utopian this is a moral paradox that invalidates everything, but to everyone else, it's just life in a world where evil is a reality, not just a word. An armed society spends more time stopping evil than contemplating it. It is the disarmed society that is always contemplating it as a thing beyond its control. Helpless people must find something to think about while waiting for their lords to do something about the killing. Instead of doing something about it themselves, they blame the agency of the killer in being free to kill, rather than their own lack of agency for being unable to stop him.

56

Americans in denial about school violence and the obvious solution: Arm school personnel
December 19th 2012 By J. D. Heyes

When he took to the microphones to suggest that, in the wake of yet another horrific school shooting, it is past time to arm qualified educators so they can better protect their young charges, he raised more than a few eyebrows. The audacity of his suggestion aside, it was an outside-the-box solution being made by a very law-and-order type of guy: Here was the police chief of St. Louis County, in the days after the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, actually recommending that it was high time teachers and other education professionals be given the ability to carry firearms on campus for self-defense and the defense of the children they are entrusted with. 'We can't tolerate this anymore' "We can talk on the back end of the need for funding of mental illness programs and gun control, but as a law enforcement officer, I'm focused on that five-minute window that it takes for the cops to get there while people are getting killed," said Chief Tom Fitch. "There is somebody out there right now trying to figure out how to do something worse than this guy did, and there is only one way to end a threat, and that's with lethal force." Fitch's suggestion isn't as bold as it is timely. No less than President Barack Obama himself said during a memorial in Newtown, Conn., earlier this week, site of the most recent shooting: We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. ... No single law -- no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that -- then surely we have an obligation to try. Was he serious or was he posturing? And if he was serious, is he serious enough to listen to a growing chorus of police professionals who see an obvious solution: Arm the educators. 57

'Killology'
"How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years? Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That's right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century. Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?" began a recent daylong seminar by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Lt. Col. David Grossman (Ret.). A former West Point psychology professor, professor of Military Science, an Army Ranger and author of the book, "On Killing," Grossman has combined his experiences to become the founder of a new field of scientific endeavor, which has been termed "killology." The seminar was sponsored by the California Peace Officers Association and was wellattended - some 250 officers were in attendance. In making his case about how best to keep kids safe in schools, Grossman used a firefighter analogy. In leaving the stage during his presentation Grossman walked to a nearby fire exit and exterior wall, slamming his palm against the wall and exclaiming, "Look at these wall boards! They were chosen because they're what?! Fireproof or fire retardant, hooah? There is not one stinking thing in this room that will burn!" Nevertheless, he continued, "you've still got those fire sprinklers, those fire exit signs, fire hydrants outside, and fire trucks nearby! Are these fire guys crazy? Are these fire guys paranoid? No!" He said the redundant "layers of protection" are why not a single child has died in a school fire over the last half-century - layers that don't exist for protecting children from armed maniacs and psychopaths. 'Never call an unarmed man security' "Our problem is not money," said Grossman. "It's denial." He says - and most police agree that some of the most important things that can be done to protect kids would cost next-tonothing. Some campuses have opted to hire "security guards," but not to arm them. That doesn't make sense to Grossman and other officers. "Imagine if someone said, 'I want a trained fire professional on site. I want a fire hat, I want a fire uniform, I want a fire badge. But! No fire extinguishers in this building. No fire hoses. The hat, the badge, the uniform that will keep us safe but we have no need for fire extinguishers.' Well, that would be insane," said Grossman. "It is equally insane, delusional, legally liable, to say, 'I want a trained security professional on site. I want a security hat, I want a security uniform, and I want a security badge, but I don't want a gun.' It's not the hat, the uniform, or the badge. It's the tools in the hands of a trained professional that keeps us safe," he said, adding: "Never call an unarmed man 'security.

58

Sources: School 'gun free zones' are death traps: Why we must allow qualified school principals and office staff to carry concealed http://www.stltoday.com http://www.policeone.com http://www.huffingtonpost.com http://www.killology.com/bio.htm

Cops, detectives, FBI agents, U.S. soldiers tell Natural News they will NOT enforce gun confiscation orders!
December 19th 2012 By Mike Adams In the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, I reached out to my contacts in law enforcement, military and (retired) FBI over the last three days, asking three simple questions: 1) Do you think Obama will use executive orders to demand nationwide gun confiscation? 2) If such an order is given, will you or fellow members of your organization enforce it against the citizens? (And if so, how?) 3) What is the solution to stopping future mass shootings? I posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff's deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons, none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below speak to their credibility and authenticity. Here are their answers. 1) Will Obama use Executive Order to call for gun confiscation? The majority of those answering this question told me they did not believe Obama would call for outright gun confiscation. One detective told me, "Obama will probably try to roll out an incremental restriction similar to the '94 Clinton assault weapons ban." He would then wait for another mass shooting and use that event to ratchet up the restrictions, I was told. Only two of the eight people I questioned thought that Obama would call for outright gun confiscation, and one of those believed it would only be a restriction on so-called "assault rifles" but not shotguns or handguns. Everyone believed that Obama would at minimum call for restrictions on weapon magazine capacity, most likely seeking to limit that to ten rounds per magazine (which is also the 59

current limit in California). I was also told that Obama might attempt to federalize mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases, which already exist in some states but not all. #2) Will you enforce gun confiscation against the citizens? On this issue, the answer was resounding and unanimous: NO! The retired police captain told me that, "Door-to-door confiscation by men and women in blue [i.e. city cops] would be a suicide mission." If ordered to conduct such gun confiscation actions, many would simply resign on the spot rather than risk their lives in firefights with determined gun owners, he explained. "Our officers are not generally willing to assume the increased risk of such a police action." He also explained, importantly, that most police officers have not even been trained to conduct sweeping, community-level weapons confiscation programs. "This goes against all our community outreach efforts where we try to earn the trust of the community." If cops suddenly became gun confiscation enforcers, trust would break down and policing would become extremely difficult, he explained. The USMC veteran told me that some of the younger soldiers would go along with gun confiscation if ordered, but that nearly all the older military personnel would likely refuse such orders, even at risk of a court martial. "Some of the guys actually talked about this on deployment. The E-1's might follow those orders but most of us who managed to stay alive through a couple of tours are too smart for that. You'd have AWOL out the ass. We didn't sign up to engage Americans as enemy combatants. The answer would be FUCK NO all the way up the chain of command." One of the police detectives explained another reason for saying no: "There is no love for gun confiscation in law enforcement. We're all gun owners and most of us grew up with guns, hunting, target shooting or just collecting. Most of us have gun collections when we're off duty, and Obama himself isn't well liked across law enforcement. There's no way police officers are going to put their lives on the line to go along with an order from a President who really doesn't have moral authority among cops." When I asked what if Bush had called for gun confiscation, and would cops be more likely to comply if the order was given by a Republican, the reply was, "For some guys, yes, because they will listen to a Republican more than a Democrat, but still for rank-and-file officers who are just here collecting a paycheck for a risky job, they're no way they're going to engage in what is basically a war action just to keep that job. You can't pay them enough to pull that kind of duty, gun confiscation." I was told by more than one person in this group that any effort by Obama to invoke gun confiscation could lead America to civil war if any real effort were made to enforce it. #3) What is the solution to stopping mass shootings? The former police captain explained that the real problem with shootings in his city was, "dirtcheap handguns" also called "Saturday Night Specials." As he explained, "People that spend $500 on a nice handgun are almost never the problem when it comes to violent crime. It's the ones who pick up a junk gun for $50 on the street." When I asked him about a practical solution to reduce shootings, he said that in his opinion, 60

"Levying new taxes on all handguns like the tax stamps on class three weapons" would likely prevent new guns from being purchased by most violent criminals, but it wouldn't take guns out of the hands of criminals who already have them. "These people will break into your car to steal the coins out of your vehicle console. They have no morals, no limits. There's almost nothing they won't do to get what they want, which is usually drugs." As background, the BATF currently levies a $200 tax stamp for the transfer of any suppressor (silencer), short-barreled rifle, or full-auto weapon, all of which are VERY expensive to acquire and require extensive background checks to legally own. "Most of the gun violence in our city is drug addicts raiding the homes of other drug addicts. The statistics might appear to show a lot of armed robberies and shootings, but it's really just a small subset of homes or apartments getting raided over and over again by the same people, the drug dealers." When I asked what the real drug problem was, he answered without hesitation. "Meth." Not pot, not marijuana, not even heroin. Meth is the drug that drives violent crime in America's cities. The retired Sheriff's deputy told me that the solution was to, "Arm the teachers. Tear down the 'gun free zone' signs and put weapons in the hands of school personnel." This opinion was seconded by one of the active-duty police detectives, who said he had actually worked several shootings, but never a mass shooting. "A mass shooting takes time, often several minutes," he explained. "That's too fast for the police to arrive on scene, but it's plenty of time for someone already on location to pursue and engage the active shooter." He went on to explain that in the training they have been receiving over the last five years, they have been taught that ANY engagement of an active shooter even shots that don't hit the shooter are now believed among law enforcement to disrupt the shooter and force him to seek cover, during which his massacre is interrupted and delayed. Where police have traditionally been trained to "confirm your sight picture" of weapon sights on the target before pulling the trigger, that training is being modified in some cities where, in the context of a mass shooter firing off a large number of rounds, even returning so-called "suppressing fire" is now considered tactically acceptable until additional backup arrives. The idea now is to go in and engage the shooter, even if you're just one officer on the scene. This is contradictory to previous training, and it goes against most cops' safety rules which include, "always know what is BEYOND your target." But tacticians in law enforcement are apparently now figuring out that the opportunity cost of NOT shooting back is much greater than the relatively small risk of hitting an innocent victim when laying down suppressing fire. It is therefore believed, I was told, that even concealed carry principals or other school staff can effectively lay down that "suppressing fire" even if they are not nailing the active shooter. Obviously, this does not mean firing blindly into a crowd, for example. Each tactical situation is unique and requires rapid assessment before pulling the trigger in any direction. There is an excellent article on all this at PoliceOne.com, covering a hard-hitting presentation by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman. Here's a particularly compelling excerpt from the article: The challenge for law enforcement agencies and officers, then, is to overcome not only the attacks taking place in schools, but to first overcome the denial in the minds of mayors, city councils, school administrators, and parents. 61

Grossman said that agencies and officers, although facing an uphill slog against the denial of the general public, must diligently work toward increasing understanding among the sheep that the wolves are coming for their children. Police officers must train and drill with teachers, not only so responding officers are intimately familiar with the facilities, but so that teachers know what they can do in the event of an attack. "Come with me to the library at Columbine High School," Grossman said. "The teacher in the library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known what to do. "But the thing most likely to kill her kids the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn't have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the librarian's office but she didn't know that. So she did the worst thing possible she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location. She told the kids to hide in the library a library that has plate glass windows for walls. It's an aquarium, it's a fish bowl. She told the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl." Grossman said that if the school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money they'd spent preparing for fire doing lockdown drills and talking with local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome that day may have been different. Rhetorically he asked the assembled cops, "If somebody had spent five minutes telling that teacher what to do, do you think lives would have been saved at Columbine?" Conclusion: Civil War? All my contact in law enforcement are in Southern U.S. states. Opinions may be very different in Northern or Eastern cities such as Chicago, New York or New Jersey. Nevertheless, even if opinions are different in other cities and states, it is clear to me that law enforcement in Southern states will NOT comply with gun confiscation directives issued by Obama. Obama simply does not have the moral authority or the law enforcement support to pull off such an action. While his political supporters claim he has a "mandate" across America, that's far from the truth. Obama is widely despised across states like Texas, Florida, Arizona and nearly all of rural America. He only enjoys support in the cities, and primarily in the inner cities. Also, throughout law enforcement it is widely known that Obama staged Operation Fast & Furious and then got caught. The fact that at least one murder of a U.S. border patrol agent was caused by one of these weapons has made U.S. law enforcement officers realize that the Obama administration is, in many ways, actively working against their interests and even compromising their safety. The question was raised to me: If Obama is against gun violence, why did he allow thousands of guns to "walk" into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, knowing they would be turned against U.S. law enforcement officers? (Don't hold your breath waiting for Obama to shed a tear for Brian Terry...) 62

Conclusion: If Obama were to announce a nationwide gun confiscation order, it might set off a civil war, pitting armed gun owners, cops, veterans and preppers against the completely disarmed, trendy, undisciplined anti-gun inner-city liberals. Gee, I wonder who would win that war? Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America? Finally, it's worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause. It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to invade and seize control, claiming "humanitarian" justification. This could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation. In recognizing this, I'm about to re-read Patriots by James Wesley Rawles. You should too. And check out his website while you're at it: www.SurvivalBlog.com For the record, Natural News supports cops, veterans and Sheriffs in the fight to defend the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and real freedom in America. We will not stand idly by and let a group of political thugs and bullies take away our sacred right to self defense. www.InfoWars.com Additional Related Stories: The Shootings, The Globalists and Gun Control: The 2nd Phase of Disarming Americans It Depends Upon Whose Children Are Murdered Predictions Confirmed: Shooter Adam Lanza Was on Violence-Linked Anti-Psychotic Fanapt Numerous school massacres stopped by gun owners who wielded their weapons in defense of children The Shootings, The Globalists and Gun Control: The 2nd Phase of Disarming Americans How convenient for our political overseers: there has been another mass-shooting Top Online Gun Retailer Suspends Sales of Firearms: Effective Immediately An American Stasi

63

The Post-Newtown Witch Hunt

December 19th 2012 By Michelle Malkin In the aftermath of the horrific Newtown, Conn., school massacre, Americans from all parts of the political spectrum agree that we need to pay more attention to mental health issues. Public death threats and incitements to violence must be taken seriously. The incendiary witch hunt against law-abiding, peaceful gun owners is neither noble nor effective. It's just plain insane. Over the past week, I've witnessed a disturbing outbreak of off-the-rails hatred toward gun owners and Second Amendment groups. Whatever your views on guns, we can all agree: The Newtown gunman was a monster who slaughtered his own mother, five heroic educators and 20 angel-faced schoolchildren. He ignored laws against murder. He bypassed Connecticut's strict gun control regulations, and he circumvented the Sandy Hook Elementary School's security measures. Every decent American is horrified and heartsick by this outbreak of pure evil. But tens of millions of law-abiding men and women own and use guns responsibly in this country. The cynical campaign to demonize all armed men and women as monsters must not go unanswered. What's most disturbing is that the incitements are coming from purportedly respectable, prominent and influential public figures. Consider the rhetoric of University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis. He teaches "U.S. environmental history, the Civil War, late 19th and early 20th century America, labor history, and the American West" in the university's history department. Online, however, Loomis is a militantly unhinged foe of all things conservative. This week, the nutty professor took to Twitter to rail against law-abiding gun owners and the National Rifle Association. "Looks like the National Rifle Association has murdered some more children," Loomis fumed. "Now I want Wayne LaPierre's head on a stick," he added. (LaPierre is executive vice president and CEO of the NRA.) Loomis was just warming up. "Fuck the National Rifle Association and its policies to put crazy guns in everyone's hands," Loomis tweeted. "You are god damn right we should politicize this tragedy. Fuck the NRA. Wayne LaPierre should be in prison," he spewed. "Can we define NRA membership dues as contributing to a terrorist organization?" If all that wasn't clear enough, Loomis also re-tweeted the following message from a fellow left-winger: "First fucker to say the solution is for elementary school teachers to carry guns needs to get beaten to death." When the conservative group Campus Reform called attention to the craziness, Loomis whined about a "right-wing intimidation campaign." Sane university professors shook their heads. University of Tennessee law professor and blogger Glenn Reynolds explained the antiNRA syllogism at work: "(1) Something bad happened; (2) I hate you; so (3) It's your fault. This sort of reasoning has played out in all sorts of places over the past century, with poor results. One would expect a history professor to know better." 64

Unfortunately, Loomis is not alone. Famed author Joyce Carol Oates also took to Twitter to blame the entire membership of the NRA for one evil-doer's massacre. "Another NRA sponsored massacre for Christmas 2012," Oates wrote. She then accused any politicians who supported the NRA of "felony homicide." And then she mused hopefully for mass shootings against the NRA: "If sizable numbers of NRA members become gun-victims themselves, maybe hope for legislation of firearms?" Shockingly, actress Marg Helgenberger of the TV show "CSI" cheered her on: "One can only hope, but sadly I don't think anything would change." In Texas, state Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias threw fuel on the fire. Cobarruvias is the Democratic Party precinct chair in Houston, Texas, and holds a seat on the Texas State Democratic Party's executive committee. On his Twitter feed, Cobarruvias labeled the NRA a "domestic terrorist organization" and called for the assassination of NRA leaders and supporters: "Can we now shoot the NRA and everyone who defends them?" So, it's come to this: Advocating beheadings, beatings and the mass murder of peaceful Americans to pay for the sins of a soulless madman. But because the advocates of violence fashion themselves champions of non-violence and because they inhabit the hallowed worlds of Hollywood, academia and the Democratic Party, it's acceptable? Blood-lusting hate speech must not get a pass just because it comes out of the mouths of the protected anti-gun class.

China Demands US Citizens Be Disarmed

December 19th 2012 The official Chinese government news agency, Xinhua, has demanded the US immediately adopt stricter gun control measures to reduce the number of firearms the US populace is permitted to possess. The Chinese state-controlled medias statement, titled Innocent Blood Demands No Delay for US Gun Control, is primarily focused on the Newtown tragedy in which 26 Americans were killed by a mad gunman. Twenty of the victims were young children. The Chinese government stated, Their blood and tears demand no delay for the U.S. gun control. In an apparent effort to restrict information to their populace, the Chinese government wrote of a number of US mass shootings but failed to mention they were either stopped by a citizen legally carrying a firearm or otherwise only occurred in the controversial gun-free zones that critics say make prime targets for madmen. The Chinese government states: The past six months have seen enough shooting rampages in the United States. Just three days ago, three people were shot dead at a shopping mall in Oregon. Two weeks ago, a football player shot his girlfriend dead and then committed suicide. Five months ago, 12 65

people were killed and 58 wounded in a shooting spree at a midnight screening of a Batman film in Colorado. The government went on to express a strong dislike of the National Rifle Association while also attacking the Republican Party as somehow complicit in the violence. Conversely, the article heaps praise on the Democratic Party: The Clinton government launched a series of gun control policies at the end of last century. And the Democrats lost the Congressional election in 1994 and the presidential election in 2000, with the shadow of the NRA present in both defeats. The current Chinese government, the communist Peoples Republic of China, was established in a revolution led by Mao Zedong, who killed an estimated 40-70 million people with starvation, executions, and re-education camps.

66

Arm Teachers Instead of Disarming Americans

December 19th 2012 Gun control! Gun control! Gun control! You cant look anywhere on the news or internet without seeing the cries for more gun control in wake of last Fridays massacre in Newtown, CT. There is no escaping the tears of remorse and cries of anger that have flooded every media outlet in the nation. But lets set raw emotion aside for a second and look at reality. First and foremost, the guns did NOT kill those children and adults in Connecticut, it was Adam Lanza. The guns did not load themselves, it was Adam Lanza, and the guns did not pull the trigger, it was Adam Lanza. Its already a well-known fact that Connecticut had some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation, but Adam Lanza didnt care about the law. Some of the other areas of our nation that have the highest crime rates also have strict gun control laws, but laws rarely stop people that are determined to commit violent acts on other people. So what is the solution? How about taking a look at what works in other countries like Thailand and Israel. Both countries have active terrorist threats against school children by Muslim extremists and Jihadists. In an effort to prevent a similar shooting at their schools, they have been arming their teachers. Many teachers in Israel and Thailand now carry concealed handguns with them. The Israeli government told the people that they would protect them and they created gun-free zones in the country. Those zones soon became known as victim disarmament zones. In 1974, Jihadist terrorists attacked Israeli school children on a field trip to a tobacco farm. The attack killed 25 and wounded 66 other. In 1978, terrorists attacked an Israeli school bus, killing 37 children and wounding 76 other people. Israeli people had enough of the gun free zones and failed promises of government protection. Instead of tightening up gun control laws, they started arming teachers and others and trained them how to protect their students. In 2002, Jihadists tried to enter an Israeli school, only to be repelled by armed teachers. In another incident, a suicide bomber that was intending on blowing himself up at an Israeli school was shot and killed by an armed teacher before he was able to detonate the bomb. The threat of violence against school children is still high in Israel and Thailand, but we dont hear nearly as many successful attacks being carried out since they started arming teachers. Their programs have proven to be very successful and I believe we should implement the same thing here. Lets arm our teachers before we disarm the people.

Morgan Piers Blows Up on Larry Pratt Over Gun Rights 12/18/2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avOV6_42xe4&feature=player_embedded#!

Scumbag Piers Morgan being a pompous dumb ass as usual.

Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America took apart Piers Morgan of CNN. Morgan is a complete fool who is even dumber than O'Brien. He could only sputter and make insults as Pratt carried 67

the day in the debate. Morgan is a Brit. Pratt said Morgan's role model was "Peace in Our Time" Hitler-appeaser Neville Chamberlain.

Gun-free zones cost lives so boycott AutoZone and government schools!

December 19th 2012 By Nathaniel Davidson

In the news, we have yet another massacre Patriots hearts go out to the families of 26 victims of Adam Lanza at a Newtown, CT, elementary school. Its hardly the first massacre in living memory in this country. Earlier this year, on July 20, 2012, a thug murdered 12 people and injured 58 others in the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, CO. Another infamous massacre occurred at Virginia Tech, where 32 people were butchered on April 16, 2007. Even further back was the brutal massacre at Columbine High School, CO, where two schoolboys murdered 12 and injured 21. This occurred on April 20, 1999, deliberately chosen by the killers to coincide with the 110th anniversary of Hitlers birth. And every time, leftist gun control freaks like the Brady Campaign call for more restrictions on guns. Because a thug misuses a gun, we should confiscate guns from law- abiding people. This would be like saying: Drunk drivers kill, so lets confiscate cars from good drivers.

Mass murderers seek unarmed victims

But like all leftist rhetoric, gun control is all emotion and no thought. One thing all those gun massacres had in common was: they were all committed in gun-free zones! What? How could this be? Werent these massacres committed by guns? Yes indeed. However, anyone with half a brain could discern the simple truth: lawbreakers will, by definition, not obey anti-gun laws! Indeed, the CT school murderer violated at least 3 statutes already in place. All that happened was that their victims were unarmed. Think about it. If the gun-control zealots were right, gun shops, shooting ranges and NRA meetings would be killing fields. But in reality, they are very safe. Thugs who want to commit mass murder wont pick a place where most victims can shoot back. Israeli government schools arm their teachers, so such gun massacres dont occur. But heres an even better idea: Patriots should pull their kids out of the government schools. Its not just that they are unionized Democrat-indoctrination centers, although thats bad enough. Its also not likely that thugs will try to hurt homeschooled children when Mom could be packing heat.

68

Guns save lives

There are many examples of guns saving lives, and whats more, in most cases, they dont even need to be fired. Criminals are thugs, and many of them are not very bright. But they make rational decisions from their own perspective. They want to maximize their own likely gain, and minimize likely costs. Thus if they think they are likely to be shot, they are less likely to commit that crime. See this brief clip from the astute John Stossel, including statements from jailed felons that they fear an armed victim more than the police:

Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ&feature=player_embedded Sure, the good police can arrive in minutes, but you may have only seconds. A bullet from your gun will stop the thug before the police arrive. Far better to have a dead low-life from your bullet than have police conscientiously writing a report about your murdered body. This has also been true internationally. Switzerland has 45.7 guns for every 100 residents, but only 6.4 gun deaths for every 100,000 people every year. Indeed, in 2001, the liberal BBC admitted, the gun crime rate is so low that statistics are not even kept. In the opposite direction, Australia banned guns after a massacre (of unarmed citizens again). The result? Since the gun ban in Australia, armed robberies are up 69%, assaults with guns up 28%, gun murders increased 19%, and home invasions jumped 21%. The same thing happened in the UK, as Thomas Sowell writes: It was in the later decades of the 20th century that the British government clamped down with severe gun control laws, disarming virtually the entire law-abiding citizenry. Gun crimes, including murder, rose as the public was disarmed. Meanwhile, murder rates in the United States declined during the same years when murder rates in Britain were rising, which were also years when Americans were buying millions more guns per year.

AutoZone employee foils robbery with gun, and is fired!

Not too long before the horrible CT school massacre, there was an attempted robbery at the car parts retail giant AutoZone, in York County, Virginia. One dreg of humanity, who may well have been the fake beard bandit responsible for 30 robberies, pulled a gun on the staff. One of the employees, Devin McClean, a 23-year-old Air Force veteran, managed to bolt out a side door. He retrieved his Glock 40 from his truck, then returned and pointed it at the thug, ordering him to freeze and drop his weapon. This thug fled the scene, so no one was hurt or robbed. Sheriff J.D. Diggs called him a hero, adding: He did a very brave thing. He put himself in jeopardy in an attempt to make sure his friend was safe. But a few days later, a self-righteous liberal paper-pushing weasel in the corporate office fired this hero, citing a zero tolerance on guns. Sheriff Diggs said AutoZone has also sent an unintended message to the community: 69

The company has now sent a message to every would-be robber out there. Hey were open for business and unarmed. Come on in and take our money. Sure enough, this is exactly what happened! On December 7, an AutoZone store in Austell, GA, was robbed at gunpoint. So I call upon Patriots to join the AutoZone boycott! For one thing, they have made stores less safe for customers. For another, they have shown their contempt for American gun rights. The motto should be NO GUNS= NO BUSINESS. The boycott should last until they not only rehire Devin, but promote him for his bravery. They also should fire the liberal rules-isrules meathead who fired Devin. For one thing, just on commercial grounds he has cost AutoZone thousands of customers, and for another, only this way can Patriots be sure that AutoZone has learned its lesson.

The most important reason for gun rights

All of the above, while important, should not detract from the foundational reason the Founders recognized the right to bear arms: so We the People could defend ourselves against tyrants! Last century was marred by horrific mass democides, Prof. Rudy Rummels term for murders of people by their own government, including a number of megademocides (mega = 1 million). And all were preceded by the government disarming its citizens! See Bill Whittle explain:

What We Believe, Part 5: Gun Rights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAw3VWVyD8&feature=player_embedded In Part 5 of the What We Believe series, Bill examines to role of gun ownership as a bulwark against the power of the Big State, and deals with some of the logical problems of the gun control movement.

Obama to Restrict Guns Without Congress?

December 19th 2012 Unburdened by re-election worries and empowered by law to act without Congress, U.S. President Barack Obama could take action to improve background checks on gun buyers, ban certain gun imports and bolster oversight of dealers. Prospects for gun control legislation intensified in the wake of the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, as more pro-gun rights lawmakers said on Monday they were open to the possibility while Obama and three cabinet members met at the White House to discuss the subject. Having just won a second four-year term, Obama does not need to fear alienating voters who favor gun rights and he could press ahead without lawmakers on fronts where federal law enables executive action. Speaking in Newtown, where a gunman on Friday killed 20 children and six adults in an elementary school, Obama vowed late on Sunday to "use whatever power this office holds" to try to prevent such massacres.

70

"Because what choice do we have? We can't accept events like this as routine," Obama said at Newtown High School. His administration has the power to issue executive orders or new rules, options that Obama is likely to consider in combination with possible new laws. The National Rifle Association, the largest U.S. gun rights group with 4 million supporters, relies largely on its ability to influence lawmakers in order to block legislation. Obama's appointees at the U.S. Justice Department have been studying ideas since the January 8, 2011, shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and 18 others at a public meeting. Giffords survived but six people died. Christopher Schroeder, who ran the Justice Department's review, said it looked at possible legislation to send to Congress as well as action the administration could take itself. "You always look at both, because if you can do it administratively it's certainly a less involved process," said Schroeder, who has since returned to a professorship at Duke Law School. Many of the ideas have to do with the background checks that licensed gun dealers run on potential buyers. CRITICS CITE HOLES Critics say the system has holes because it does not include all the data it should on those ineligible to buy guns. The FBI, which runs the system, could incorporate more data from within the federal government using evidence of mental incompetence, for example. There are privacy concerns, however, and the Justice Department is still studying which types of data it can legally use, Schroeder said. "That kind of system works effectively only if all of the potentially disqualifying information that has been gathered by any federal, state or local authority is accessible to the database, and that's not the case today," he said. It is not clear what changes to the background checks would have prevented the mass shooting in Newtown, because the killer appeared to have used weapons his mother bought legally. Other proposals for executive action by Obama include sharing information with state and local law enforcement about possibly illegal purchases; maintaining data on gun sales for longer periods to help with investigations; and restricting the importation of certain militarystyle weapons, as President George H.W. Bush did in 1989. A pro-gun control mayors' group co-chaired by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has pushed the Obama administration since 2009 to adopt 40 recommendations it said were allowed under existing law. One of the 40 has been put into effect, said Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and even that recommendation requiring gun dealers to report sales of multiple semiautomatic weapons drew heated resistance. 71

In 2011, when the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a version of the recommendation aimed at dealers in states near the U.S.-Mexico border, gun makers sued and congressional Republicans tried to eliminate funding for the rule. A judge upheld it, allowing it to go into effect. The case is now on appeal. LOBBYING BLITZ Bloomberg's group is still pushing the other recommendations as it makes plans for a lobbying blitz over new laws, such as a ban on high-capacity magazines. "While they are important, they're not the big-ticket items. And we're in a big-ticket world," Glaze said. The administration also has leeway to act in how it defines certain categories of people prohibited from buying a gun. Federal law bars anyone "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective," but it does not specify whether that means only a court can disqualify someone, said Michael Volkov, a former Republican Justice Department official now at the law firm LeClairRyan. Another option could be changing how long a firearms dealer must keep records of a sale a period that is now three days but could be extended, Volkov said. Since the Justice Department began reviewing ideas to prevent mass shootings in early 2011, it has implemented a handful of changes. In May, the department unveiled an automated system to feed records of federal indictments into the background checks database, replacing a system in which prosecutors uploaded information manually. Schroeder said the department's review of firearms-related ideas is ongoing. He described the process as informal, and not one that has produced a formal report.

Proof Were Under A Communist Dictatorship

In a shocking article that seems to completely toss the Constitution out the window, Reuters announced President Obamas official dictatorship in a story it published yesterday: Even Without Congress, Obama Could Act to Restrict Guns.

Arrest Piers Morgan For Foreign Subversion!

http://www.youtube.com/watch? feature=player_embedded&v=Zt1AvYiPq6w&list=UUvsye7V9psc-APX6wV1twLg Arrest and deport red coat globalist agent Piers Morgan for subversion of the republic. The games are over! A petition on the White House website calling for CNN host Piers Morgan to be deported is likely to reach 25,000 signatures, a benchmark that will mandate a White House response. The petition, which was initiated by Infowars, states; British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens. 72

Rupert Murdoch Backs Obama's Gun Grab

December 21st 2012 By Cliff Kincaid

An honest account of media misinformation after the Sandy Hook Elementary School tragedy has to take into account Rupert Murdochs tweet about the need to ban automatic weapons, when none was used to kill any of the 26 people. Can the chairman of News Corporation, the parent of Fox News, be this ignorant about the nature of gun laws and guns in America? He asked, When will politicians find courage to ban automatic weapons? He urged Obama to exercise bold leadership on the issue. Deep inside his story about the comments, Gabriel Sherman of New York magazine noted, Despite Murdochs plea, automatic weapons are already illegal in the United States; Adam Lanza the killer used semiautomatics. In fact, automatic weapons are not technically illegal but are subject to extensive regulation and are very difficult to obtain. One interesting aspect of this controversy is that left-leaning reporters such as Dylan Byers of Politico publicized Murdochs comments without correcting him. Others followed suit. Rupert Murdoch demanded tighter gun control in the aftermath of the horrific shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, reported The Huffington Post, without noting that his remarks were inaccurate and the gun control he talked about was already in effect. This is fascinating because, in the past, liberal media have tried to claim that Fox News personnel spew misinformation about current events, leading to a lack of knowledge about important matters of public policy. Here is a case of the owner of Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, and other properties saying something that is completely erroneous and irrelevant to what happened in Newtown, Connecticut. 73

But why would liberal publications not want people to know that Murdoch was in error? There are several possible explanations: 1. They do not understand gun laws, either, and didnt realize Murdoch was wrong. 2. They dont care that Murdoch was wrong and wanted to use his mistaken comment to spread misinformation to the public about the killings. 3. They know Murdoch was wrong but wanted to use his comment to send a message to Fox News Channel hosts and commentators that they should get on the gun control bandwagon with their boss. Some conservative-oriented news sites did correct the media mogul. Early news reports indicate that automatic weapons were not used in yesterdays school shooting, Breitbart News reported, in a brief story about Murdochs comments. Indeed, no evidence of automatic weapons being used has turned up. Twitchy Media noted, Closer attention to the reports coming out of his media properties would have informed Murdoch that automatic weapons werent used in todays mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. Also oblivious to the facts, Malcolm Turnbull, who reportedly knows Murdoch, replied by saying that the politicians would act when pressured by the media and that I suspect they will find the courage when Fox News enthusiastically campaigns for it. This, then, is why the comment is getting so much attention from the left. The political progressives saw it as an effort to send marching orders to the conservative news channel to back Obamas controversial call for more legislation. Media Matters, the George Soros-funded left-wing organization, jumped on the comments, contrasting Murdochs Call For A Weapons Ban with how Fox News Channel commentators supposedly were guilty in the past of Extreme Pro-gun Rhetoric. The rhetoric consisted of comments in favor of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The New York Post, another Murdoch property, has already demonstrated Murdochs influence by following his lead and running an editorial on December 18 insisting that Lanzas semi-automatic rifle somehow functioned like a fully automatic weapon. The editorial seemed like an attempt to justify Murdochs erroneous comments. It is very discouraging that Murdoch thinks that machine guns have anything to do with these attacks, noted John Lott, the author of More Guns, Less Crime. There are strong selfdefense reasons for people to have semi-automatic weapons. In addition to such figures as Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America, Lott has been willing to take on those in the media, especially on CNN, who are guilty of spreading misinformation about the massacre. But he has not been invited to appear on Fox News to rebut gun grabbers like Murdoch.

74

Referring to Lotts credentials as a FoxNews.com columnist, Eric Wemple of The Washington Post notes that the Fox News Channel is failing to use its go-to guy on hand to counter federal calls for more gun control legislation. He said Lotts low profile on FoxNews.com since the killings suggests that the network and its website are treading carefully on the subject. Rather than treading carefully, it appears that the Fox News Channel is marching to Murdochs directives, as revealed on his Twitter page. Perhaps Lotts willingness to rebut Murdoch on his blog helps explain why he in particular is not being effectively utilized by the channel. Whats worse, as Gabriel Sherman has reported, a Lott column about the differences between semiautomatics and so-called military style assault weapons was actually killed by FoxNews.com. What we are seeing here is a coordinated attempt to use Murdochs erroneous comments to further a political left-wing agenda. Murdochs employees are capable of understanding that the comments are being exploited for political purposes. But it is quite another thing to say on the air that the boss is wrong and to keep churning out facts that contradict Murdochs dubious position. We appear to be witnessing self-censorship on the part of Fox News, in order to serve Murdochs agenda. Fox News has to be carefully monitored in the weeks ahead to see if the Murdoch comments have a continued impact on the channel and are used to muzzle the case for gun rights as Obama and his other media allies lay the groundwork for further restrictions on the Second Amendment. The information source many conservatives go to for accurate and informed coverage appears to be going the way of the liberal media.

Obama Gun Ban Demand Triggers Record Sales!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN_PMLp2PNk&feature=player_embedded#!

Can you say unintended consequences of Obamas ban assault weapons and high capacity magazine ban rhetoric?

75

Tyranny: The 2nd is the 1st to Go Unprecedented Assault of the 2nd Amendment Now Underway
December 18th 2012 http://janmorganmedia.com/ By Jan Morgan

How do you fight powerful, foolish, weak politicians, backed by unspeakably wealthy individuals who have a sociopathic vision and personal life mission to destroy the rights and freedoms of American citizens? Of course, New York Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, leads a national anti-gun rights campaign, demanding that ordinary New Yorkers go disarmed against violent thugs, while surrounding himself with a phalanx of armed bodyguards. His billionaire, heavily armed high security existence does not include experience living in an environment surrounded by criminals who wish to harm him. This weeks shooting has provided the ammunition the anti-gun movement needs to push their agenda through with the help of spineless politicians who will blame their gun ban mentality on their desire to protect the nations children from evil gun toting monsters. Never mind the fact that the Columbine shooting occurred right in the middle of our last ban on assault rifles. Did that ban stop or hinder that killing spree? Criminals, mass murderers, and the government will ALWAYS BE ARMED. The laws do not apply to them nor will they stop them. Gun Control laws only affect the 100 million gun owners in this country with over 300 million guns, who killed no one and have no intentions of using their guns to harm innocent people. Gun laws remove law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves and their families. Gun laws disarm law abiding citizens leaving them defenseless against a government intent on tyranny. 76

In the 20th century, 170 million people have been annihilated by their own governments AFTER BEING DISARMED. My fellow Americans, it is now or never. If you do not rise up now and fight for our 2nd Amendment right to bear arms if you do not call your elected representatives and let them know you are against any further infringements on the 2nd Amendment if you do not talk to your friends and show you mean business by only doing business with those who support gun rights if you do not educate your children on the importance of the Bill of Rights and more specifically, the 2nd Amendment then you deserve the consequences that are certain to come. The 2nd Amendment is present to defend the remaining Bill of Rights. The 2nd is the 1st to go The rest will most certainly follow.

My AR/15 is Not an Assault Rifle

December 19th 2012 http://janmorganmedia.com/ By Jan Morgan

News Anchors, Reporters, and Commentators, over the past few days have spread the epidemic of stupid with their language and gun talk that clearly demonstrates most of them have scant knowledge on the subject of firearms. I have listened to news people, who are PAID TO DELIVER FACTUAL INFORMATION TO THEIR VIEWERS, consistently refer to the AR/15 as a HEAVY WEAPON AN ASSAULT RIFLE An AUTOMATIC RIFLE A WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION. Bill OReilly even questioned how Nancy Lanza could have legally acquired such a heavy weapon in a state with such strict gun control laws. 77

It is one thing to not have knowledge on a given subject yet earnestly seek it. That is commendable. It is another to act and speak on that subject as if you are knowledgeable, using wrong terminology with the intent to sensationalize or push a personal agenda. My AR/15 is not an assault rifle. It is not an assault weapon. It will never be used to criminally assault anyone. My AR will only be used for defensive and sporting purposes. It is simply a modern musket

In addition, the fact that I go to the gun range on a regular basis, does not make me an American of questionable character. The fact that I am a gun enthusiast and may legally own multiple guns/rifles does not make me a criminal or someone who should be closely watched by the government. 100 million gun owners with over 300 million guns KILLED NO ONE LAST YEAR. Owning an AR 15 is a legal right. Owning an AR/15 does not make me a dangerous gun fanatic any more than owning a Corvette over the usual less expensive average sports car makes someone a car dangerous car fanatic. I am not ashamed I am proud to say I own a Bushmaster AR/15. To all the businesses that are pulling them from their shelves, I say, SHAME ON YOU for buckling to public pressure. The Founders would be so proud that you bravely stood your ground for the 2nd Amendment. You will never get my business again. To all the Americans who are rushing to the stores to buy the AR/15 and ammo before both are no longer available, I say, smart move. The public hysteria will most certainly lead to a ban on these amazing rifles at least until the next mass shooting with a revolver, knife, or some other weapon. Then there will be a ban on those. (Sigh) Back to the irresponsible news anchors: If these news commentators are going to talk about firearms and expect their positions to be taken seriously, they should at least become semi-educated about rifles or keep their mouths shut. Words like assault, heavy weapon, military style, in describing semi-automatic guns and rifles in relation to the recent mass shooting, are either used intentionally by news anchors to sensationalize or it is a clear display of ignorance on their part.

78

This is One Hot Gun Chic that Can Cover my Six Anytime!

79

Are Guns Really the Problem?

December 19th 2012 By Leon Puissegur HYPERLINK "http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/12/are-guns-really-the-problem/" \o "\"Are Guns Really the Problem?\" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Guns_1000-

220x220.jpg" \* MERGEFORMAT

Personal Gun Collection of AZ Gun Fighter

Yes, our nation mourns after the loss of 20 small children and six adults, but do we have to go as far as to ban guns, especially since the State of Connecticut had very strong gun laws? Do we always have to go after the final object, ignoring the reason that the object was used? Why is it that we as a nation, especially those near the Socialist/Communist side, always seem to have the idea alone that banning any sort of ammunition or guns will stop the killing? It has not worked before and it will not work again! It is constantly stated that even if we would ban all the guns, then only the criminals will have the guns. This is so very true that it is a sad idea to even consider. Connecticut, a state that had very limited gun ownership laws, and yet all the sick individual had to do was go to his Moms house, kill her and then go off and kill anyone he wished. Let us just look back since 2009 and see what has happened in our nation. March 10, 2009, Michael McLendon, 28 kills 10 people then kills himself. April 3, 2009, Jiverly Wong, 41 years old Kills 11 then himself. November 5, 2009, Maj. Nidal Hasan kills 13 and wounds more than 24, he is the Fort Hood Terrorist. January 8, 2011 Jared Lee Loughner kills 6 people, wounds 13 others. July 20, 2012 12 people are killed by James Holmes, a 24 year old at the opening of a batman movie, he is shown just a few days after looking totally dazed and confused. August 5, 2012 Wade Michael Page kills 6 and wounds 3 others than he kills himself. December 1, 2012 Jovan Belcher, kills his girlfriend then kills himself. December 11, 2012 Jacob Tyler Roberts 22, kills two people and wounds another before killing himself. December 14, 2012, Adam Lanza, 20 years old, kills 27 people 20 of them Children, in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Connecticut, than kills himself.

The State of Connecticut gun laws specifies in part:

80

It is unlawful to possess any other firearm by a person who has been convicted of a felony. It is unlawful to possess a handgun if convicted as a delinquent of a serious juvenile offense which includes. Once again no one will know why this individual did this, but it is known that the young man suffered from a possible mental problem. If we look at just these certain instances, we see that 6 of the 9 killed themselves after they killed innocent people and of the remaining 3, one suffered from schizophrenia and one may have killed as an act of terror. The one at Aurora, Colorado looked to be very dazed and confused. Did you also notice the ages of these individuals? Of all of these actions, only two were over 30 years old. Is it due to age? Is this due to problems from childhood? What is the underlying problem in all these cases? It seems like the Lame stream media has taken a hard look, for all of maybe one hour before they began yelling for some sort of new gun laws. Would this help? Would it keep these particularly young men from losing it and killing innocent people? Some, if not all, of these alleged killers have had some sort of mental or emotional problems leading up to the killing. Why is it that few of these reporters ask or even consider the ages or health of these people? It has to be mentioned that on the very same day of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, a man in China went on a rampage with a knife slashing school children, but not killing any of them. We have to state that no one other than military can even own a gun in China. It really does not matter if they have guns or knives or baseball bats, these people will continue to kill innocent people. Just two days after this tragedy Senator Dianne Feinstein, a lady that wants nothing more than to control all guns comes out stating, It will ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession not retroactively, but prospectively of assault weapons as well as highcapacity magazines. Well, if this lady would look and see, the very weapon she wants banned is a very popular hunting rifle for its lightweight and easy use in the woods. The rifle used a .223 caliber round, as some would call it, a 5.56 NATO round. It is a rifle used by many hunters for deer and other animals. One has to wonder just who is it that decides what is and what is not an assault weapon? If the government is the one making that decision, we could argue that would not be either fair or right. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said he is going to hold a hearing in two weeks on this constitutional question, a reference to the Second Amendment. Thats the starting point, he said. Now here comes the question once again about the Second Amendment and what it really means. They have volumes of books on this and many different takes on it too. One person stated that the Second Amendment was meant for one musket and twelve rounds of ammunition. The entire concept of the Second Amendment was to have a populace that was well armed should any aggressor try to invade the United States. It has to be mentioned that the main reason that Japan did not launch a surprise invasion on the west coast was due to the people with guns! Now with just that in mind, it could easily be stated that guns have kept us free to the point that rogue nations do not wish to fight a gun battle on the soil of the United States because they know they would never win. Having said that, we can as easily state that no type of gun control would have stopped the mad man from attacking that school. Connecticut has very strict gun laws and this individual did not own one, but the guns have been the main objects while the real problem is being shoved to the back once again. In nearly all the cases, the person taking action suffered from some sort of mental problem, but instead of seizing the golden opportunity to speak out about the mental problem, nearly everyone has turned their focus to guns and banning the amount one can have in a magazine. This has the same type of reasoning as banning 32-ounce drinks, both can be circumvented! Yes instead of holding just 81

one clip of ten rounds, the mentally problematic person will carry maybe 10 magazines. So that will solve no problem at all, neither will banning the assault weapons because we can be sure that they will pop up in the same spots the drugs pop up in. Our nation will come to grips with this problem, but banning guns will do nothing to stop another mad man who wants to kill. Just like the banning of the 32 ounce drink, instead of buying just one 32 ounce drink, people now buy two 16 ounce drinks. The problem is still there. It will be the same with the guns, no matter what type of action taken, guns will be used to kill people. Chicago has the toughest gun laws in the nation and it also has the highest murder rate too. So banning the guns has not stopped the killings in Chicago. Just how will it stop killings anywhere? If murderers cannot use guns, they will resort to whatever they can use. We should focus on the huge problem of mental health in our nation but those who wish dearly to disarm everyone do not want to even talk about that and that subject is much larger than any gun control law could ever be. Gun control, just with the mention of maybe doing it, has driven people to buy more guns before they ban the ones that many hunters like and use. The AR-15 is a great sport rifle since it can handle all sorts of mistreatment and still be used for hunting. The same can be said about the SKS and the AK-47, all are great hunting rifles since they stop big game in their tracks and they take a lot of abuse. Just because a mentally deficient person uses them to kill with does not mean they should be banned. People use cars and a lot of other things to kill with so why not just ban everything until we all walk around like the puppets the government wants us to be? If one looks very close at those now yelling for gun control, you may be surprised to find that nearly everyone of them yelling the loudest from the evening news also have body guards with them, so why not ban body guards? Yes, Diane Feinstein does have bodyguards so she does not have to worry about guns because her bodyguards carry the guns!

The entire idea of gun control is purely a political move to disarm the public so the government may well do as it pleases.

82

Do Civilians Armed With Guns Ever Capture, Kill, or Otherwise Stop Mass Shooters?
December 14th 2012 By Eugene Volokh, Law professor UCLA, December 14, 2012. The Volokh ConspiracyArticle source

Backers of laws that let pretty much all law-abiding carry concealed guns in public places often argue that these laws will sometimes enable people to stop mass shootings. Opponents occasionally ask: If that's so, what examples can one give of civilians armed with guns stopping such shootings? Sometimes, I hear people asking if even one such example can be found, or saying that they haven't heard even one such example. 83

Naturally, such examples will be rare, partly because mass shootings are rare, partly because many mass shootings happen in supposedly "gun-free" zones (such as schools, universities, or private property posted with a no-guns sign) in which gun carrying isn't allowed, and partly for other reasons. But here are instances that I have seen, including killings stopped by people who were off-duty police officers (or police officers from other jurisdictions). So at the time of the shooting this clearly demonstrates that these killers were only stopped by armed civilians with a gun who intervened long before any official police response and prevented further murders on innocent people. 1. In Pearl, Mississippi in 1997, 16-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed and bludgeoned to death his mother at home, then killed two students and injured seven at his high school. As he was leaving the school, he was stopped by Assistant Principal Joel Myrick, who had gone out to get a handgun from his car. I have seen sources that state that Woodham was on the way to Pearl Junior High School to continue shooting, though I couldn't find any contemporaneous news articles that so state. 2. A 1998 middle school shooting ended when a man living next door heard gunfire and apprehended the shooter with his shotgun. 3. In Edinboro, Pennsylvania in 1996, 14-year-old Andrew Wurst shot and killed a teacher at a school dance, and shot and injured several other students. He had just left the dance hall, carrying his gun possibly to attack more people, though the stories that I've seen are unclear when he was confronted by the dance hall owner James Strand, who lived next door and kept a shotgun at home. 4.A 2002 terrorist attack at an Israeli school was quickly stopped by an armed teacher and a school guard. 5. A 2002 law school shooting in Grundy, Va., came to an abrupt conclusion when students carrying firearms confronted the shooter. 6. A 2007 mall shooting in Ogden, Utah, ended when an armed off-duty police officer intervened. 7. In Colorado Springs in 2007, Matthew Murray killed four people at a church. He was then shot several times by Jeanne Assam, a church member, volunteer security guard, and former police officer (she had been dismissed by a police department 10 years before, and to my knowledge hadn't worked as a police officer since). Murray, knocked down and badly wounded, killed himself; it is again not clear whether he would have killed more people had he not been wounded, but my guess is that he would have. 8. In Winnemucca, Nevada in 2008, Ernesto Villagomez killed two people and wounded two others in a bar filled with three hundred people. He was then shot and killed by a patron who was carrying a gun (and had a concealed carry license). It's not clear whether Villagomez would have killed more people; the killings were apparently the result of a family feud, and I could see no information on whether Villagomez had more names on his list, nor could one tell whether he would have killed more people in trying to evade capture. 9. A 2009 workplace shooting in Houston, Texas, was halted by two coworkers who carried concealed handguns. 10. A 2012 church shooting in Aurora, Colo., was stopped by a member of the congregation carrying a gun. 84

11. At the recent (Dec. 2012) .mall shooting in Portland, Ore., the gunman took his own life minutes after being confronted by a shopper carrying a concealed weapon. 2500 times last year alone legal gun owners stopped violent crime when confronted with it long before any police assistance. So it appears that civilians armed with guns are sometimes willing to intervene to stop someone who had just committed a mass shooting in public. Of course, you probably didn't know any of this because mainstream media doesn't find it worth reporting. It's not sensational enough and doesnt fit with their agenda. What's insane are people who think removing rights from responsible people will somehow keep them safe.

Media Celebrates Armed Killers, Ignores Armed Heroes

December 20th 2012 By Doug Book Mass killers are celebrated endlessly by a salivating national media unless their murderous exploits are thwarted by Americans with a privately-owned pistol and a concealed carry license. Nothing stirs journalistic juices like the mass extinction of helpless victims by a gunwielding assassin. Excited by an inevitable spike in public interest generated by tales of massive blood loss, animated reporters begin the familiar agenda of educating their audience on the dangers inherent in assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, and lawmakers intimidated by the NRA. But let the grisly exploits of a psychopathic shooter be interrupted by an armed citizen, and media interest suddenly disappears while kudos for the heroic deed are bestowed upon anyone but the courageous gun owner actually responsible! It is a story that will immediately disappear from the pages of every newspaper in the country. In an Oregon mall, the killer of 2 people committed suicide immediately after being confronted by an armed, concealed carry license holder. Both the media and police spokesmen credit County officers with having prevented additional deaths, never mentioning the fact that police arrived AFTER the shooter had died. In 1997, a Mississippi high school student killed 2 classmates and wounded 7 others. An assistant principle retrieved a .45 from his car and held the killer at bay until police arrived. CNN made NO mention of Principal Myricks weapon, reporting he had stopped the killer with his car! 85

In 1991, a concealed carry license holder killed 2 criminals who held 20 customers prisoner at an Alabama Shoneys. Though having potentially saved numerous lives, the sum total of the medias interest in the story and its hero is contained in one, lone LA Times reference. Upon being told he was failing, an Appalachian Law School student murdered 3 people at the school. The media reported that he was tackled by 2 fellow students, preventing additional killings. The media FAILED to mention that those students were armed with their own pistols. According to a study done by FSU criminologist Gary Kleck, there are some 2 million defensive uses of firearms by law abiding citizens each year. Yet from the murders of 23 defenseless customers at a Lubys Restaurant in Texas to the tragedy in Connecticut, our national media celebrates and sensationalizes the actions of cold-blooded killers while ignoring, even deliberately misreporting, the countless efforts of armed, private citizens in the protection of their own lives and the lives of total strangers. After all, to make known the true value of guns in the saving of lives and property would be to betray the agenda of ending their private ownership! Besides, everyone knows that police and government officials that is, the legally armed professionals can do all thats really necessary when it comes to taking care of the public.

Think how efficient they were in taking care of the corpses at Sandy Hook!

My Personal Pledge of Resistance Against Any Attempt to Disarm Us by Means of an "Assault Weapons Ban"
December 19th 2012 By Stewart Rhodes Oathkeepers.org Article source

The Queen of Battle, and her modern descendants, are the birth-right of every American. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry 86

My conscience, and the urgency of our current situation, compel me to speak out. The victim disarmament freaks are now telling us that they don't want to disarm us- oh, no! They just want to take away our "assault weapons" our semi-automatic, magazine fed, military-style rifles and the "high capacity" magazines that feed them. They want us to believe that so long as we can own some kind of firearm, after our semi-auto military rifles are taken, we are not disarmed. That is a LIE. The truth is that our semi-automatic, military pattern rifles are the single most important kind of arm we can own, and are utterly necessary for effective defense of our lives, property, and liberty. When you are disarmed of your military rifles, you are DISARMED. At that time, the lion's share of your military capacity to effectively resist tyranny is removed (yes, accurate bolt action hunting rifles are useful in that role too, but the semi-auto battle rifle is truly the Queen of battle, as Col. Jeff Cooper correctly noted). It is a significant force on the battlefield, and as Patrick Henry said, when you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. It is the height of Orwellian perversion of language and logic to say that disarming you of the most effective arms for combat that you still have is somehow not really disarming you, because you still have hunting rifles and shotguns. And you can bet that if you let them take your military semi-autos, next on their list will be your bolt action rifles, which they will call "sniper rifles" (and by God, that is certainly what they are good for!). And then when they have those, they will go after any weapon that holds more than a few rounds, or is capable of any degree of long range accuracy and penetrating power, telling you that you really don't need one of those to hunt or target practice (a shotgun will suffice), and then they will take everything except single shot shotguns or .22's (as was done in England) and on down the line. So long as you have at least a .22, they will say you are not "disarmed" while they take everything else (and then they will take the .22s, or insist that you keep them at a gun-range). We need to call a spade a spade and teach our fellow citizens that taking away military style semi-autos is disarmament. And we need to throw down the gauntlet and take a hard stand against it, right now. When we, as Oath Keepers, pledged to not obey any orders to disarm the American people, this is what we meant. Any attempt to disarm the people of any arms currently in their possession is illegitimate and must be nullified, refused, disobeyed, and resisted. And so, in response to this obvious assault on our right to keep and bear arms (as in military arms), I feel compelled to make the following personal pledge: I Stewart Rhodes, as an American, as a military veteran, and as a father, pledge the following: I Pledge to never disarm, and in particular, to never surrender my military pattern, semiautomatic rifles (and full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition that go with them), regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts. I also pledge to pass on those military pattern rifles to my children and my children's children, as well as the full capacity magazines, parts, and ammunition to needed to use them, regardless of what illegitimate action is taken by Congress, the President, or the courts. As Founding Father Tench Coxe said, while attempting to allay the fears of critics of the proposed Constitution:

87

The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. And that "power of the sword" those "terrible implements of the soldier," includes the people's battle rifles and carbines their M1As, their FN-LARs, their HK 91s, their Grandfathers' M1 Garand, their AK 47s, their AR/15s and M4s, etc. all of the weapons listed as being targeted for Feinstein's new and improved "Assault Weapons Ban." The whole point of the Second Amendment is to preserve the military capacity of the American people to preserve the ability of the people, who are the militia, to provide for their own security as individuals, as neighborhoods, towns, counties, and states, during any emergency, man-made or natural; to preserve the military capacity of the American people to resist tyranny and violations of their rights by oath breakers within government; and to preserve the military capacity of the people to defend the Constitution against all enemies, both foreign and domestic, including those oath breaking domestic enemies within government. It is not about hunting, and at its core, the Second Amendment is not really even about self-defense against private criminals. It is about self-defense against public criminals against tyrants, usurpers, and foreign invaders. (and that is the whole point of the crucial upcoming film, Molon Labe). Above all other firearms currently available to the American citizen, modern military pattern, semi-automatic rifles provide that military capacity. Protecting the keeping and bearing of such arms of military utility is the heart and soul of the Second Amendment. Thus, any attempt to ban their possession, sale, purchase, or transfer, is an attempt to disarm the American people. Nor will I surrender my accurate, scoped, bolt action rifles, which are also great force multipliers of military utility in the roles of sniper and marksman. Invaders, tyrants and usurpers fear the sniper and marksman for good reason, and millions of American hunters have the well practiced field-craft and marksmanship skills to serve in those rolls most effectively. We must preserve their means of doing so, including preserving our .50 caliber sniper rifles, our .338 Lapua's, our .300 Win Mags, and other powerful, long-range capable calibers. Nor will I surrender my semi-automatic pistols with full capacity magazines, which provide me with the capacity to effectively defend against close range, sudden attack. I will not disarm, regardless of what law is passed by the oath breakers in Congress, or signed into law by the oath breaker in the White House, and I WILL pass on to my children every terrible implement of the soldier currently in my possession. Further, I will ask my children to also pledge to never surrender those family arms and equipment, regardless of what illegitimate, Bill of Rights violating law is passed by the oath breakers in Washington DC, and regardless of whatever any oath breaking judge may rule. 88

Further, I pledge to refuse compliance with any and all laws that attempt to strip me and my children of those arms, the full capacity magazines needed to load and fire them, or the parts and ammunition needed to keep them firing. I will use nullification, civil disobedience, and active resistance against all such laws. I will nullify, disobey, and resist as an individual, and I will work with my neighbors to nullify, disobey, and resist as towns, counties, and states. We will not disarm, we will not comply, and we will resist. Further, I pledge to refuse to vote for, and to actively work to purge from office any elected official, of any party, who violates their oath of office by supporting, endorsing, or voting for any law, action, or decree that attempts to disarm me, my children, or my children's children of any of the above noted arms. I pledge to root the oath breakers out, in a scorched earth policy. I will not buy into the "lesser of two evils" con game, and regardless of what party an oath breaking politician is in, and regardless of the outcome of elections, that oath breaker will not get my vote, ever again, once they betray my trust and violate their oath by voting for an assault weapons ban or any other attempt to curtail my right to bear arms. Finally, I pledge to defend myself, my neighbors, my town, county, and state, against any attempt to forcibly disarm them pursuant to any "assault weapons ban" or any other illegitimate "law" passed by oath breakers within Congress, or pursuant to any illegitimate order, action, or decree by the oath breaker within the White House. We will not disarm. We will resist. And if given no other choice but to fight or to submit to abject tyranny, we will fight, just as our forefathers in the American Revolution fought against the tyrants, usurpers, and oath breakers of their day. If we are presented with the "choice" of submission to tyranny or fighting in defense of our natural rights, we will fight, as our forefathers fought, when the British Empire attempted to disarm them and confiscate the military pattern arms, ammunition, and supplies of their time. We will make the same choice as Patrick Henry made, when he rejected "peace" purchased at the price of chains and slavery, and said "I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" I too choose liberty or death. I hereby reaffirm my oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor in defense of the principles of liberty enunciated in our Declaration of Independence, for which our forefathers spilled their blood. We will not let the Republic fall without a fight. What say you? Stewart Rhodes Founder of Oath Keepers

A what if Gun-Seizure Scenario

December 21st 2012 By Joseph Farah (Editors note: The following commentary by Joseph Farah is a hypothetical scenario, but one all-too-believable given the anti-gun hysteria in the media and here in the nations capital. It is 89

offered in the spirit of what former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel once said: Never let a good crisis go to waste.) WASHINGTON: President Obama today issued a sweeping executive order banning the manufacture, sale and possession of all semi-automatic firearms in the U.S. Obama cited for his authority for the action a national state of emergency that has been in effect ever since Sept. 11, 2001, and renewed annually by both President George W. Bush and Obama ever since. He also cited portions of the Patriot Act that suspend certain civil rights that remain classified. The dramatic action by the president follows closely on the heels of the Newtown, Conn., massacre of 27 schoolchildren and teachers by Adam Lanza a week ago. Gun-control advocates have been pushing for tighter gun control ever since the attack on the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the fourth mass shooting in the U.S. in 2012. Yet the action was surprising because Obama vowed to present a detailed plan of action in January after naming Vice President Joe Biden to head a blue-ribbon panel including Cabinet members, law enforcement officials and various agencies of the government. Biden convened the first meeting of the panel only yesterday. Thats how quickly it could happen. Thats how liberty could be lost in America in one day. For many, today was the day the world was supposed to end, according to the Mayan calendar and other ancient documents. It didnt, of course. But a scenario like the above would certainly change the world in an instant. The last great hope for mankind and freedom could be turned upside-down in the name of national security and safety. Americans would no longer be the masters of their government, as the founders intended. They would become subjects of their government, as most people in the world have been since the beginning of time. It might seem implausible, unthinkable, far-fetched even un-American and, of course, unconstitutional but has anything like that that ever stopped Barack Obama before? Am I suggesting this will happen? No. Am I suggesting it could happen? Yes. And thats why I am putting it out there for the American people. We are very, very close to seeing some draconian action in Washington on this specific action the unalienable freedom that secures all the rest of our constitutionally guarded liberties. It may come in a more conventional form with some legislators who formerly supported gun rights yielding to the political winds and media distortion sweeping the country. 90

But it might also happen in an unconventional and unexpected form with an executive order. You might recall how Paul Begala, a top political adviser to former President Bill Clinton described executive orders: Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool. Obama wouldnt be the first president to do an end-run around Congress to make law. If Im not scaring you yet, consider this: I am writing this column just minutes after getting a call from someone whose job it is to seek out reliable intelligence reports to protect people in the event of catastrophic events. He, in turn, had just talked to someone he described as a very reliable source who had worked in government and in the arms industry who had this normally calm, collected former military officer in a state of near panic because he was told this action could be announced today. Normally, that would be a little thin for me to go marching out to sound the alarm of this hypothetical scenario. And then I found this a real news story from Reuters published at 11:54 a.m., Wednesday, Dec. 19: The Obama administration will consider executive actions and specific proposals for legislation as part of its gun policy response to the school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said on Wednesday (emphasis added). Holder, who has been a vocal proponent of a new ban on certain semiautomatic rifles, told reporters that a range of options need to be considered in the coming weeks. Those options will have to include a strong and robust Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the chronically under-funded agency that enforces federal gun laws, he said. Its clear that we need to do more, Holder said. He did not specifically call on Wednesday for a return of the assault weapon ban. Trust me when I tell you this: Something very bad for America is coming very soon. Additional comments by Jack Graff: Seriously? The BATFEs body count is already strong and robust. Ruby Ridge involved other jackbooted agencies, but the BATFE was a major player. And then there was Waco and the David Koresh cult. They insisted on a grand siege rather than simply arresting Koresh when he was out jogging. Their self-serving decision, along with other bad decisions, led to the incineration of 83 women and children. Two years later, to the day, we had the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City. Mysteriously, the BATFE were warned not to show up for work. After the blast, while people were trapped and suffering and dying, time and again medical personnel had to leave the wreckage and abandon those they were helping because a new explosive had been discovered. It is likely those explosives were actually materials the BATF had been illegally storing in the building and wanted to move so they wouldnt get in trouble. The most incredible aspect of Eric Holders statement is his shameless pretense that the BATFE needs to be made strong and robust in the context of their most recent scandal. Strong and robust to succeed at what? Do they need to become strong and robust enough to sell hundreds of weapons to Mexican drug cartels so that they can be used to murder Americans and Mexicans? 91

Theyve already got that covered. Just how much more empowerment does Holder thinks the BATFE requires? If you want to see fewer gun deaths, a good argument could be made for eliminating the BATFE. This would, first of all, eliminate their contribution to firearm deaths. Even if we need a federal domestic police force, that doesnt prove we need several of them. We have the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Homeland Security. How does a third distinct agency give Americans protection? It just creates confusion. I find it completely amazing that Holder can simply shrug off the BATFEs lethal crimes; crimes that seem to implicate himself and use the deaths of innocent children to portray the agency as a solution and not a problem. Another question: does Holder think talking up the BATFE makes most Americans feel safe and secure? If I were a gun merchant, I would consider such rhetoric the best advertising I could possibly get.

An Opinion on Gun Control

December 20th 2012 By Larry Correia Source article

Larry Correia is a professional novelist with long roots in firearms instruction, as well as having owned a gun store. His experience and expertise is extremely broad. This substantial article is exceptionally detailed with analysis about "gun control" from many angles.
I didnt want to post about this, because frankly, it is exhausting. Ive been having this exact same argument for my entire adult life. It is not an exaggeration when I say that I know pretty much exactly every single thing an anti-gun person can say. Ive heard it over and over, the same old tired stuff, trotted out every single time there is a tragedy on the news that can be milked. Yet, I got sucked in, and Ive spent the last few days arguing with people who either mean well but are uninformed about gun laws and how guns actually work (who I dont mind at all), or the willfully ignorant (who I do mind), or the obnoxiously stupid who are completely incapable of any critical thinking deeper than a Facebook meme (them, I cant stand). Todays blog post is going to be aimed at the first group. I am going to try to go through everything Ive heard over the last few days, and try to break it down from my perspective. My goal tonight is to write something that my regular readers will be able to share with their friends who may not be as familiar with how mass shootings or gun control laws work. A little background for those of you who dont know me, and this is going to be extensive so feel free to skip the next few paragraphs, but I need to establish the fact that I know what I am talking with, because I am sick and tired of my opinion having the same weight as a person who learned everything they know about guns and violence from watching TV. 92

I am now a professional novelist. However, before that I owned a gun store. We were a Title 7 SOT, which means we worked with legal machineguns, suppressors, and pretty much everything except for explosives. We did law enforcement sales and worked with equipment that is unavailable from most dealers, but that means lots and lots of government inspections and compliance paperwork. This means that I had to be exceedingly familiar with federal gun laws, and there are a lot of them. I worked with many companies in the gun industry and still have many friends and contacts at various manufacturers. When I hear people tell me the gun industry is unregulated, I have to resist the urge to laugh in their face. I was also a Utah Concealed Weapons instructor, and was one of the busiest instructors in the state. That required me to learn a lot about self-defense laws, and because I took my job very seriously, I sought out every bit of information that I could. My classes were longer than the standard Utah class, and all of that extra time was spent on Use of Force, shoot/no shoot scenarios, and role playing through violent encounters. I have certified thousands of people to carry guns. I have been a firearms instructor, and have taught a lot of people how to shoot defensively with handguns, shotguns, and rifles. For a few years of my life, darn near every weekend was spent at the range. I started out as an assistant for some extremely experienced teachers and I also had the opportunity to be trained by some of the most accomplished firearms experts in the world. The man I stole most of my curriculum from was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Army Special Forces, turned federal agent SWAT team commander. I took classes in everything from wound ballistics (10 hours of looking at autopsy slides) to high-speed cool-guy door-kicking stuff. Ive worked extensively with military and law enforcement personnel, including force on force training where I played the OpFor (i.e. I got to be the bad guy, because I make an awesome bad guy. You tell me how evil/capable you want me to be, and how hard you want your men to work, and Id make it happen, plus I can take a beating). Part of this required learning how mass shooters operate and studying the heck out of the actual events. I have been a competition shooter. I competed in IPSC, IDPA, and 3gun. It was not odd for me to reload and shoot 1,000 rounds in any given week. I fired 20,000 rounds of .45ACP in one August alone. Ive got a Remington 870 with approximately 160,000 rounds through it. Ive won matches, and Ive been able to compete with some of the top shooters in the country. I am a very capable shooter. I only put this here to convey that I know how shooting works better than the vast majority of the populace. I have written for national publications on topics relating to gun law and use of force. I wrote for everything from the United States Concealed Carry Association to SWAT magazine. I was considered a subject matter expert at the state level and on a few occasions was brought in to testify before the Utah State Legislature on the ramifications of proposed gun laws. Ive argued with lawyers, professors, professional lobbyists, and once made a state rep cry. Basically for most of my adult life, I have been up to my eyeballs in guns, self-defense instruction, and the laws relating to those things. So believe me when I say that Ive heard every argument relating to gun control possible. It is pretty rare for me to hear something new, and none of this stuff is new.

Armed Teachers

93

So now that there is a new tragedy the president wants to have a national conversation on guns. Heres the thing. Until this national conversation is willing to entertain allowing teachers to carry concealed weapons, then it isnt a conversation at all, it is a lecture. Now when I say teachers carrying concealed weapons on Facebook I immediately get a bunch of emotional freak out responses. You cant mandate teachers be armed! Guns in every classroom! Emotional response! Blood in the streets! No. Hear me out. The single best way to respond to a mass shooter is with an immediate, violent response. The vast majority of the time, as soon as a mass shooter meets serious resistance, it bursts their fantasy world bubble. Then they kill themselves or surrender. This has happened over and over again. Police are awesome. I love working with cops. However any honest cop will tell you that when seconds count they are only minutes away. After Columbine law enforcement changed their methods in dealing with active shooters. It used to be that you took up a perimeter and waited for overwhelming force before going in. Now usually as soon as you have two officers on scene you go in to confront the shooter (often one in rural areas or if help is going to take another minute, because there are a lot of very sound tactical reasons for using two, mostly because your success/survival rates jump dramatically when you put two guys through a door at once. The shooters brain takes a moment to decide between targets). The reason they go fast is because they know that every second counts. The longer the shooter has to operate, the more innocents die.

However, cops cant be everywhere. There are at best only a couple hundred thousand on duty at any given time patrolling the entire country. Excellent response time is in the three-five minute range. Weve seen what bad guys can do in three minutes, but sometimes it is far worse. They simply cant teleport. So in some cases that means the bad guys can have ten, fifteen, even twenty minutes to do horrible things with nobody effectively fighting back. So if we cant have cops there, what can we do? The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started. The teachers are there already. The school staff is there already. Their reaction time is measured in seconds, not minutes. They can serve as your immediate violent response. Best case scenario, they engage and stop the attacker, or it bursts his fantasy bubble and he commits suicide. Worst case scenario, the armed staff provides a distraction, and while hes concentrating on killing them, hes not killing more children. But teachers arent as trained as police officers! True, yet totally irrelevant. The teacher doesnt need to be a SWAT cop or Navy SEAL. They need to be speed bumps. But this leads to the inevitable shrieking and straw man arguments about guns in the classroom, and then the pacifistic minded who simply cant comprehend themselves being mandated to carry a gun, or those that believe teachers are all too incompetent and cant be trusted. Let me address both at one time.

94

Dont make it mandatory. In my experience, the only people who are worth a darn with a gun are the ones who wish to take responsibility and carry a gun. Make it voluntary. It is rather simple. Just make it so that your states concealed weapons laws trump the Federal Gun Free School Zones act. All that means is that teachers who voluntarily decide to get a concealed weapons permit are capable of carrying their guns at work. Easy. Simple. Cheap. Available now. Then theyll say that this is impossible, and give me all sorts of terrible worst case scenarios about all of the horrors that will happen with a gun in the classroom. No problem, because this has happened before. In fact, my state laws allow for somebody with a concealed weapons permit to carry a gun in a school right now. Yes. Utah has armed teachers. We have for several years now. When I was a CCW instructor, I decided that I wanted more teachers with skin in the game, so I started a program where I would teach anybody who worked at a school for free. No charge. Zip. They still had to pay the state for their background check and fingerprints, but all the instruction was free. I wanted more armed teachers in my state. I personally taught several hundred teachers. I quickly discovered that pretty much every single school in my state had at least one competent, capable, smart, willing individual. Some schools had more. I had one high school where the principal, three teachers, and a janitor showed up for class. They had just had an event where there had been a threat against the school and their resource officer had turned up AWOL. This had been a wake up call for this principal that they were on their own, and he had taken it upon himself to talk to his teachers to find the willing and capable. Good for them. After Virginia Tech, I started teaching college students for free as well. They were 21 year old adults who could pass a background check. Why should they have to be defenseless? None of these students ever needed to stop a mass shooting, but Im happy to say that a couple of rapists and muggers werent so lucky, so I consider my time well spent. Over the course of a couple years I taught well over $20,000 worth of free CCW classes. I met hundreds and hundreds of teachers, students, and staff. All of them were responsible adults who understood that they were stuck in target rich environments filled with defenseless innocents. Whether they liked it or not, they were the first line of defense. It was the least I could do. Permit holders are not cops. The mistake many people make is that they think permit holders are supposed to be cops or junior danger rangers. Not at all. Their only responsibility is simple. If someone is threatening to cause them or a third person serious bodily harm, and that someone has the ability, opportunity, and is acting in a manner which suggest they are a legitimate threat, then that permit holder is allowed to use lethal force against them. As of today the state legislatures of Texas, Tennessee, and Oklahoma are looking at revamping their existing laws so that there can be legal guns in school. For those that are worried these teachers will be unprepared, Im sure there would be no lack of instructors in those states whod be willing to teach them for free. For everyone, if you are sincere in your wish to protect our children, I would suggest you call your state representative today and demand that they allow concealed carry in schools.

Gun Free Zones

95

Gun Free Zones are hunting preserves for innocent people. Period. Think about it. You are a violent, homicidal madman, looking to make a statement and hoping to go from disaffected loser to most famous person in the world. The best way to accomplish your goals is to kill a whole bunch of people. So wheres the best place to go shoot all these people? Obviously, it is someplace where nobody can shoot back. In all honesty I have no respect for anybody who believes Gun Free Zones actually work. You are going to commit several hundred felonies, up to and including mass murder, and you are going to refrain because there is a sign? That No Guns Allowed sign is not a cross that wards off vampires. It is wishful thinking, and really pathetic wishful thinking at that. The only people who obey No Guns signs are people who obey the law. People who obey the law arent going on rampages. I testified before the Utah State Legislature about the University of Utahs gun ban the day after the Trolley Square shooting in Salt Lake City. Another disaffected loser scumbag started shooting up this mall. He killed several innocent people before he was engaged by an off duty police officer who just happened to be there shopping. The off duty Ogden cop pinned down the shooter until two officers from the SLCPD came up from behind and killed the shooter. (turned out one of them was a customer of mine) I sent one of my employees down to Trolley Square to take a picture of the shopping centers front doors. I then showed the picture to the legislators. One of the rules was NO GUNS ALLOWED. The man that attacked the midnight showing of Batman didnt attack just any theater. There were like ten to choose from. He didnt attack the closest. It wasnt about biggest or smallest. He attacked the one that was posted NO GUNS ALLOWED. There were four mass killing attempts this week. Only one made the news because it helped the agreed upon media narrative. 1. Oregon. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter confronted by permit holder. Shooter commits suicide. Only a few casualties. 2. Texas. NOT a gun free zone. Shooter killed immediately by off duty cop. Only a few casualties. 3. Connecticut. GUN FREE ZONE. Shooters kills until the police arrive. Suicide. 26 dead. 4. China. GUN FREE COUNTRY. A guy with a KNIFE stabs 22 children. And here is the nail in the coffin for Gun Free Zones. Over the last fifty years, with only one single exception (Gabby Giffords), every single mass shooting event with more than four casualties has taken place in a place where guns were supposedly not allowed.

The Media
Every time there is a mass shooting event, the vultures launch. I find it absolutely fascinating. A bunch of people get murdered, and the same usual suspects show up with the same tired proposals that weve either tried before or logic tells us simply will not work. They strike while the iron is hot, trying to push through legislation before there can be coherent thought. Weve seen this over and over and over again. We saw it succeed in England. We saw it succeed in Australia. Weve seen it succeed here before. 96

Yet when anyone from my side responds, then we are shouted at that we are blood thirsty and how dare we speak in this moment of tragedy, and we should just shut our stupid mouths out of respect for the dead, while they are free to promote policies which will simply lead to more dead. If the NRA says something they are bloodthirsty monsters, and if they dont say something then their silence is damning guilt. It is hypocritical in the extreme, and when I speak out against this I am called every name in the book, I want dead children, Im a cold hearted monster (the death threats are actually hilarious). If I become angry because they are promoting policies which are tactically flawed and which will do the exact opposite of the stated goals, then I am a horrible person for being angry. Perhaps I shouldnt be allowed to own guns at all. But thats not why I want to talk about the media. I want to talk about the medias effect on the shooters. Put yourself in the shoes of one of these killers. One nice thing about playing the villain and being a punching bag for cops, soldiers, and permit holders is that you need to learn about how the bad guys think and operate. And most of the mass shooters fit a similar profile. The vast majority (last I saw it was over 80%) are on some form of psychotropic drug and has been for many years. They have been on Zoloft or some serotonin inhibitor through their formative years, and their decision making process is often flawed. They are usually disaffected, have been bullied, pushed around, and have a lot of emotional problems. They are delusional. They see themselves as victims, and they are usually striking back at their peer group. These people want to make a statement. They want to show the world that they arent losers. They want to make us understand their pain. They want to make their peer group realize that they are powerful. Theyll show us. The solution is easy. Its right there in front of your nose. If you can kill enough people at one time, youll be on the news, 24/7, round the clock coverage. You will become the most famous person in the world. Everyone will know your name. You become a celebrity. Experts will try to understand what you were thinking. Hell, the President of the United States, the most important man in the world, will drop whatever he is doing and hold a press conference to talk about your actions, and hell even shed a single manly tear. You are a star. Strangely enough, this is one of the only topics I actually agree with Roger Ebert on. He didnt think that the news should cover the shooters or mention their names on the front page of the paper. So whenever the press isnt talking about guns, or violent movies, or violent video games, or any other thing that hundreds of millions of people participated in yesterday without murdering anybody, theyll keep showing the killers picture in the background while telling the world all about him and his struggles. And then the cycle repeats, as the next disaffected angry loner takes notes. They should not be glamorized. They should be hated, despised, and forgotten. They are not victims. They are not powerful. They are murdering scum, and the only time their names should be remembered is when people like me are studying the tactics of how to neutralize them faster.

Mental Health Issues

And right here Im going to show why Im different than the people Ive been arguing with the last few days. I am not an expert on mental health issues or psychiatry or psychology. My 97

knowledge of criminal psychology is limited to understanding the methods of killers enough to know how to fight them better. So since I dont have enough first-hand knowledge about this topic to comment intelligently, then Im not going to comment Oh please, if only some of the people Ive been arguing with who barely understand that the bullets come out the pointy end of the gun would just do the same.

Gun Control Laws

As soon as there is a tragedy there comes the calls for We have to do something! Sure, the something may not actually accomplish anything as far as solving whatever the tragedy was or preventing the next one, but thats the narrative. Something evil happened, so we have to do something, and preferably we have to do it right now before we think about it too hard. The left side of the political spectrum loves it some gun control. Gun control is historically extremely unpopular in red state and purple state America, and thus very hard to pass bit stuff, but theres a centurys accumulation of lots and lots of small ones. There have been a handful of major federal laws passed in the United States relating to guns, but the majority of really strict gun control has primarily been enacted in liberal dominated urban areas. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books, and I have no idea how many pages of regulations from the BATF related to the production and selling of them. Ive found that the average American is extremely uneducated about what gun laws already exist, what they actually do, and even fundamental terminology, so Im going to go through many of the things Ive seen argued about over the last few days and elaborate on them one by one. I will leave out the particularly crazy things I was confronted with, including the guy who was in favor of mandating automatic robot gun turrets in schools. Yes. Heaven forbid we let a teacher CCW, so lets put killer robots (which havent actually been invented yet) in schools. Man, I wish I was making this up, but thats Facebook for you. We need to ban automatic weapons. Okay. Done. In fact, we pretty much did that in 1934. The National Firearms Act of 1934 made it so that you had to pay a $200 tax on a machinegun and register it with the government. In 1986 that registry was closed and there have been no new legal machineguns for civilians to own since then. Automatic means that when you hold down the trigger the gun keeps on shooting until you let go or run out of ammo. Actual automatic weapons cost a lot of money. The cheapest one you can get right now is around $5,000 as they are all collectors items and you need to jump through a lot of legal hoops to get one. To the best of my knowledge, there has only ever been one crime committed with an NFA weapon in my lifetime, and in that case the perp was a cop. Now are machineguns still used in crimes? Why, yes they are. For every legally registered one, there are conservatively dozens of illegal ones in the hands of criminals. They either make their own (which is not hard to do) or they are smuggled in (usually by the same people that are able to smuggle in thousands of tons of drugs). Because really serious criminals simply dont care, they are able to get a hold of military weapons, and they use them simply because criminals, by definition, dont obey the law. So even an item which has been basically banned since my grandparents were kids, and which there has been no new ones allowed manufactured since I was in elementary school, still ends up in the hands of criminals who really want one. This will go to show how effective government bans are. 98

When you say automatic you mean full auto, as in a machinegun. What I think most of these people mean is semi-auto. Okay. We need to ban semi-automatic weapons! Semi-automatic means that each time you pull the trigger the action cycles and loads another round. This is the single most common type of gun, not just in America, but in the whole world. Almost all handguns are semi-automatic. The vast majority of weapons used for selfdefense are semi-automatic, as are almost all the weapons used by police officers. It is the most common because it is normally the most effective. Semi-automatic is usually best choice for defensive use. It is easier to use because you can do so one handed if necessary, and you are forced to manipulate your weapon less. If you believe that using a gun for self-defense is necessary, then you pretty much have to say that semi-auto is okay. Banning semi-automatic basically means banning all guns. Ill get to the functional problems with that later.

We should ban handguns! Handguns are tools for self-defense, and the only reason we use them over the more capable, and easier to hit with rifles or shotguns is because handguns are portable. Rifles are just plain better, but the only reason I dont carry an AR-15 around is because it would be hard to hide under my shirt. Concealed Carry works. As much as it offends liberals and we keep hearing horror stories about blood in the streets, the fact is over my lifetime most of the United States has enacted some form of concealed carry law, and the blood in the streets wild west shootouts over parking spaces theyve predicted simply hasnt happened. At this point in time there are only a few hold out states, all of them are blue states and all of them have inner cities which suffer from terrible crime, where once again, the criminals simply dont care. For information about how more guns actually equals less crime, look up the work of Dr. John Lott. And since liberals hate his guts, look up the less famous work of Dr. Gary Kleck, or basically look up the work of any criminologist or economist who isnt writing for Slate or Mother Jones. As for why CCW is good, see my whole first section about arming teachers for a tiny part of the whole picture. Basically bad people are going to be bad and do bad things. They are going to hurt you and take your stuff, because thats what they do. Thats their career, and they are as good at it as you are at your job. They will do this anywhere they think they can get away with it. We fixate on the mass shooters because they grab the headlines, but in actuality your odds of running in to one of them is tiny. Your odds of having a violent encounter with a run of the mill criminal is orders of magnitudes higher.

99

I do find one thing highly amusing. In my personal experience, some of the most vehement anti-gun people Ive ever associated with will usually eventually admit after getting to know me, that if something bad happened, then they really hope Im around, because Im one of the good ones. Usually they never realize just how hypocritical and nave that is. We should ban Assault Rifles! Define assault rifle Uh Yeah. Thats the problem. The term assault rifle gets bandied around a lot. Politically, the term is a loaded nonsense one that was created back during the Clinton years. It was one of those tricks where you name legislation something catchy, like PATRIOT Act. (another law rammed through while emotions were high and nobody was thinking, go figure). To gun experts, an assault rifle is a very specific type of weapon which originated (for the most part) in the 1940s. It is a magazine fed, select fire (meaning capable of full auto), intermediate cartridge (as in, actually not that powerful, but Ill come back to that later) infantry weapon. The thing is real assault rifles in the US have been heavily regulated since before they were invented. The thing that the media and politicians like to refer to as assault rifles is basically a catch all term for any gun which looks scary. I had somebody get all mad at me for pointing this out, because they said that the term had entered common usage. Okay If youre going to legislate it, DEFINE IT. And then comes up that pesky problem. The US banned assault rifles once before for a decade and the law did absolutely nothing. I mean, it was totally, literally pointless. The special commission to study it said that it accomplished absolutely nothing. (except tick a bunch of Americans off and as a result we bought a TON more guns) And the reason was that since assault weapon is a nonsense term, they just came up with a list of arbitrary features which made a gun into an assault weapon. Problem was, none of these features actually made the gun functionally any different or somehow more lethal or better from any other run of the mill firearm. Most of the criteria were so silly that they became a huge joke to gun owners, except of course, for that part where many law abiding citizens accidentally became instant felons because one of their guns had some cosmetic feature which was now illegal. One of the criteria was that it was semi-automatic. See above. Hard to ban the single most common and readily available type of gun in the world. (unless you believe in confiscation, but Ill get to that). Then what if it takes a detachable magazine! Thats got to be an Evil Feature. And yes, we really did call the Evil Features. Ill talk about magazines below, but once again, it is pretty hard to ban something that common unless you want to go on a confiscatory national suicide mission. For example, flash hiders sound dangerous. Lets say having a flash hider makes a gun an assault weapon. So flash hiders became an evil feature. Problem is flash hiders dont do much. They screw onto the end of your muzzle and divert the flash off to the side instead of straight up so it isnt as annoying when you shoot. It doesnt actually hide the flash from anybody else. EVIL.

100

Barrel shrouds were listed. Barrel shrouds are basically useless, cosmetic pieces of metal that go over the barrel so you dont accidentally touch it and burn your hand. But they became an instantaneous felony too. Collapsible stocks make it so you can adjust your rifle to different size shooters, that way a tall guy and his short wife can shoot the same gun. Nope. EVIL FEATURE! It has been a running joke in the gun community ever since the ban passed. When Carolyn McCarthy was asked by a reporter what a barrel shroud was, she replied I think it is the shoulder thing which goes up. Oh good. Im glad that thousands of law abiding Americans unwittingly committed felonies because they had a cosmetic piece of sheet metal on their barrel, which has no bearing whatsoever on crime, but could possibly be a shoulder thing which goes up. Now are you starting to see why assault weapons is a pointless term? They arent functionally any more powerful or deadly than any normal gun. In fact the cartridges they normally fire are far less powerful than your average deer hunting rifle. Dont worry though, because the same people who fling around the term assault weapons also think of scoped deer rifles as high powered sniper guns. Basically, what you are thinking of as assault weapons arent special. Now, the reason that semi-automatic, magazine fed, intermediate caliber rifles are the single most popular type of gun in America is because they are excellent for many uses, but Im not talking about fun, or hunting, or sports, today Im talking business. And in this case they are excellent for shooting bad people who are trying to hurt you, in order to make them stop trying to hurt you. These types of guns are superb for defending your home. Now some of you may think thats extreme. Thats because everything youve learned about gun fights comes from TV. Just read the link where I expound on why. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/carbine-vs-shotgun-vs-pistol-for-home-defense/ I had one individual tell me that these types of guns are designed to slaughter the maximum number of people possible as quickly as possible Uh huh Which is why every single police department in America uses them, because of all that slaughtering cops do daily. Cops use them for the same reason we do, they are handy, versatile, and can stop an attacker quickly in a variety of circumstances. When I said stop an attacker quickly somebody on Twitter thought that hed gotten me and said Stop. Thats just a euphemism for kill! Nope. I am perfectly happy if the attacker surrenders or passes out from blood loss too. Tactically and legally, all I care about is making them stop doing whatever it is that they are doing which caused me to shoot them to begin with. The guns that many of you think of as assault rifle are common and popular because they are excellent for fighting, and Ill talk about what my side really thinks about the 2nd Amendment below. We should ban magazines over X number of shots! Ive seen this one pop up a lot. It sounds good to the ear and really satisfies that weve got to do something need. It sounds simple. Bad guys shoot a lot of people in a mass shooting. So if he has magazines that hold fewer rounds, ergo then hell not be able to shoot as many people. 101

Wrong. And Ill break it down, first why my side wants more rounds in our gun, second why tactically it doesnt really stop the problem, and third, why stopping them is a logistical impossibility. First off, why do gun owners want magazines that hold more rounds? Because sometimes you miss. Because usually contrary to the movies you have to hit an opponent multiple times in order to make them stop. Because sometimes you may have multiple assailants. We dont have more rounds in the magazine so we can shoot more, we have more rounds in the magazine so we are forced to manipulate our gun less if we have to shoot more. The last assault weapons ban capped capacities at ten rounds. You quickly realize ten rounds sucks when you take a wound ballistics class like I have and go over case after case after case after case of enraged, drug addled, prison hardened, perpetrators who soaked up five, seven, nine, even fifteen bullets and still walked under their own power to the ambulance. That isnt uncommon at all. Legally, you can shoot them until they cease to be a threat, and keep in mind that what normally causes a person to stop is loss of blood pressure, so I used to tell my students that anybody worth shooting once was worth shooting five or seven times. You shoot them until they leave you alone. Also, youre going to miss. It is going to happen. If you can shoot pretty little groups at the range, those groups are going to expand dramatically under the stress and adrenalin. The more you train, the better you will do, but you can still may miss, or the bad guy may end up hiding behind something which your bullets dont penetrate. Nobody has ever survived a gunfight and then said afterwards, Darn, I wish I hadnt brought all that extra ammo. So having more rounds in the gun is a good thing for self-defense use. Now tactically, lets say a mass shooter is on a rampage in a school. Unless his brain has turned to mush and hes a complete idiot, hes not going to walk up right next to you while he reloads anyway. Unlike the CCW holder who gets attacked and has to defend himself in whatever crappy situation he finds himself in, the mass shooter is the aggressor. Hes picked the engagement range. They are cowards who are murdering running and hiding children, but dont for a second make the mistake of thinking they are dumb. Many of these scumbags are actually very intelligent. Theyre just broken and evil. In the cases that Im aware of where the shooter had guns that held fewer rounds they just positioned themselves back a bit while firing or they brought more guns, and simply switched guns and kept on shooting, and then reloaded before they moved to the next planned firing position. Unless you are a fumble fingered idiot, anybody who practices in front of a mirror a few dozen times can get to where they can insert a new magazine into a gun in a few seconds. A good friend of mine (who happens to be a very reasonable democrat) was very hung up on this, sure that he would be able to take advantage of the time in which it took for the bad guy to reload his gun. Thats a bad assumption, and heres yet another article that addresses that sort of misconception that I wrote several years ago which has sort of made the rounds on firearms forums. http://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/45671-My-Gunfightquot-Thinking-Outside-Your-Box-quot So thats awesome if it happens, but good luck with that. Finally, lets look at the logistical ramifications of another magazine ban. The AWB banned the production of all magazines over ten rounds except those marked for military or law enforcement use, and it was a felony to possess those. Over the ten years of the ban, we never ran out. Not even close. Magazines are cheap and basic. Most of them are pieces of sheet metal with some wire. Thats it. Magazines are 102

considered disposable so most gun people accumulate a ton of them. All it did was make magazines more expensive, ticked off law abiding citizens, and didnt so much as inconvenience a single criminal. Meanwhile, bad guys didnt run out either. And if they did, like I said, they are cheap and basic, so you just get or make more. If you can cook meth, you can make a functioning magazine. My old company designed a rifle magazine once, and Im no engineer. I paid a CAD guy, spent $20,000 and churned out several thousand 20 round Saiga .308 mags. This couldve been done out of my garage. Ten years. No difference. Meanwhile, we had bad guys turning up all the time committing crimes, and guess what was marked on the mags found in their guns? MILITARY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT USE ONLY. Because once again, if youre already breaking a bunch of laws, they can only hang you once. Criminals simply dont care. Once the AWB timed out, because every politician involved looked at the mess which had been passed in the heat of the moment, the fact it did nothing, and the fact that every single one of them from a red state would lose their job if they voted for a new one, it expired and went away. Immediately every single gun person in America went out and bought a couple guns which had been banned and a bucket of new magazines, because nothing makes an American want to do something more than telling them they cant. Weve been stocking up ever since. If the last ban did literally nothing at all over a decade, and since then weve purchased another hundred million magazines since then, another ban will do even less. (except just make the law abiding that much angrier, and Ill get to that below). I bought $600 worth of magazines for my competition pistol this morning. Ive already got a shelf full for my rifles. Gun and magazine sales skyrocket every time a democrat politician starts to vulture in on a tragedy. I dont know if many of you realize this, but Barack Obama is personally responsible for more gun sales, and especially first time gun purchases, than anyone in history. When I owned my gun store, we had a picture of him on the wall and a caption beneath it which said SALESMAN OF THE YEAR. So you can ban this stuff, but it wont actually do anything to the crimes you want to stop. Unless you think you can confiscate them all, but Ill talk about confiscation later. One last thing to share about the magazine ban from the AWB, and this is something all gun people know, but most anti-gunners do not. When you put an artificial cap on a weapon, and tell us that we can only have a limited number of rounds in that weapon, were going to make sure they are the most potent rounds possible. Before the ban, everybody bought 9mms which held an average of 15 rounds. After the ban, if I can only have ten rounds, theyre going to be bigger, so we all started buying 10 shot .45s instead. You dont need an assault weapon for hunting! Who said anything about hunting? That whole thing about the 2nd Amendment being for sportsmen is hogwash. The 2nd Amendment is about bearing arms to protect yourself from threats, up to and including a tyrannical government. Spare me the whole, You wont be happy until everybody has nuclear weapons reduction ad absurdum. It says arms, as in things that were man portable. And as for the founding fathers not being able to see foresee our modern arms, you forget that many of them were inventors, and multi shot weapons were already in service. Not to mention that in that day, arms included 103

cannon, since most of the original artillery of the Continental Army was privately owned. Besides, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See DC v. Heller. Well we should just ban ALL guns then! You only need them to murder people! It doesnt really make sense to ban guns, because in reality what that means is that you are actually banning effective self-defense. Despite the constant hammering by a news media with an agenda, guns are used in America far more to stop crime than to cause crime. Ive seen several different sets of numbers about how many times guns are used in selfdefense every year. The problem with keeping track of this stat is that the vast majority of the time when a gun is produced in a legal self-defense situation no shots are fired. The mere presence of the gun is enough to cause the criminal to stop. Clint Smith once said if you look like food, you will be eaten. Criminals are looking for prey. They are looking for easy victims. If they wanted to work hard for a living theyd get a job. So when you pull a gun, you are no longer prey, you are work, so they are going to go find somebody else to pick on. So many defensive gun uses never get tracked as such. From personal experience, I have pulled a gun exactly one time in my entire life. I was legally justified and the bad guy stopped, put his gun away, and left. (15 years later the same son of a bitch would end up murdering a local sheriffs deputy). My defensive gun use was never recorded anywhere as far as I know. My wife has pulled a gun twice in her life. Once on somebody who was acting very rapey who suddenly found a better place to be when she stuck a Ruger in his face, and again many years later on a German Shepherd which was attacking my one year old son. (amazingly enough a dog can recognize a 9mm coming out of a fanny pack and run for its life, go figure) No police report at all on the second one, and I dont believe the first one ever turned up as any sort of defensive use statistic, all because no shots were fired. So how often are guns actually used in self-defense in America? http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html On the high side the estimate runs around 2.5 million defensive gun uses a year, which dwarfs our approximately 16,000 homicides in any recent year, only 10k of which are with guns. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm Of those with guns, only a couple hundred are with rifles. So basically, the guns that the anti-gunners are the most spun up about only account for a tiny fraction of all our murders. But lets not go with the high estimate. Lets go with some smaller ones instead. Lets use the far more conservative 800,000 number which is arrived at in multiple studies. That still dwarfs the number of illegal shootings. Heck, lets even run with the number once put out by the people who want to ban guns, the Brady Center, which was still around 108,000, which still is an awesome ratio of good vs. bad. So even if you use the worst number provided by people who are just as biased as me but in the opposite direction, gun use is a huge net positive. Or to put it another way, the Brady Center hates guns so much that they are totally cool with the population of a decent sized city getting raped and murdered every year as collateral damage in order to get what they want. 104

Doesnt matter. I dont like them. We should ban them and take them all away like a civilized country. Well, I suppose if your need to do something overrides all reason and logic, then by all means lets ban guns. Australia had a mass shooting and instituted a massive gun ban and confiscation (a program which would not work here, which Ill get to, but lets run with it anyway.). As was pointed out to me on Facebook, they havent had any mass shootings since. However, they fail to realize that they didnt really have any mass shootings before either. You need to keep in mind that mass shooting are horrific headline grabbing statistical anomalies. You are far more likely to get your head caved in by a local thug while hes trying to steal your wallet, and that probably wont even make the evening news. And violent crime is up in Australia. A cursory Google search will show articles about the increase in violent crime and theft, but then other articles pooh-pooing these stats as being insignificant and totally not related to the guns. So then weve got England, where they reacted swiftly after a mass shooting, banned and confiscated guns, and their violent crime has since skyrocketed. Their stats are far worse than Australia, and they are now one of the more dangerous countries to live in the EU. Once again, cursory Google search will show articles with the stats, and other articles saying that those rises like totally have nothing to do with regular folks no longer being able to defend themselves Sensing a trend yet? And then weve got South Africa, which instituted some really hard core gun bans and some extremely strict controls, and their crime is now so high that it is basically either no longer tracked or simply not countable. But obviously, the totally unbiased news says that has absolutely nothing to do with people no longer being able to legally defend themselves. Then youve got countries like Norway, with extremely strict gun control. Their gun control laws are simply incomprehensible to half of Americans. Not only that, they are an ethnically and socially homogenous, tiny population, well off country, without our gang violence or drug problems. Their gun control laws are draconian by our standards. They make Chicago look like Boise. Surely that level of gun control will stop school shootings! Except of course for 2011 when a maniac killed 77 and injured 242 people, a body count which is absurdly high compared to anything which has happened America. Because once again, repeat it with me, criminals simply do not give a crap. That mass killer used a gun and homemade explosives. Make guns harder to get, and explosives become the weapon of choice. Please do keep in mind that the largest and most advanced military coalition in human history was basically stymied for a decade by a small group using high school level chemistry and the Afghani equivalent to Radio Shack. The biggest mass killings in US history have used bombs (like Bath, Michigan), fire (like Happyland Nightclub) or airliners. There is no law you can pass, nothing you can say or do, which will make some not be evil. And all of this is irrelevant, because banning and confiscating all the scary guns in America will be national suicide. You crazy gun nuts and your 2nd Amendment. We should just confiscate all the guns. 105

Many of you may truly believe that. You may think that the 2nd Amendment is archaic, outdated, and totally pointless. However, approximately half of the country disagrees with you, and of them, a pretty large portion is fully willing to shoot somebody in defense of it. Weve already seen that your partial bans are stupid and dont do anything, so unless you are merely a hypocrite more interested in style rather than results, the only way to achieve your goal is to come and take the guns away. So lets talk about confiscation. They say that there are 100 million gun owners in America. I personally think that number is low for a few reasons. The majority of gun owners I know, when contacted for a phone survey and asked if they own guns will become suspicious and simply lie. Those of us who dont want to end like England or Australia will say that we lost all of our guns in a freak canoe accident. Guns do not really wear out. I have perfectly functioning guns from WWI, and Ive got friends who have still useable firearms from the 1800s. Plus weve been building more of them this entire time. There are more guns than there are people in America, and some of us have enough to arm our entire neighborhood.

But for the sake of math, lets say that there are only 100 million gun owners, and lets say that the government decides to round up all those pesky guns once and for all. Lets be generous and say that 90% of the gun owners dont really believe in the 2nd Amendment, and their guns are just for duck hunting. Which is what politicians keep telling us, but is actually rather hilarious when you think about how the most commonly sold guns in America are the same detachable magazine semiautomatic rifles I talked about earlier. So ten percent refuse to turn their guns in. That is 10 million instantaneous felons. Lets say that 90% of them are not wanting to comply out of sheer stubbornness. Lets be super generous and say that 90% of them would still just roll over and turn their guns when pressed or legally threatened. That leaves 1,000,000 Americans who are not turning their guns in, no matter what. To put that in perspective there are only about 700,000 police officers in the whole country. Lets say that these hypothetical 10% of 10% are willing to actually fight to keep their guns. Even if my hypothetical estimate of 1,000,000 gun nuts willing to fight for their guns is correct, it is still 97% higher than the number of insurgents we faced at any one time in Iraq, a country about the size of Texas. However, I do honestly believe that it would be much bigger than 10%. Once the confiscations turned violent, then it would push many otherwise peaceful people over the edge. I saw somebody on Twitter post about how the 2nd Amendment is stupid because my stupid assault rifles are useless against drones. That person has obviously never worked with the people who build the drones, fly the drones, and service the drones. I have. Where to you think the majority of the US military falls on the political spectrum exactly? Theres a reason Mitt Romney won the military vote by over 40 points, and it wasnt because of his hair. And as for those 700,000 cops, how many of them would side with the gun owners? All the gun nuts, thats for sure. As much as some people like to complain about the gun culture, 106

many of the people you hire to protect you, and darn near all of them who can shoot well, belong to that gun culture. And as I hear people complain about the gun industry, like it is some nebulous, faceless, all powerful corporate thing which hungers for war and anarchy, I just have to laugh, because the gun industry probably has the highest percentage of former cops and former military of any industry in the country. My being a civilian was odd in the circles I worked in. The men and women you pay to protect you have honor and integrity, and they will fight for what they believe in. So the real question the anti-gun, ban and confiscate, crowd should be asking themselves is this, how many of your fellow Americans are you willing to have killed in order to bring about your utopian vision of the future? Boo Evil Gun Culture! Really? Because I hate to break it to you, but when nearly six hundred people get murdered a year in beautiful Gun Free Chicago, thats not my people doing the shooting. The gun culture is all around you, well obviously except for those of you reading this in elite liberal urban city centers where youve extinguished your gun culture. They are your friends, relatives, and coworkers. The biggest reason gun control has become increasingly difficult to pass over the last decade is because more and more people have turned to CCW, and as that has become more common, it has removed much of the stigma. Now everybody outside of elite urban liberal city centers knows somebody that carries a gun. The gun culture is simply regular America, and is made up of people who think their lives and their families lives are more important than the life of anyone who tries to victimize them. The gun culture is who protects our country. Sure, there are plenty of soldiers and cops who are issued a gun and who use it as part of their job who could care less. However, the people who build the guns, really understand the guns, actually enjoy using the guns, and usually end up being picked to teach everybody else how to use the guns are the gun culture. The media and the left would absolutely love to end the gun culture in America, because then they could finally pass all the laws they wanted. Lets take a look at what happens when a country finally succeeds in utterly stamping out its gun culture. Mumbai, 2008. Ten armed jihadi terrorists simply walked into town and started shooting people. It was a rather direct, straight forward, ham fisted, and simple terrorist attack. They killed over 150 and wounded over 300. India has incredibly strict gun laws, but once again, criminals didnt care. Thats not my point this time however, I want to look at the response. These ten men shut down an entire massive city and struck fear into the hearts of millions for THREE DAYS. Depending on where this happened in America it would have been over in three minutes or three hours. The Indian police responded, but their tactics sucked. The marksmanship sucked. Their leadership sucked. Their response utterly and completely fell apart. In talking afterwards with some individuals from a small agency of our government who were involved in the clean-up and investigation, all of whom are well trained, well practiced, gun nuts, they told me the problem was that the Indian police had no clue what to do because theyd never been taught what to do. Their leadership hated and feared the gun so much that they stamped out the ability for any of their men to actually master the tool. When you kill your 107

gun culture, you kill off your instructors, and those who can pass down the information necessary to do the job. Dont think that we are so far off here. I recently got to sit down with some fans who are members of one of the larger metro police departments in America. These guys were all SWAT cops or narcotics, all of them were gun nuts who practiced on their own dime, and all of them were intimately familiar with real violence. These are the guys that you want responding when the real bad stuff goes down. What they told me made me sick. Their leadership was all uniformly liberal and extremely antigun, just like most big cities in America. They walked me through what their responses were supposed to be in case of a Mumbai style event, and how their scary assault weapons were kept locked up where they would be unavailable, and how dismal their training was, and how since the state had run off or shut down most of the gun ranges, most of the cops couldnt even practice or qualify anymore. So now they were less safe, the people they were protecting were less safe, the bad guys were safer, but most importantly their leadership could pat themselves on the back, because theyd done something.

Well, okay. You make some good points. But Id be more comfortable if you gun people were force to have more mandatory training! And I did actually have this one said to me, which is an amazing victory by internet arguing standards. Mandatory training is a placebo at best. Here is my take on why. http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2008/05/20/mandatory-training-for-ccw/ In conclusion, basically it doesnt really matter what something you pick when some politician or pundit starts screaming weve got to do something, because in reality, most of them already know a lot of what I listed above. The ones who are walking around with their security details of well-armed men in their well-guarded government buildings really dont care about actually stopping mass shooters or bad guys, they care about giving themselves more power and increasing their control. If a bad guy used a gun with a big magazine, ban magazines. If instead he used more guns, ban owning multiple guns. If he used a more powerful gun with less shots, ban powerful guns. If he used hollowpoints, ban hollowpoints. (which I didnt get into, but once again, theres a reason everybody who might have to shoot somebody uses them). If he ignored some Gun Free Zone, make more places Gun Free Zones. If he killed a bunch of innocents, make sure you disarm the innocents even harder for next time. Just in case, lets ban other guns that werent even involved in any crimes, just because theyre too big, too small, too ugly, too cute, too long, too short, too fat, too thin, (and if you think Im joking I can point out a law or proposed law for each of those) but most of all ban anything which makes some politician irrationally afraid, which luckily, is pretty much everything. They will never be happy. In countries where they have already banned guns, now they are banning knives and putting cameras on every street. They talk about compromise, but it is never a compromise. It is never, wow, you offer a quick, easy, inexpensive, viable solution to 108

ending mass shootings in schools, lets try that. It is always, what can we take from you this time, or what will enable us to grow some federal apparatus? Then regular criminals will go on still not caring, the next mass shooter will watch the last mass shooter be the most famous person in the world on TV, the media will keep on vilifying the people who actually do the most to defend the innocent, the ignorant will call people like me names and tell us we must like dead babies, and nothing actually changes to protect our kids. If you are serious about actually stopping school shootings, contact your state representative and tell them to look into allowing someone at your kids school to be armed. It is time to install some speed bumps.

Sandy Hook: Mind Control Flicker Effect

December 19th 2012 By Jon Rappoport

Mind control achieved through the Information Flicker Effect

No, Im not talking about the flicker of the television picture. Im talking about an on-off switch that controls information conveyed to the television audience. The Sandy Hook school murders provide an example. First of all, elite media coverage of this tragedy has one goal: to provide an expanding narrative of what happened. Its a story. It has a plot. In order to tell the story, there has to be a source of information. The top-flight television anchors are getting their information fromwhere? Their junior reporters? Not really. Ultimately, the information is coming from the police, and secondarily from local officials. In other words, very little actual journalism is happening. The media anchors are absorbing, arranging, and broadcasting details given to them by the police investigators. The anchors are PR people for the cops. This has nothing to do with journalism. Nothing. The law-enforcement agencies investigating the Sandy Hook shootings on the scene, in real time, were following up on leads? We dont know what leads they were following and what leads they were discarding. We dont know what mistakes they were making. We dont know 109

what evidence they were overlooking or intentionally ignoring. We dont know whether there were any corrupt cops who were slanting evidence. The police were periodically giving out information to the media. The anchors were relaying this information to the audience. So when the police privately tell reporters, We chased a suspect into the woods above the school, that becomes a television fact. Until it isnt a fact any longer. The police, for whatever reason, decide to drop the whole suspect in the woods angle. Why? No idea. Therefore, the media anchors no longer mention it. Instead the police are focused on Adam Lanza, who is found dead in the school. So are the television anchors, who no longer refer to the suspect in the woods. That old thread is gone down the memory hole. What does this do to the audience who has been following the narrative on television? It sets up a flicker effect. An hour ago, it was suspect in the woods. Now, that bit of data is gone. Onoff switch. It was on, now its off. This is a break in logic. It makes no sense. Which is the whole point. The viewer thinks: Lets see. There was a suspect in the woods. The cops were chasing him. Now he doesnt exist. We dont know his name. We dont know why hes off the radar. We dont know whether he was arrested. We dont know if he was questioned. Okay, I guess Ill have to forget all about him. Ill just track what the anchor is telling me. Hes telling the story. I have to follow his story. This was only one flicker. Others occur. The father of Adams brother was found dead. No, thats gone now. The mother of Adam was found dead. Okay. Adam killed all these children with two pistols. No, thats gone now. He used a rifle. It was a Bushmaster. No, it was a Sig Sauer. One weapon was found in the trunk of a car. No, three weapons. At each succeeding point, a fact previously reported is jettisoned and forgotten, to be replaced with a new fact. The television viewer has to forget, along with the television anchor. The viewer wants to follow the developing narrative, so he has to forget. He has no choice if he wants to stay in the loop. But this flicker effect does something to the viewers mind. His mind is no longer sharp. Its not generating questions. Logic has been offloaded. Obvious questions and doubts are shelved. How could they think it was the dead father in New Jersey when it was actually the dead mother in Connecticut? Why did they say he used two handguns when it was a rifle? Or was it really a rifle? I heard a boy on camera say there was another man the cops caught and they had him proned out on the ground in front of the school. What happened to him? Where did he go? Why isnt the anchor keeping track of him? All these obvious and reasonable questions have to be scratched and forgotten, because the television story is moving into different territory, and the viewer wants to follow the story. 110

This constant flicker effect eventually produces, in the television viewerpassivity. He surrenders to the ongoing narrative. Surrenders. This is mind control. The television anchor doesnt have a problem. His job is to move seamlessly, through an everincreasing series of contradictions and discarded details, to keep the narrative going, to keep it credible. He knows how to do that. Thats why he is the anchor. He can make it seem as if the story is a growing discovery of what really happened, even though his narrative is littered with abandoned clues and dead-ends and senseless nonsequiturs. And the viewer pays the price. Mired in passive acceptance of whatever the anchor is telling him, the viewer assumes his own grasp on logic and basic judgment is flawed. Now, understand that this viewer has been watching television news for years. Hes watched many of these breaking events. The cumulative effect is devastating. The possibility, for example, that Adam Lanza wasnt the shooter, but was the patsy, is as remote to the viewer as a circus of ants doing Shakespeare on Mars. The possibility that the cops hid evidence and were ordered to release other suspects is unthinkable. Considering that there appears to be not one angry outraged parent in Newtown (because the network producers wouldnt permit such a parent to be interviewed on camera) never occurs to the viewer. Wondering why the doctor of Adam Lanza hasnt been found and quizzed about the drugs he prescribed isnt in the mind of the viewer. The information flicker effect is powerful. It sweeps away independent thought and measured contemplation. It certainly rules out the possibility of imagining the murders in an alternative narrative. Because there is only one narrative. It is delivered by Brian Williams and Scott Pelley and Diane Sawyer. Interesting how they never disagree. Never, in one of these horrendous events do the three kings and queens of television news end up with different versions of what happened. What are the odds of that, if the three people are rational and inquisitive? But these three anchors are not rational or inquisitive. They are synthetic creations of the machine that runs them. They flicker yes and they flicker no. They edit and cut and discard and tailor as they go along. Yes, no, yes, no. On, off, on, off. And the viewers follow, in a state of hypnosis. Why?

111

Because the viewers are addicted to STORY. They are as solidly addicted as a junkie looking for his next shot. Tell me a story. I want a story. That was a good story, but now Im bored. Tell me another story. Please? I need another story. Tell me the beginning and the middle and the end. Im listening. Im watching. Tell me a story. And the anchors oblige. They deal the drug. But to get the drug, the audience has to surrender everything they question. They have to submit to the flicker effect and go under. Actually, surrendering to the flicker effect deepens the addiction. And the drug deal is consummated. Welcome to television coverage. Finally, while under hypnosis, the viewing audience is treated to a segueway that leads to the guns. Something has to be done about the guns. The mind-control operation that brought the passive audience to this point takes them to the next moment of surrender, as if it were part of the same overall Sandy Hook story: Give up the guns. In their entrained and tranced state of mind, viewers dont ask why law-enforcement agencies are so titanically armed to do police work in America, why those agencies have ordered well over a billion rounds of ammunition in the last six months, why every day the invasive surveillance of the population moves in deeper and deeper. Viewers, in their trance, simply assume government is benevolent and should be weaponized to the teeth, because those viewers subliminally recognize that the television anchors are actually government allies and spokespeople, and arent those anchors good and kind and thoughtful and intelligent and honorable? Therefore, isnt the government also kind and honorable? Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

112

How the Newtown Massacre Became a MindControl Television Event

December 20th 2012 By Jon Rappoport Preface by Jack Graff: This article summarizes quite well everything that is wrong about the way this story has been typically reported in the media. It also explains why so many people think that this event is an issue that has some inexplicable connection with the ridiculous concept of "gun control". After all, where was the idea of "gun control" in reference to the fiasco of the "Fast and Furious" program? No, this is all about "people control". The mainstream media framing a tragic story in such a way that the tragedy can really only mean one thing in the end - "Let's get rid of guns" and unfortunately, once again, the general public laps it up and buys into it without thinking for themselves. By Jon Rappoport Mind control. Mass hypnosis. Operant conditioning. Brain entrainment. Thats what were talking about here. Were so conditioned to how television covers life that we rarely step back and take notice. In the case of massive disasters and crimes, network news rules the roost. First, the premiere anchors, who are managing editors of their own broadcasts, give themselves the go signal. They will leave their comfortable chairs and travel to the scene of crime. Its that big. 113

The anchors lend gravitas. Their mere presence lets the audience know this story trumps all other news of the moment. Thats the first hypnotic cue and suggestion. Of course, the anchors were not in Newtown, Connecticut, as reporters. They werent there to dig up facts. Their physical presence at the Sandy Hook School and in the town was utterly irrelevant. They could have been doing their newscasts from their studios in New York. Or from a broom closet. But much better to be standing somewhere in Newtown. It imparts the sense of crisis to the viewing millions. At the same time, the anchors are also there to give assurance. The subliminal message they transmit is: whatever has happened here is controllable. The audience knows the anchors will provide the meaning and the official voice of the tragedy. The anchors are, in a way, priests, intoning their benediction to the suffering and their elegies to the dead. This is what the audience expects, and this is what they get. This expectation, in fact, is so deep that anything else would be considered an insult, a moral crime. For example, suppose a network suddenly shifted gears and began interviewing police and residents and asking tough questions about contradictions in the official scenario. Suppose that became the primary focus. Suppose the tone became argumentative, in the interest of, God forbid, the truth. In other words, in a jarring shift of perspective, the anchors began asking questions to seek answers. What a concept. No, a priest doesnt browbeat a parishioner. He takes confession and then offers a route to redemption. But if, by some miracle, these anchors launched a quest for truth, the whole scene would devolve into uncertainty and even chaos. First, there was a man in the woods. You people chased him. You pinned him down and brought him back into town. Who is he? Whats his name? Where is he? Is he under questioning? What are you asking him? What gave you a clue that he might be a second shooter? Come on. Talk to us. People want to know. We arent going anywhere. We want some answers. This is called reporting, a foreign enterprise to these blown-dried kings and queens of media news. Sir, I know ABC definitively reported there was a second shooter. They said you gave them that information. Where did you get it? No, Im sorry, thats not an answer, thats a nonsequitur. Those of us reporting online declare there is something amiss when the secondshooter story is dropped like a hot potatoand we are called conspiracy theorists. Get it? Trying to ask relevant questions becomes conspiracy only because the major media didnt do their job in the first place. Sir, was it one gun found in trunk of the car or three? Show me the car. Yes. Lets see it. I want to get the license plate. Excuse me? The car is what, some kind of state secret? I dont 114

think so. There are twenty dead children in that school over there, and we want to get to the bottom of this. Take me to the car. Its called an investigation. Reporters do that. Sir, your newspaper ran a story about a mans body being found in Adams brothers apartment. Then that became Adams mother found dead in her own house here in Newtown. What exactly happened there? A mistake? Wouldnt you say that was a pretty big mistake? How did it happen? Whats that? Typical confusion in the early reporting of a crime? I dont think so. Thinking a woman was a man and thinking he or she was found in New Jersey instead of Connecticut, thats not typical at all. Did police find a mans body? Speak up. Your typical American television viewer would cringe at such demanding questions. You know why? Because he has been entrained and conditioned by news anchors to refrain from digging below the surface. In other words, that viewer is hypnotized. Dr. Smith and Officer Jones, we understand that this boy, who was autistic, extremely shy, who had some sort of personality disorder, went into that school and methodically carried out the slaughter of twenty-seven people. In order for him to do that, he had to reload clips at least twice after the first clip ran out. Does that make sense? Were not just talking about a violent outburst here, were talking about a methodical massacre. How do you explain that? If these anchors kept on asking questions like this, do you know what would happen? The viewing audience would begin to stir, would begin to break through their hypnotic programming and wake up. You know, hes right. That doesnt make sense. Maybe there really was a second shooter. Or that Lanza kidmaybe he didnt kill anybody at all. What? You mean he wasset up? Maybe he was a patsy. Yes. Instead of this kind of talk being consigned to conspiracy nuts, it actually becomes part of the evening news experience. Because reporters suddenly ask tough questions. But no. We have to go with grief and shock. We have to lead with it and stay with it. But that is an artificial construct. Yes, of course people in Newtown feel great shock and pain and loss and grief and horror, but the news producers are consciously moving minutes and hours of it through the tube and filtering out everything else. They do this every time one of these events occurs, and so the audience expects it and soaks it in and, in that state of entrainment and hypnosis, the audience doesnt want anything else because anything else would BREAK THE FLOW and the spell, and the grief would no longer have the same impact. Newtown is presented as a television event. From the outset, the mood is funereal. It has that tinge and coloration. The audience absorbs it and wants no intrusion on it. This is Matrix programming. The anchor is not only the priest, but also the teacher. He/she shows the audience how to experience the event and what to feel and what to think and how to act. 115

One of the great skills of an anchor is the ability to present the news seamlessly. This is what those big paychecks are for: the blends and segueways and the underlying tone of sincerity that bleeds into every detail of what is being reported. That is also hypnotic. It sets up a frequency that moves into the brains of the audience. In those brains, its an Acceptance-frequency. Its the mark of a great news anchor, to be able to transmit that and achieve it. Scott Pelley (CBS) has only some of that. Diane Sawyer (ABC) is decidedly inconsistent in her ability to deploy it. Brian Williams (NBC) is the contemporary master. Thats why hes been called the Walter Cronkite of the 21st century. Sir, we have a report that police pinned a second man on the ground just outside the school. What is his name? What did you do with him? Where is he now? No, no, no, no, no. That would crack the Acceptance-frequency like an egg and send the evening news to hell in a handbasket. Sir, Im glad we finally located you. We understand you were getting ready to go to Bermuda. Now, you were Adam Lanzas doctor. What drugs did you prescribe him? Not just recently, but going all the way back to the beginning. You see, weve compiled a list of possible drugs for Aspergers and autism and depression, and of course we see that they do, in fact, induce violent behavior. Suicide, homicide. Speak up, Doctor. The egg not only cracks in that case, the news anchor is suspended the next day, and the network releases a statement that his breakdown on camera was brought on by stress. Pharmaceutical companies put him on their to-do list. Yet, the questions about the drugs are exactly what a real reporter would ask. Not a conspiracy theorist. A reporter, on the scene in Newtown. Anyone who thinks that is absurd and out of bounds is hypnotized, programmed. Thats all there is to it. Traditional media are dying in this country. Their money is drying up. They could revitalize themselves in a New York minute if they really started COVERING stories and waking up their audience, but thats not on their agenda. They would rather die. They are the hired hands of the elites that own this country. They are the whores sent out every day by their pimps, and they know what their job is and what it isnt. The direction of elite television news is squeezed down the path of consciously constructing artificial events, for mass consumption experienced in a state of emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual mind-control. Those reporters who venture outside that framework are labeled fringe figures on the margins. Lieutenant, excuse me. Hello. Brian Williams, NBC News. I was wondering: if there had been armed employees inside the school, what are the chances the killer could have been stopped before he shot all those children? You know, people who have been trained to shoot and have concealed carry permits. Strong people who could confront a murderer. Oh, people say that is not a reasonable question. Thats a nutcase question. That question shouldnt be asked. Why not? You want the real answer? Because it destroys the hypnotic frequency that is being delivered by the television networks. Thats the real answer. 116

The viewer: Dont bother me, Im hypnotized. Dont interrupt the frequency my brain is absorbing while Im watching the news. And of course, under those conditions, the very last person who should interrupt the hypnotic flow is the anchor himself. Hes the one whos inducing the hypnosis in the first place. That tells you the anchor is quite definitely NOT there to dig up new facts or perspectives himself. Entrainment means: the brain is being bathed in rhythms and frequencies that literally train it to accept the information that is being transmitted at the same time. In the same way, a song can succeed because the melody (carrier frequency) makes the trite lyrics seem important. Entrainment also makes the recipient feel he is part of something larger. This is a key component. The recipient senses he is a member of a collective that is sharing a moment, an experience. I feel this way, and everybody else does too. This is what substitutes, in our society, for individual experience and self-sufficiency. But this collective is not real community. It only appears and feels that way. It is mass hypnosis. You can find that in Gregorian chants and in sermons. You can find it in political speeches. The brain is bathed in certain harmonies and responds by Accepting. The Globalists language is replete with entrainment. We are all in this together. We are healing the planet. All of us must strive to make a better world for our children. It sounds right, it seems right, but it is delivered to create a collective instead of a real community. Take a few minutes and read Monsantos literature. Read it out loud. Listen to yourself. Try to impart convincing rhythms to the phrases. All of a sudden, youre in the flow. Youre practicing entrainment. This is what network television news does. And we arent even talking about the hypnotic effects of the physical signals that deliver the picture to the audience. In a previous article, I pointed out that, if we are to believe the network coverage of the Newtown massacre, there wasnt one angry outraged man or woman in the town. Because we didnt see them onscreen. The networks made sure of that. This was a conscious choice on their part. My son died in that school and I want to know why. I want to know exactly how the killer got in there. Who let him in? How did he get in? I WANT TO KNOW. Sorry, that isnt part of the coverage. It would interrupt the entrainment. Sorry, sir, youll have to back away. Were doing mass hypnosis and mind control here. Youre breaking the rhythm. Instead, that angry man will be funneled to a grief counselor, who will try to soothe his outrage. Sir, we all have to find a way to begin the healing. Events like Newtown are extraordinary teaching moments for television. Network newscasts display a constellation of emotions that are deemed acceptable and appropriate for the 117

audience to experience. And the audience is thereby trained to mirror those emotions, to feel them, to express them, to soak in them. Its a closed system. This is how, incidentally, gun control works so well. Its part of the overall message. The audience, existing inside that closed system, in that state of mass hypnosis, can be pointed to exactly the wrong remedy for the tragedy. All the network anchor has to do is frown and shake his head a little, when the subject of guns arises. Thats all it takes, and the brains of the audience suck it in: Yes, of course. Take away the guns. If no one had guns, no one could shoot guns. No one would die. No crimes would be committed. How obvious. The capstone that makes this puerile grand solution seem reasonable is: the police are always the good guys; we can trust them; they can have all the guns and then everything will be all right. That message is also imparted by the big-time network new anchors. These kings and queens dont ask police the tough questions. They refrain from doing that. In fact, the anchors ARE surrogate police chiefs. They express what the police chiefs would, if they had the anchors skills. The anchors do stand-ups in Newtown and give us the absolute best of what the police would if they could. And in the process, they transmit: Entrainment. Mass hypnosis. Mind control. Operant conditioning. Its perfect, if you want to be an android.

Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Disarmament plan: First label everyone with a mental disorder, then use that to take their guns
December 23rd 2012 By Jon Rappoport When everybody is diagnosed with a mental disorder, gun permits will be a thing of the past. Take that seriously. 118

At a presidential debate, Obama was asked about achieving gun control. He said, Enforce the laws weve already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals and those who are mentally ill. http://psychcentral.com In case youve been sleeping in a cave for the past few years, the US government is doing everything it can to create more categories of crimes, and the psychiatrists are expanding the list of (fictional but enforceable) mental disorders, as they also relentlessly promote more diagnosis and treatment. Some estimates state 20-25% of the US population is suffering from a mental disorder. These are absurd and cooked figures, for several reasons, but it doesnt matter. What matters is that huge numbers of people can be arbitrarily labeled as such. So legally owning or not owning a gun may soon hinge on a broader definition of mentally ill, changed to having been diagnosed with a mental disorder, because that is one backdoor way to execute a massive gun ban. Simply put: diagnose everybody and his brother with a mental disorder, and then assert that any such diagnosis bars a person from obtaining a gun permit. Psychiatry, in addition to destroying lives through toxic drugs, becomes a political instrument for gun control. In the July editions of both Psychology Today and The Psychiatric Times, the same editorial, written by Dr. Allen Frances, Americas most influential psychiatrist, spelled out a clear position: Guns do kill people and the number of people depends on the number of guns and the number of rounds they can fire in a given period of time. Of course, no mention is made of the psychiatric drugs that induce violence and murder. Dr. Frances sums up his unequivocal position: We really have only two choicesaccept mass murder as part of the American way of life, orget in line with rest of the civilized world and adopt sane gun control policies. I thought I would explore the issue of mental illness from a slightly different perspective, however: WHY ARE FANATICAL GUN GRABBERS PSYCHOTIC? What is the nature of THEIR mental disorder? In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the gun-control forces are on the march. Ban this, ban that, go after the Doomsday preppers and bitter clingers. The gun grabbers dont respond to the obvious charge that, when honest people have weapons for self-defense, they can, in fact, defend themselves and stave off crime, harm, and death. This point doesnt make a dent. Neither does arguing Second Amendment. Neither does painting a picture of a society in which the only people who have guns are the government and criminals. The gun grabbers seem to like that picture. At least theoretically. 119

Here are a few truths you can take to the bank: If the media in this country (which are notoriously anti-gun) made a big deal out of every case in which an armed citizen successfully defended his home against a violent intruder, and made every such person a hero, we would have a different mood in America. Everybody would see the sense in gun ownership. In the case of the Newtown killings, the media would be saying, Now here is a tragic case in which no one in the school was carrying a weapon. And everybody would see the sense and the truth of that. So really, its matter of what the media cover and how they cover it, and what they ignore. Thats all it is. It isnt anything else. In other words, theyre running a PsyOps. Point two: the government doesnt want private citizens to own and carry guns because that would diminish the role of government. The people in charge hate it when private citizens take over a self-appointed government function. Its insulting. Its people saying to the government, We dont need you. Its proof that government acts in many, many ways that are intrusive and preemptive. No need to worry, officer, I caught the thief as he was leaving the liquor store. I pulled my weapon and put him down on the ground and cuffed him. Hes in the back of my car. No, no, no. no. The government must be in charge of everything that pertains to showing or using a gun. No outsiders allowed. Yes, Mrs. Smith, Im sorry were late, and Im sorry you husband was beaten to a pulp by that intruder, but we have other crimes to process. We have to man speed-traps. Its better that your husband didnt have a gun, let me assure you. Why? It just is. Now, let me call an ambulance. I hope they get him to the hospital in time. Imagine what the response would be if you asked an IRS executive what he thought about a flat consumer tax on bought goods that would replace the whole IRS code. Were talking about government jobs here. Jobs and money and pensions. Private Citizens must not do what the government does. In case you hadnt noticed, this spills over into the health field. The FDA certifies, as safe and effective, every (poisonous) medical drug before it can be prescribed for public use. The FDA therefore controls drug treatment. If somebody comes along and cooks up, in his kitchen, an herbal brew that knocks out the flu like a ridiculous little sissy in two hours, thats a threat. Suddenly, a private citizen is miles ahead of the FDA (and the drug companies). No, no, no. If home schoolers educate their kids better than government-run schools do, thats another sore point. Thats bad. It expose the government factories that manufacture illiterate children. Third point: if enough citizens were well-armed, it would take a full-scale federal invasion to overcome them in case of, oh, secession from the federalized United States. 120

The feds, of course, would win in the long run, if they killed enough people, but the publicity would be devastating to the government. Think Waco multiplied by a thousand or a million. And in the process, word would get out about these well-armed private citizens grievances against the central government. The grievances would make sense to a lot of people watching the carnage unfold. Cant have that. No, no, no. Fourth point: A lot of people in this country grow up thinking they have to take care of other people. Thats really all they know how to do. This goes far beyond any understandable humane impulse. This is meddling. Its moving in on other peoples private business. The meddlers turn out to be vicious little scum. Well, where else are they going to be able to exercise these cheap impulses, other than in government jobs? The corollary to this is: Im the hero. I protect you. Iyou what? You protected yourself? No, youre not allowed to do that, because then I cant be a hero. Youre supposed to be the helpless citizen on my watch. If I can leap tall buildings, you have to be grounded. Otherwise, my life is in vain. Fifth point: Elites want to continue to own America. They want to have sway over the land and resources and people and money. Their minions and agents are the official people with weapons. Thats the way it works. It has to be a one-sided game. If millions and millions and millions of private citizens owned guns and knew how to use them, the tin gods wouldnt be able to sleep well at night. Sixth point: So-called liberals hate people who own guns. For them, guns are symbols of everything else they hate. Religion, land ownership, property rights, fences, and boundaries. Unless, of course, those fences define the liberals land. Corollary: Many conservatives hate people who own guns, too, when they perceive those people are ready to decentralize power away from an overarching corporate-government control- nexus. These are all elements of a true psychosis. It needs to be treated. Short of mandatory sedatives, or a sudden attack on a lonely street at night by armed thugs, I recommend mandatory gun ownership for every non-felon adult in the US. This would solve the problem expeditiously. I especially want to see all members of Congress packing heat in their chambers. If, once in a while, there is a shooting, well, we can catch it on C-Span. It wont be lost to history. I also want to see Chris Matthews in his MSNBC studio with a .45 strapped to his leg, the one that tingles. There is one caveat to my proposal. In order to create a fully armed population, that population must be responsible, which is to say they must understand inviolable private property rights. They dont have to own property, but they have to know that such a thing as 121

private property exists. Why? Because property is one of the things an armed citizen has a right to defend. Unfortunately, were losing the concept of private property like water leaking out of battered rowboat. Its part of governments plan, because government wants to own everything that isnt already nailed down by its partner mega-corporations. And governments thinking goes this way: Since we own everything, our cops defend it with guns; there is no reason for private armed citizens to defend it; it isnt theirs. Meanwhile, I have to get going. I just got a message that three armed women teachers shot a guy named Adam Lanza in a classroom. Im heading over to check it out.

Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com Similar/Related Articles Epidemic? Half of US teens meet criteria for mental disorder Choosing healthy foods now called a mental disorder Every human emotion now classified as a mental disorder in new psychiatric manual DSM-5 Climate denial is now a mental disorder Digital Age overload: Internet addiction to be classified as mental illness Doomsday Preppers Guns Taken After Declared a Mental Defective Shyness as illness? Experts blast new mental health bible Scientists: Creativity Part of Mental Illness Health Food Obsession Seen as Mental Illness School shooter Adam Lanza likely on meds; labeled as having personality disorder

The Connecticut school shootings: Operation Chaos

December 24th 2012 By Jon Rappoport 122

Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, and the shooter(s) at the Connecticut elementary school, share a common trait: they committed irrational and inexplicable murders. This may seem like an obvious fact, but it holds the key to understanding what is going on. You don't look for an ordinary motive. Therefore, what are we dealing with? It's easy to say, "They were crazy," or "Who cares why they did it," but that gets you nowhere. We have to shake off our own conditioning to these repetitive murders. We have to shake off the idea that "they just keep happening" and instead look below the surface. First and foremost, we have to consider the possibility that SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil, and Zoloft were in play. The drugs have been well studied. They do, in fact, push people far over the edge, scramble neurotransmitter systems, and result in patients committing suicides and murders.

My extensive school-shooting report, written a decade ago, lays out the facts about these drugs, and also about the amphetamine-type drugs prescribed for ADHD, like Ritalin: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com The meds cause inexplicable violent behavior: suicide, homicide. The drugs were, in fact, linked with the 1999 Columbine school shooting. Eric Harris, one of the killers, was on Luvox, an SSRI antidepressant, which was taken off the market by its manufacturer several years later. It's long past the time when police should continue to fear defensive psychiatrists. In these latest tragedies, an investigation must be launched immediately to see whether the shooters were on these drugs, or whether they had just come off them. The withdrawal effects alone can be horrific. You can be sure drug companies have people striving to find out, in Oregon and Connecticut, before anyone else does, whether the shooters were on the devastating drugs. It's called damage control, which means, if necessary, covering up or downplaying the facts. The same kind of damage control is no doubt being tried in the Aurora theater shootings, where it finally leaked out that James Holmes was under the care of a psychiatrist and was, most likely, on one or more of the drugs that induce out-of-control violence inexplicable baffling violence. Jacob Roberts, the Oregon mall shooter, was said to be happy-go-lucky, and then shortly before the killings, "went numb." Investigate whether he was under the care of a doctor, and whether he was given psychiatric drugs. Whether either or both of the shooters in Oregon and Connecticut were operating out of an even darker mind-controlled program, as was apparently the case, for example, with the dupe in the RFK assassination, Sirhan Sirhan, we are still looking at Operation Chaos: Generations of children and adults have now fallen under the influence of psychiatrists, who 123

have given them these brain-scrambling chemicals, and the overall outcome is certain. People will continue to launch inexplicable motiveless murders, on a random basis. The destabilizing effects on the society, the debilitating effects on the population are enormous. People are confused, they become more passive, they move a little further each time into dependence on the authorities. The government screws in tighter controls on freedom. New programs are mounted to take away guns from citizens. All this is the aim of the massive covert operation that is behind the "mental-health establishment." Distort the brains and neurological systems of millions of people, and let the chips fall where they may. Mass murders are the consequences.

Whether or not Jacob Roberts and the Connecticut school shooter(s) were on these psychiatric drugs, Operation Chaos will proceed. The very fact that we may never find out whether the latest mass murderers were drugged in this way speaks volumes: powerful people don't want the truth to be known. This is a common feature of all mass murders: the police and the prosecutors refuse to investigate the psychiatric medicines, unless they are absolutely forced to. They are under tacit orders to ignore that obvious and glaring route of inquiry. The most important reason why? The hugely powerful drug companies, who are only a step away from incrimination, when a shooter is driven to kill by the storm created in his brain by the drugs. Billions of dollars are at stake. The pharmaceutical companies have it all figured out. No matter how much is written and discovered about the violence-inducing effects of psychiatric chemicals, they can ride things out and keep selling those poisons. The FDA will maintain a hands-off attitude. The money will keep rolling in unless: One of these killers is shown to have killed because he was on Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, Ritalin, or Adderall. Terrible things happened in Oregon and Connecticut. Terrible things will keep happening unless a relentless pursuit of the truth is undertaken. Anything less is obscene dereliction of duty. To law-enforcement officials: blood is already on your hands. Find the truth and tell it. Sources: http://www.breggin.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=295 http://www.naturalnews.com/034960_Prozac_teens_murder.html http://www.infowars.com 124

http://www.huffingtonpost.com http://ssristories.com/

Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

How Television Takes Your Guns!

January 3rd 2013 By Jon Rappoport

Somebody has to write about these things. Since I've worked as a reporter for 30 years, I know enough about how the game is rigged. I'm talking about the big mass tragedies. Sandy Hook, the Aurora theater, Hurricane Sandy, Katrina. Many of the interviews with survivors are done on the spot, with no prep. But the biggest interviews are done in a television studio or a home, by a recognized anchor. The setting is arranged beforehand and lit well. A mood and a framework are established. The guests are prepped by one of the producers before they go on-air. This is where the brainwashing occurs. A potential conflict needs to be resolved. The network has its agenda and the guest has his. The guest is swimming in a welter of emotions, in the wake of the tragedy. A family member has died. The environment of the storm or the murders is still chaotic. The network wants to "edit" these feelings, to convey something specific." The producer says to the guest, "What we want to do here is let our audience know how special your daughter was. How wonderful a person she was. We realize, of course, that you're grieving. We understand and honor that. We do. In this interview, we really want to give you a chance, though, to tell the world what a special girl she was. Talk about her life, her 125

interests, her hobbies, how she was thought of by the family and by friends at school. Honor her memory..." Now, this may be the last thing on the guest's mind. This grieving mother may be feeling angry, outraged. She is feeling absolutely desolate. She is feeling lost. Given the opportunity, she would express these feelings. But this is not what the network or the anchor wants. The "program" at the moment involves "reflection on the happy moments of the child's life." It's part of the pre-set storyline. At this moment, for this grieving mother, the happy moments are the farthest thing from her mind. But who cares? She just fodder for the network's agenda. And if the producer is skillful enough, he can gently convince the mother that she should devote four minutes of commercially sponsored national television to "a celebration" of her dead child's life. Suddenly, it makes sense to the profoundly confused, profoundly searching mother. Yes. Why not? Why not go along with the program? She'll have a video clip about her wonderful daughter forever. A scrapbook memory. Under no circumstances, of course, will the producer or the anchor permit the mother to go on camera and show outrage and anger. That's verboten. That cuts too close to the bone. That doesn't fit the mandatory sequence of horror, shock, loss, grief, healing, resolution, celebration of a life lost. The whole sequence is artificial. It's imposed. It's orchestrated. It's a stage play, produced in great part through interviews with guests who have suffered loss and who are "real." Except they're not. They're programmed to deliver what the networks want. And behind all this? Behind the mandatory spooled-out story line, which takes days to reveal in full, on television? The concealed anomalies and lies and contradictions in the commission of the crime and the ensuing cover-up. The network story line hides as much of that as possible. This is why the interview-prep is so important. Here is where the guests, before they go on camera, are nudged into the right slot, are shown what to focus on, are brainwashed into doing something they would never do. Programming guests is a skill. Networks need people who can do that well. They have them. They pay them. Anchor: I understand your daughter liked to make airplane models. Did you think that was unusual? Mother: Well, at first we did. But she was good at it, and she enjoyed it so much, we became very enthusiastic about it. My husband introduced her to a buddy of his from the Air Force, and Cindy went up in a jet. Anchor (smiling broadly): Really? A jet? 126

Mother: When she came home, she was overjoyed. Anchor: Did she want to become a pilot? Mother (laughing): For a few days. But her love of making models led her to want to be an artist. Our son is a graphics person. He taught Cindy to make computer pictures of our whole extended family. (laughing) We have lots of cousins and aunts and uncles. Cindy put their pictures all over the house. She knew everybody's names when she was four... Completely wacko. But that's what the television audience sees and digests and accepts. And the anchor moves it right along. A fabricated story. Intercut, of course, with Cindy's pictures and Cindy smiling and playing and drawing and sitting at the computer.

And when the dust settles and the mother is being chauffeured home from the interview, her mind wanders and she begins to think about the revenge she wants to visit on the killer of her daughter. As many good mothers would. But it's too late. She's already had her four minutes on television. She feels like a fool, but it's too late. She'll never get to say to Diane Sawyer, "You know, Diane, I wish somehow I was there at the school, and I had a gun, and I shot that killer dead." No, that will never happen. And mothers across America, who are feeling that they, too, would have wanted to be there, in the school, if their child was in mortal danger, and would have wanted to have a gun and shoot the killer dead to protect their child at all costs...those mothers will be, to a significant degree, reprogrammed by the Diane Sawyer interview, and they too will begin thinking of the happier times and the old days and the smiles and the laughter. This is how a handful of television interviews with skillfully prepped guests can make all the difference in the world. Especially, in the case of Sandy Hook, when gun ownership is now at stake. Do I have to draw a picture for you? Because, admit it, if you were the father or mother of a child who was murdered, wouldn't you have at least a few serious thoughts about revenge? Wouldn't you? Wouldn't you think about the .45 you have in the closet upstairs? Television, though, teaches you what to feel. If after watching a number of these tragedies play out on television, you are completely reprogrammed into some grotesque version of "love everybody all the time and forgive everything," and you need an outlet, a way to vicariously and subconsciously experience what you REALLY feel, you can always. Go to the movies. The movies give you a different slant. You can be Mel Gibson killing people to get his kidnapped daughter back. You can be Charles Bronson wiping out street scum to avenge the loss of his wife. You can be Stallone or Arnie. You can roam the countryside spilling blood at every street corner. The movies give you vicarious license to destroy evil. Television news takes it away. 127

It's called the whipsaw effect, and its modern mind control, and it puts you in the "excluded middle," where nothing happens and you remain locked up and passive. Where the powers-that-be want you to remain. Have a nice, nice day. Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Historically, Whenever The Government Grabbed Guns, It Went Bad for the Peeps
December 21st 2012 By Doug Giles INCLUDEPICTURE "http://cdn.clashdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Screen-Shot-2012-12-20-

at-10.06.36-AM-232x300.png" \* MERGEFORMAT A LITTLE GUN HISTORY In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

128

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people.

129

Update & Perspective on Connecticut Shooting/Shooter

December 21st 2012 I can smell something fishy a mile away. Like Benghazi. Almost on day one, The facts dont make sense. Something is wrong here. Last night, after I saw a talking head interview (or, I should say, NOT interview) the father of the boy who saw his teacher get shot and ran for his life with a couple of friends. Something is not right here. She didnt ask a single relevant question. So far, this boy is the only eye-witness of the gunman coming forward. She didnt ask if the boy saw one or more shooters. She didnt ask any details of what the gunman did first, second, third. She didnt ask for a description of the gunman. These reporters are complete prostitutes. They could care less about the feelings of the people they interview. So why didnt she ask any of these questions? In fact, I could tell she was biting back questions. This thing is starting to stink. By now, there should be many eyewitness accounts of the actual gunman. There should be breathless survivors talking about how this guy walked by their room, etc. About how they narrowly escaped. But so far, it looks like every single eye-witness is dead. That is IMPOSSIBLE! I watched the situation LIVE. There were original reports of a second man who was found in the woods that they had put in custody. This man was NEVER spoken of again. Why? The details of the shooting changed enormously from one minute to the next. Inside sources at the police departments were reporting one thing while the official accounts said completely different information. The news reports were full of such ambiguous NON statements that I was furiously looking throughout the internet to find solid evidence or eye-witness accounts to clarify. None was to be found. One example: They originally said that the shooter was buzzed in via the front offices new video security system. Then, the news report said, The shooter was NOT voluntarily buzzed into the school. What the heck does THAT mean? Does that mean he forced his way through the system? Does that mean they have video evidence of his face? Does that mean that there was someone on the inside putting a gun to someones head to buzz the shooter in? Huh? 130

Also, it seems highly unlikely, based on descriptions of Adam, that he could have purchased all that black ops gear! The guy is described as being so shy that he would hug the school walls when someone approached him! Also, first the news definitely says the mother was a teacher and the classroom of dead kids was her class. Then, reports are that she had nothing to do with the school. So, why the shooting there? Also, the number and kind of weapons used changed. Also, where they discovered the weapons. Sometimes they reported that all the weapons were in the school. Then they said the rifle was in the car. But they also said that the shooter used the rifle to kill every single person with multiple shots. No, something stinks here. The lack of eye witnesses of the shooter confirming the single shooter account is BLARINGLY absent. The reports of a second shooter in the woods has suddenly disappeared. The reporters are not grilling the one and only witness we know of- this little boy. Please dont say they suddenly have even a smidge of conscience. The original statements about the shooter being buzzed into the school have simply disappeared. I was ready to let this go and explain it away as simple confusion. I was maddened by the timing and circumstances of the tragedy as concerns the upcoming UN small arms treaty & gun control. It killed me that this wack-job used LEGALLY REGISTERED weapons to do his killing.

There is NO OTHER CONCLUSION, if the story is accurate, than the fact that had Adam Lanza NOT had access to those legal guns, he could never have killed those kids. He was too mentally ill to have gotten those weapons himself. He was diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome and we now know that he had many, many interventions by school officials in the past. I felt that the killing of little children would be the strongest argument yet that we should clamp down on gun ownership. I just couldnt believe the TIMING and circumstances of this event- a GIFT to the Progressives to disarm us. Who can argue with this case? I was ready for the inevitable. But a friend sent me the following links which tell a different story. Having reported the event LIVE and experienced the changing information, I am not surprised. In fact, it makes sense now. I believe there is evidence of more than one shooter. I believe this was a PLANNED eventspecifically to get the UN Small Arms Treaty signed. The father of the shooter is Peter Lanza, rumored to be scheduled to testify on the international LIBOR scandal. Guess who else is rumored to be scheduled to testify on the LIBOR scandal? Father of the BATMAN theater shooter. Amazing coincidence? We will see. The LIBOR scandal is a massive, worldwide network of banks, the Federal Reserve and highly position individuals such as Tim Geihtner and Ben Bernanke that are being accused of manipulating LIBOR rates to gain better market positions. Just some of the Banks involved are: the Canadian branches of the Royal Bank of Scotland, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, JP Morgan Bank, and Citibank, as well as ICAP (Intercapital), an interdealer broker. It also mentions Bank of America & Barclays. It is ugly to its roots and VERY powerful people are involved. I believe our GOVERNMENT shot those kids and teachers and used Adam Lanza and his family to pull it off. They might have killed two birds with one stone. One: If these men are involved in the LIBOR scandal, they can manipulate their testimony. Two: they get gun control. How very, very clever and efficient of them, right? 131

Comment by Jack Graff: Remember the two mug shots of the Aurora theater killer two mug shots supposedly of the same guy but they were of two different people. Nose and chin and ears all different. Totally different guy. I read blogs that the government is getting psycho inmates who have been deserted by their families abandoned and rejected orphans and then the government is drugging them, training them controlling them to be mass murderers. A stretch? I really wonder the timing of ALL the recent shootings is unbelievable!!! The Government needs to ban all guns. The Government needs to declare martial law. How? Go shoot up public places. Get the general public to start hating guns and agree to change the US Constitution. You look at these links and you decide. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uuhbCOqIaC4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S59IXI9g6VE https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=j_fI0hm1dqY http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/12/15/peter_lanza_reporter_tells_adam_lan za_father_of_connection_to_sandy_hook.html http://beforeitsnews.com/economics-and-politics/2012/12/2-mass-shootings-connectedto-libor-2447738.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-15/ubs-libor-manipulation-accord-said-to-beas-much-as-1-6-billion.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libor_scandal http://www.sandiegoreader.com/weblogs/news-ticker/2012/jul/20/holmess-father-is-antifraud-scientist/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2178852/James-Holmes-Did-Colorado-maniacsnap-failing-meet-expectations-academic-father.html http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/aurora-dark-knight-shooting-suspect-identified-jamesholmes/story?id=16818889#.UAnPJDFU2NE http://www.tmz.com/2012/07/20/james-holmes-father-robert-holmes-colorodo-shooting/ http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2012/07/james-holmes-appears-drugged-andsleepy-in-court.html http://hereisthecity.com/2012/10/04/fox-business-networks-charlie-gasparino-reportssen-grassley-and/

Private Gun Ownership is Democracy's Immune System Against Violence & Government Tyranny!
December 20th 2012 By Mike Adams The raging debate on so-called "gun control" makes it clear that many people still do not understand the role of private gun ownership in a free society. The best way to grasp the truth about the Second Amendment and private gun ownership is to think of it as democracy's 132

immune system. In the human immune system, when an invader threatens the body, the immune system rallies microscopic "members of the rebellion" who surround and destroy invading microorganisms, thereby preserving life. Without the immune system, the body would be taken over by an invading force, resulting in the body's eventual death and destruction. In the world of geopolitics, when an overarching tyranny begins to spread and multiply, the immune system is citizens with guns who rally to the defense of the People and beat back the invading force, thereby preserving the health and liberty of the nation. What really keeps people free in society, it turns out, is a government that is afraid of what the people might do if they are pushed too far. That's a good thing. "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny is born from an imbalance of power

When governments disarm the public, they no longer have any fear of pursuing even the most freedom-crushing, tyrannical policies imaginable. This is how tyranny is born: from the imbalance of power where the government has enormous firepower and the citizens have very little if none at all. Communist China, for example, is a country where private gun ownership is banned, and the government there gets away with almost anything imaginable (such as arresting people and then harvesting their organs so that government thugs can make money selling those organs on the black market). North Korea is perhaps the best example of a government with monopoly firepower taken to the extreme. There, citizens have zero rights, zero freedoms and of course no firearms. In North Korea, the border checkpoints all have guards and elaborate razor wire systems engineered not to keep people out but to prevent citizens from escaping the tyranny!

Bush and Obama have catapulted America down the path of government tyranny
America's government today is rapidly heading towards the North Korean model. A year ago, Obama officially abolished due process and gutted the Bill of Rights by signing into law a highly illegal piece of legislation called the NDAA. This law authorizes secret arrests, secret prisons, the government holding prisoners without charge, and much more. It is America's darkest effort yet to mirror the gulag government of North Korea. If America did not have a hundred million (plus) private gun owners right now, you can bet that Bush and Obama would have already put in place a North Korean-style system of totalitarianism. Believe it or not, it's all the private gun owners who are holding back the tidal wave of tyranny that seeks to gut America's freedoms and turn it into an all-out communist nation. The very idea that American citizens can defend themselves is what gives tyrants like Bush or Obama pause to reconsider their plans. All governments, remember, desire infinite expansion to the point where they run everything (the media, industry, agriculture, science, etc.) and control everybody (what you eat, what you think, what you buy and so on). But government is always highly inefficient, stupid and foolish 133

in the way it uses resources. That's why North Korea's citizens are living in widespread poverty, with tens of millions starving to death every few years. It's why California is in a state of runaway bankruptcy and can't even keep its roads paved. This is the result of total government control in a society with no immune system (i.e. no private gun ownership).

Gun ownership also offers immunity from crazed psychopaths

An armed citizenry is not only able to defend itself against tyrannical government takeover; it's also able to mount an instant, highly effective defense against crazed psychopathic (or mind-controlled) individual shooters. For example, if school administrators and office employees were allowed to carry concealed weapons instead of being forced to disarm themselves inside a foolishly-labeled "gun free zone," they would have the ability to defend children against armed attackers. No shooter would target schools if they knew principals were packing heat. For the same reason, house robberies are extremely rare in places like Texas where the vast majority of citizens are well armed and able to defend their lives and homes. "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." Adolf Hitler, 1922

Democratic gun ownership keeps America free

It is the distribution of firepower across the nation that keeps America in a relative balance of power. Widespread gun ownership is inherently democratic. It is de-centralized. It is local. Gun ownership is one of the greatest expressions of liberty in America today, much like speaking your mind is an expression of Free Speech. Guns are what gave our founding fathers the ability to fight for independence against British tyranny. Without guns, we'd all still be British subjects, paying 70% tax rates and bowing to the Queen or rambling along as mindless idiots like Piers Morgan. In terms of liberty, a person with a gun is a citizen; a person without a gun is a slave. Which would you prefer to be? Articles Related to This Article: Exclusive: Cops, detectives, FBI agents, U.S. soldiers tell Natural News they will not enforce gun confiscation orders School 'gun free zones' are death traps: Why we must allow qualified school principals and office staff to carry concealed Why do so many gun control advocates secretly own and carry their own guns? Gun grabbers exploit dead children to punish innocent Americans who believe in selfdefense Shock revelation: City of Aurora, Colorado would have arrested anyone who stopped the Batman massacre with a concealed weapon Gun sales, ammo sales, magazine sales explode following Sandy Hook shooting 134

If Obama is opposed to guns, why did his administration just purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and sniper rounds?

Innocents Betrayed: Governments Disarm Populations and Genocide Follows

December 21st 2012

Innocents Betrayed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vAU9AJfttls Warning: Graphic Violence. This disturbing video clearly demonstrates the consequences of centralizing government power and disarming citizens. Genocide always follows, leaving millions of innocent victims dead.

Death by Democide: The Reason We Have the 2nd Amendment

DEMOCIDE: MURDER BY GOVERNMENT Governments have murdered hundreds of millions of their citizens and those under their control. The questions are, then, how is this democide defined, is genocide included, how many have been killed, how do we find this out, and what sources can be used? Abstact: This is a report of the statistical results from a project on comparative genocide and massmurder in this century. Most probably near 170,000,000 people have been murdered in coldblood by governments, well over three-quarters by absolutist regimes. The most such killing was done by the Soviet Union (near 62,000,000 people), the communist government of China 135

is second (near 35,000,000), followed by Nazi Germany (almost 21,000,000), and Nationalist China (some 10,000,000). Lesser mega-murderers include WWII Japan, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, WWI Turkey, communist Vietnam, post-WWII Poland, Pakistan, and communist Yugoslavia. The most intense democide was carried out by the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, where they killed over 30 percent of their subjects in less than four years. The best predictor of this killing is regime power. The more arbitrary power a regime has, the less democratic it is, the more likely it will kill its subjects or foreigners. The conclusion is that power kills, absolute power kills absolutely. "Power kills: genocide and mass murder" In the 24 hours following a tragic shooting spree at a packed Aurora, Colorado movie theater that left 12 people dead and dozens wounded, and the shooting at the Elementary School in Sandy Hook Conn. that left 26 dead the 2nd Amendment has already come under heavy fire by politicians, Hollywood stars, and the mainstream media. CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin criticized legislators in an interview with Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter, asking What has to happen for Washington to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban which expired back in 2004? The Daily Beast made its anti-gun case in a story entitled, Why Dont Mass Shootings Lead to Gun Control? and the San Francisco Chronicle mirrored the sentiment with Tragedy Shows Need for Gun Control, tossing blame at politician cowardice. Actress Susan Sarandon tweeted, The right to bear arms was referring to muskets. Maybe its time to re-think our gun policy on this day of slaughter in Colorado. Of course no one bothered to point out any instances when a lawful gun owner saved lives in a deadly, or potentially deadly, mass shooting situation in this country: In 1997, an assistant principal grabbed a .45 from the glove compartment of his truck and subdued a teen shooter at his Mississippi high school after two students were shot and seven were injured (source). In February 2007, an armed off-duty officer was able to fend off a shooter in a Utah mall until police could arrive (source). Later that same year, a Colorado woman with a pistol permit took down a gunman after a shooting spree that spanned 12 hours and two churches left five people dead (source). Last year, a pharmacist with a concealed carry permit was able to stop two armed robbers who had taken customers hostage at his Michigan drugstore (source). Just last month, a legally armed passerby was able to end a vicious attack on a woman in Georgia simply by brandishing his weapon and threatening to use it (source).

Stories like these happening all across America are not widely reported on in the mainstream media. The right to ones own self-defense is the first law of nature. While the events in Aurora are indeed a horrific tragedy, like the Virginia Tech and Columbine shootings before it, this latest shooting has already been twisted into an anti-gun agenda push overlooking the reason Americans have a right to bear arms in the first place. If law-abiding citizens are stripped of their ability to possess a firearm, the only two groups that will have open access to guns are criminals and the government. When our forefathers penned the Constitution, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was made perfectly clear within its own wording:

136

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Criminals surely commit violent crimes, but our own government is armed to the teeth. The 2nd Amendment does not only regard ones personal self-defense, but it speaks to the broader ability of the people to keep a potentially oppressive, out-of-control government and its standing army in check. Right now, our government is in anything but check. Our president is continually bypassing Congress and violating our nations laws, effectively transforming the American presidency into a dictatorship. Our skies are set to be filled with Constitution-violating spy drones, and the Transportation Security Administration hires known pedophiles to molest our children in our nations airports. There are least forty armed federal agencies including the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Education; our military and law enforcement alone possess four million guns. According to the CATO Institute, 44 botched paramilitary raids across the U.S. have killed over 120 innocent people including 29 children in the last 25 years. It was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security ordered 450 million rounds .40 caliber ammunition earlier this year as well roughly 1.5 bullets for each man, woman, and child in America. The huge ammo buy left websites like The American Dream asking, What possible event would ever require that much ammunition?

Perhaps this situation calls for more explicit perspective. While the Colorado shooter was able to murder 12 people, how many more people have been killed by the thousands of guns admittedly shipped into Mexico by our own government in the Fast and Furious scandal? By mid-2011, these guns had been recovered at nearly 50 Mexican crime scenes, including violent drug gang shootouts and brutal kidnappings. The blood of those killed as a result of this covert gunwalking operation is on the hands of our government. Leaked emails from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives show ATF agents planned to use the scandal to ultimately undermine the 2nd Amendment. As many of the Fast and Furious guns are still unaccounted for, the ripples of potential death and destruction are staggering. History shows that leaders who attempt to grab total control always disarm a populace first. President Obama is currently negotiating the UN Arms Trade Treaty which may result in mandatory gun registration, making it easier for the government to confiscate firearms and bringing America one step closer to disarmament. Socialist leader Hugo Chvez has begun enforcing crushing new rights restrictions with UN support to disarm the Venezuelan people in the name of preserving peace. Hitler banned Jews from owning firearms prior to their mass extermination. Tyrants Vladimir Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot and Chairman Mao Tse-tung among others disarmed their citizens as well. Millions of people died in the democide death by government that followed. As Alex Jones noted in his 2012 documentary New World Order: Blueprint for Madmen, Of all the real, proven threats to humanity, none of them have killed as many people as government itself. With the current police state Americans find themselves living in, it is no wonder polls show that personal gun purchases are on a record rise. With all due respect to victims of gun 137

violence, our inherent 2nd Amendment rights are absolutely necessary to protect not only our freedom, but our very lives.

To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
George Mason 1788 Similar/Related Articles: Death by Democide: The Reason We Have the 2nd Amendment DHS Funded Video Suggests Fighting Active Shooters With Improvised Weapons The Aurora Massacre and the Propaganda of the Deed Why Are Republicans Calling To Disarm The American People? Carbon Eugenics: Genocide in the name of the environment is still genocide Batman Massacre News Boil Down Gun Grabbers Call for Murder of NRA President, Supporters in Wake of Mass Shooting Newtown school shooting story already being changed by the media

Murder and Glee

December 22nd 2012 The murderous rampage which brought death to 20 children in Sandy Hook has been embraced with glee by the gun control fanatics. Only an unthinking emotional reaction to such horror can breath new life into a movement which seeks to leave honest, law-abiding citizens defenseless in the face of criminals and tyrants. Without these crimes the quislings of gun control, who would sooner surrender themselves to a rapist, or watch their children's murder by home invaders, or lick the boot of every petty tyrant from the county code enforcer to the Usurper in Chief, would have nothing, absolutely nothing, with which they can make their case for individual disarmament. So when such murders happen, they stifle their grins and trot out stupid arguments hoping they will be absorbed by osmosis into the emotional crowd. One of the stupidest arguments brought forth by these happy exploiters of tragedy is the notion that the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect the individual's right to keep and bear arms. A prime example is this article at the Daily Kos titled What Part of "Well Regulated" Do You Not Understand, Shooty McGunnut?. It is one thing to be ignorant and emotional and exercise your freedom of speech to weigh in on a public topic. It is quite another thing to be arrogant and rude as well. To be fair, it is probably not his fault. He likely is the product of an upbringing where he was given a trophy for riding the bench in intramural coed basket weaving, passed along grade to grade with a good GPA for attendance, and given a college degree in some footed pajama major that only required he buy the professor's book and ritually repeat the liberal slogan's of the day. It is time that he and his fellow travelers on the gun control kiddy train get schooled. This poor clod believes that: 138

It's about time that gun control advocates reclaim the legal high ground in constitutional debates, because frankly the 2nd Amendment not only does not prohibit regulation of firearms, it explicitly states that keeping guns under the control of civil authority is the purpose of the right to bear arms. He then follows up with a classic straw man: The NRA and its fellow travelers cannot claim to support the 2nd Amendment when they completely ignore what it says and just make up their own fantasy language that says the exact opposite - from "well-regulated militia" to "totally unregulated proliferation of individual destructive power. In other words, they claim that "well-regulated militia" really means totally unregulated, totally undisciplined, completely unmonitored, and utterly unaccountable distribution of weapons of mass destruction to everyone. Finally, he removes any doubt that he is thinking instead of emoting he pukes up a laundry list of things that tighten his panties, which he attributes to these people, and which have nothing what so ever to do with gun control, the second amendment or anything else. These are just the teddy bears in his room that become his scary monsters when the lights are out: As far as these people are concerned, freedom of speech means their right to shut everyone else up and deny us any practical ability to seek redress of grievances from elected officials, because silencing people who disagree with them is somehow an act of legitimate expression on their part. Separation of church and state means that conservative religious beliefs are to be taxpayer funded and shoved down the people's throat, because a state that does not acknowledge the absolute and unquestionable supremacy of their religion is violating their religious freedom. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure means that people who are the wrong color, religion, or nationality are automatically guilty; police can do whatever they find convenient without restriction unless the suspect is rich and white; and there is no right to privacy. Equal rights means that you can deliberately create impediments to voting that specifically target racial minorities and communities that are politically hostile to their agenda. This fool Troubadour's mental process (it can't be called thinking) is not well-regulated. Unfortunately such incoherence is not uncommon among gun control advocates. Troubadour's ramblings are full of ignorant assertions and only two are germane to the issue. His first assertion is it explicitly states that keeping guns under the control of civil authority is the purpose of the right to bear arms. He is absolutely correct if we live in Alice's Wonderland where words mean whatever he chooses them to mean. In the real, hallucinogenic free, world the 2nd amendment was ratified as part of a package of 10 amendments the sole purpose and common theme of which was to place limits on what government could do. Here are the real world words of the 2nd amendment: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. What the amendment states clearly is that the right of the people to keep and bears arms shall not be infringed. It is a clear limitation on the power granted to government. It is the exact 139

opposite of what the Troubadour tool claims. The purpose given for affirming this right of the people, and by no means is it implied that it is the only reason for affirming the right, is so that a free state might be preserved. It is easy to see where the Troubador tool get's this notion that the purpose of the amendment is to keep guns under the control of the civil authority. It is because he is scared of guns and WANTS the amendment to mean what he wants it to mean. And so he has to systematically take each part of the amendment and make it mean something other than what it actually does mean. It is clear that the security of a free state is a central concern of the authors of the amendment. In a discussion of the amendment there are only two possible meanings of free state. One meaning is a government (state) which is free to operate without the sufferance of a higher, more powerful government. The other meaning is a political entity free state where the people of the state are free. For the Troubadour's position on the 2nd amendment to be at all defensible the first definition must be adopted. This, of course, is nonsense. If the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to ensure the sovereignty of the state against the federal government, or foreign governments, then it would guarantee the right of the state, not the individual, to keep and bear arms. Likewise, if the purpose were to guarantees the right of the People to not be terrorized by random individuals, it would not declare the right of the people to keep and bear arms as such a right would be counter to the assumed purpose. Clearly the little tool Troubadour made no effort to comprehend the meaning of free state in the context of the 2nd amendment choosing instead to read his desired meaning into it. He commits the error with regard to the phrase well-regulated militia. Gun phobics seize on this phrase to insist that the people's right is not an individual right and can only be exercised in the context of a government controlled militia. And, universally, they make no effort to understand the terms but simply insist they have the meaning the ascribed to them because, well, that's how they feel the words should be understood. It takes no real effort to discern the meaning of the word militia. It is defined by law today in the US code and also the constitutions of most, if not all states. It has essentially the same meaning today that it did when the amendment was drafted. It means every able bodied person who can bear arms. It includes both the organized (those able bodied persons who are working within a formal group) and unorganized (those able bodied persons who aren't part of any formal group) militia. The meaning is clear and indisputable except, by those such as the tool Troubadour who make no effort to understand the meaning. The Troubador would have you believe that the right to keep and bear arms does not apply to each individuals but only to those who under the control of an organized militia and only during such time as the organized militia permits. Where the amendment naturally means all the able bodied people ready to fight are necessary to securing a state where people are free so the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon, Tourbadour wants to believe that it means all the able bodied people who might under control of the state government are necessary to ensure the government is secure so the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed upon as long as they are subject to the government in which case the government can infringe upon the individual all it wants. The last hope of Troubadour and the merry band of constitutional subversives is the phrase well regulated. Having ignored the clear meanings of militia, free state, and people they poor into this phrase the meaning they so desperately want. Well-regulated, he insists, must mean subject to the control of the civil authority. Of course this is not what it means. If one let even 140

a few synapses fire it would be clear that such a meaning renders the entire amendment incoherent. If the first part of the amendment means what Troubadour fantasizes it means then the last part would undermine it. TO make sense it would have to read A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the state to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed or, the right of the state to permit the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As usual it takes very little research to discover meanings of well-regulated that fight comfortably within the 2nd amendment and do not mean under the control of the civil government. Even today we speak of electrical components that use clean well-regulated power. We can find references to well regulated timepieces, well regulated minds, and well-regulated persons in the literature of the 18th, 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. In the minds of 21st century serf well regulated can only mean subject to the control of civil authorities. In the minds of persons capable of using Google it can easily mean well functioning, working as intended and other such constructions which have nothing to with civil authority.

Piecing together the most natural usages and meanings of the words of the 2nd amendment reveals to the modern mind the real meaning of the 2nd amendment: All the able bodied people working together effectively are necessary to preserving a state where people are free. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. Troubador concludes his illiterate rant by saying: The first step to really making progress is being assertive about the immorality, irrationality, and unconstitutionality of the anarchic policies the NRA supports and has bought themselves through corruption of government. There will always be criminal personalities who even then just cannot reconcile themselves to being accountable to society, but for the rest, maybe they could just learn how to read so we can stop burying children for their ignorance. It is that combination of arrogance and ignorance that makes Troubadour such a colossal douche. Like many of the vocal gun banista's, Troubadour is full of self-righteous dismissal and disparagement of those he disagrees with. We share that in common, I suppose. The problem with his arrogance, though, is that he is, along with his fellow travelers, completely, totally, and inexcusably wrong. He is not only not right, he is the opposite of right. And he is the opposite of right on each and every single area of inquiry. He and they are irresponsibly not right because we live in an age where anyone can look up virtually anything and get an education in seconds that would have taken years of hard work to obtain not too many years ago. Yet he, and they, don't make the slightest effort to inform themselves. There is certainly room for discussion about how we prevent crimes like the slaughter in Sandy Hook. We can discuss the practical application of the 2nd amendment with regard to the mentally ill and whether the right applies to all arms or not. However we need to do so in the context of our legal system which provides for altering the constitution by amendment and not the fiat declaration of judges nor the passage of legislation. However, we can only have 141

such discussion with people willing to be informed by fact and not emotion. People such as Troubadouche don't qualify.

Gun Control Advocates Deliberately Facilitated The Murders At Sandy Hook

December 24th 2012 By Doug Book Advocates of overturning the right to keep and bear arms have spent years deliberately turning innocents into victims of slaughter for the purpose of disarming the American people. Do as I say, not as I do, they say. Gun-control zealots are predictably out in force after the Sandy Hook killings. For in the perverted mind of confiscation, supporters like Michael Bloomberg and Barack Obama, the murder of twenty kindergarten students represents a longawaited opportunity to embarrass weak-kneed defenders of the Second Amendment into relenting to a nationwide assault against the foremost liberty of the American people. On December 19th, New York Mayor Bloomberg favored USA Today readers with a 6 point guide to stop gun madness. And like every previous claim of the hypocritical founder of Mayors Against (Illegal) Guns (Bloomberg enjoys the 24/7 protection of taxpayer funded, armed bodyguards as he denies gun ownership to fellow New Yorkers), the essay by Bloomberg is a study in calculated misdirection. For Bloomberg and other proponents of common sense gun legislation know full well that their proposed ban on the sale of assault rifles and high-capacity magazines will have no effect on gun crime. Why craft legislation which purposely disarms only law abiding Americans? Why create and proudly advertise the existence of gun free zones which render countless people utterly defenseless against wanton killers? 142

If plans for gun confiscation are to succeed, the Left knows it must make firearms a loathsome commodity to an increasingly pro-gun populace. What better way to accomplish such a goal than to facilitate by statute the most murderous fantasies of psychopaths intent upon making their names and deeds part of American history? So legislation was passed which guaranteed an unlimited supply of defenseless victims for prospective mass murderers. Gun free zones, though represented as safe havens, were knowingly and deliberately fashioned to facilitate leisurely slaughter as they provide only for the security and convenience of armed killers, not their statutorily disarmed victims. And it was at Sandy Hook that the fondest wishes of gun-confiscation advocates have been granted. Knowing they will never have a better opportunity of success, Michael Bloomberg and other self-absorbed elitists will press demands for firearm bans and restrictions as never before. After all, only unfeeling monsters could defend Second Amendment rights in the face of twenty brutally murdered children. What sort of perverse, diseased mind is required to deliberately legislate the assured slaughter of innocents in order to advance a political agenda? Perhaps the sort which has been so eagerly involved in promoting the murder of infants for decades. Soon the banning of specified firearms will begin. When the next psychopath proves this latest gun control legislation to also be ineffective by design, another even more audacious round of gun bans will ensue. Then another and another until confiscation is deemed the final solution necessary for the protection of the people. From that day forward, self-defense will consist of begging for ones life rather than defending it on equal terms! It is then that the second American Revolution will begin as those who refuse to submit to the Lefts long anticipated decree of slavery will resist by every means at their command. I only hope Im around to fire the first shot.

Gun myths busted: Automatic weapons, buying guns online, background checks, assault rifles and other fictions of the liberal media
December 24th 2012 People who don't own guns are wildly ignorant about them, and they're easily suckered into liberal media myths that willfully repeat total lies such as being able to "buy guns online" or the idea that you can easily buy "automatic weapons" or "assault rifles." These are all complete lies. Let's expose the myths right here: Myth 1: You can buy automatic weapons at any gun shop This is completely and utterly false. Automatic weapons are highly regulated, extremely expensive ($15,000+) and VERY difficult to acquire. They're also extremely rare and have 143

NEVER been used in any school shooting in America. Just to acquire an "automatic weapon," you must go through extensive background checks and fingerprinting. You must apply to the federal government (ATF) for permission, and then wait six months or longer to be "approved" by the ATF. Myth 2: You can buy guns online Many liberals think you can just buy guns online. This is completely and utterly false. You can PAY for a gun online, but gun dealers cannot (and will not) ship a firearm directly to any customer. All guns that are PAID FOR online must be shipped to FFL dealers, which are federally licensed and regulated by the ATF. A person who pays for a gun online must go through a federal FBI background check just to pick up their gun at the FFL dealer, and they must fill out an extensive form which includes detailed questions on mental health, criminal history and so on. It is impossible to buy a gun online, but the liberal media keeps lying about this, hoping people will believe their lies. Myth 3: You don't need a background check to buy guns This is also a lie. To buy a gun from any gun dealer, whether at a local store or at a gun show, a background check is required by law. Gun dealers cannot, under any circumstances, sell a gun to somebody without either an FBI background check or, in some states, proof that the buyer has a concealed carry permit, which itself requires an FBI background check. The only exception to the background check rule is when an individual, who is not engaged in the business of firearms sales, wishes to sell his own personal firearm to another individual. This person-to-person sale does not require a background check because it is a noncommercial, non-dealer transaction founded on the fundamental right to engage in personal commerce. Myth 4: You can easily buy "Assault" rifles in America Although people banter around the term "assault rifle" a bit too casually, in truth you cannot buy an assault rifle in America without going through an extensive ATF investigation and spending $20,000+ (usually $40,000 or more) on a rare firearm. What makes a rifle an "assault" rifle? It must have a fire selector switch that can select between single shot, a three-round burst shot, or full-auto fire. None of the civilian AR-15s have these features. Neither do any of the "scary-looking" battle rifles sold in gun shops. Liberals call something an "assault rifle" because of the way it looks. If it looks "scary" (i.e. has a black composite stock instead of wood) then it must be a BAD gun. Seriously. This is how they think. But in truth, even a composite stock AR-15 purchased at a gun shop right now has absolutely no capability for a 3-round burst or full-auto. That firepower is reserved exclusively for the U.S. military. So when Obama says things like, "We don't need military rifles on the streets of America," he 144

is LYING to you. We don't have military rifles on the streets of America. What we have is semiauto, single-shot rifles in the hands of Citizens. Virtually no one has a military "assault" rifle. (The media routinely lies about this...) Click here for an excellent explanation of what an assault rifle really is. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force: Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry Myth 5: The Second Amendment is about hunting The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or personal defense. It has to do with the People of America maintaining a military force for the sole purpose of overthrowing a government that becomes too tyrannical. That is the 100% documented, non-debatable intent of the Second Amendment.

Trench Coxe was one of our nation's founding fathers. He was a consultant to Thomas Jefferson and his newspapers were instrumental in publishing the truth during a time with British troops had DISARMED the colonial populations and banned all guns. Why did they ban guns? So that the people could not fight back against tyranny, of course. As Coxe wrote in 1788: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. - Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. That same web page goes on to explain how the British General Howe used gun control to oppress the people: When occupying Philadelphia in 1778, British General Howe had disarmed the population. As reported in Philadelphia newspapers, General Gage had done the same to the citizens of Boston in 1775.

Gun myths exposed: Assault rifles, full-auto, buying guns online and more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KVh76TfqJ-k

145

Gun Control and the Warrior Tradition

December 27th 2012 By Jack Graff Everyone is worrying about the politics and possible future bloodbath potential of trying to limit scary black weapons and big magazines. Thats all understandable given the current climate, but something thats been lost in the discussion is the warrior families among us that have defined this nation. Simply put, we are heavily reliant on the police and military in this country. Theyre the ones who keep order and safeguard our way of life. But heres the rub: if the president and the dedicated gun grabbers in Congress like Diane Feinstein succeed in prohibiting civilian use of military style weapons, theyll also reduce the number of future recruits to these critical professions. Like every other kid, when I was younger I used to watch TV and movies cowboy shows and police dramas. And it helped inspire me towards my time of 25 years in the US Army and subsequent 10 years as a Bail Enforcement Agent. Having the ability to train with some of the same weapons used by the cops and the military helped me hone my skills long before I made my career choice. And mine is a story thats similar to those of many of my coworkers. The far more important consideration now, though, is those who will be following in their fathers and grandfathers tradition of military and police service. A significant portion of departments and battalions in the police and military services are staffed by people doing what members of their families have done before them. All of my uncles are ex-military and several of their sons are currently serving, too. Under a new assault weapons ban one thats even more restrictive than the last one the tradition of teaching the new generation will be severely curtailed. This country has a warrior tradition. That spirit is what freed us from British rule and made the US the global military presence it is today. And that tradition has been passed down from generation to generation. 146

But you cant pass that down without exposure to and familiarity with weapons. The same weapons (or the civilian equivalent) as those used on duty, whether in the military or a police force. Theres obviously a lot more to these career paths than firearms, but the weapons are intrinsic to the purposes of both vocations. If you cant learn to love the ways of life that both jobs entail, youre less likely to be the kind of cop or soldier this nation needs. Restricting the kind of firearms in civilian hands will make recruiting for both institutions a lot harder. Despite what youve probably been reading lately, America doesnt raise mass murderers with its gun culture; it trains our protectors and first responders.

The Bill of Rights is NOT Negotiable!

December 27th 2012

There is a destructive, delusional meme spreading like a virus among many misguided Americans. It pushes the idea that government can pick and choose which rights codified in the Bill of Rights it wishes to recognize or discard on any given day. This delusion is predicated on the concept that if a popular majority can be emotionally whipped into a frenzy over one particular right, then that right can simply be discarded and stricken from the Bill of Rights. But no such power exists to discard any portion of the Bill of Rights, at least not without proper ratification by three-fourths of the fifty states. There is no such power found solely in the federal government. There is no such power placed solely in the executive branch, nor in Congress, nor in the White House. The Bill of Rights describes a set of individual rights and liberties which are not granted by government, but recognized as DIVINE rights given to use by our Creator. Because government never granted the rights in the first place, it has no authority to take them away. "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to "create" rights. Rather, they designed the 147

Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be preexisting." - William J Brennan Jr. The individual liberties described in the Bill of Rights cannot be infringed, nor deleted, nor overridden by popular opinion... not even loudly screamed opinion. America is not a nation ruled by the tyranny of the mob. It isn't even a democracy it's a republic, where certain inalienable rights describe the protection of each individual, even if that individual is the lone voice of sanity in a majority gone mad. The Bill of Rights protects individuals from the tyranny of mob rule a phenomenon that routinely rears its head in any society where historical illiteracy is rampant and the masses are lulled into a state of complacency by charismatic but dishonest leaders. It was the extended amendments attached to the Bill of Rights that outlawed slavery, guaranteeing individual freedom to those of African descent even in a time and place when the majority of voting citizens believed slavery was socially acceptable. And it was the Second Amendment that put firearms into the hands of those recently-freed slaves, ensuring that they could defend themselves against attackers of any color through the powerful expression of armed defense (aided by the laws of physics and certain materials from the table of elements, notably lead). Another amendment beyond the Bill of Rights granted women equal voting rights in an age when the majority believed women should not be allowed to vote. It was the Bill of Rights that decriminalized prohibition, ending a dark era of mass criminalization of everyday citizens who suffered under the oppression of government law enforcement gone bad. Yet today, incredibly, many African-Americans and women are actively assaulting the very document that first secured their own freedoms. They now wish to take their freedom and power and use it to enslave someone else by revoking other people's rights under the Bill of Rights. This is the ultimate social betrayal, and it is a powerful demonstration of the principle that those who do not respect freedom for others do not deserve it for themselves.

The Second Amendment is NOT negotiable

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms much like the Right of Free Speech is not negotiable. Its protections are not subject to the whims of majority opinion, nor the screaming demands of hyperventilating media personalities. All the social media trolls and opinion writers in the world can comment all they want on the Second Amendment, yet the individual right to keep and bear arms remains immutable. Just like the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment is not negotiable. No Governor, Senator or President has any power whatsoever to banish the Second Amendment, and any who attempt to oppose it only brand themselves as criminal traitors to the United States of America. Any active effort to eradicate the Second Amendment outside of law without going through the proper process of state ratification for Constitutional amendments is, by definition, an act of sedition against the United States of America and its people. Ironically, many who viciously attack the Second Amendment do so by invoking their free speech protections under the First Amendment. Yet they seem blind to the realization that the First Amendment itself is only made possible by the Second Amendment which balances power between the People and the government, ensuring that the individual right to bear arms serves as a check and balance against the monopoly of violence every government inherently seeks. 148

Disarmament of the populace is always the first step to depriving them of their civil rights and human rights. Without the right to bear arms, there is no right to free speech, no right to due process, no right to trial by jury and certainly no right to be secured against unreasonable search and seizure. A government with a monopoly of force is a government that respects no boundaries and honors no limits. Grasping this point requires competent thinking, which is why so many who now flourish in America on the popularity of pop culture idiocy fail to understand it. It is intellectually lazy to blame gun rights for violence, requiring no depth of thought or reason. Only someone of higher awareness and possessing the aptitude for multi-layered thinking can realize the critical importance of distributed firepower in stopping government violence against the People. As Ron Paul recently said, "Government security is just another kind of violence." Ron Paul gets it. He understands that an imbalance of power in the hands of government inevitably leads to mass violence waged against the People. Those who are currently screaming for the population to be disarmed do not realize that in seeking to prevent one kind of violence (school shootings), they are unleashing a far more disastrous and horrifying violence by allowing the government to monopolize physical power over the citizens. This is a mistake that has been repeated throughout history, often at the cost of tens of millions of destroyed lives. Click here to watch my short video documentary that lays out these facts in more detail. The Second Amendment was put in place precisely for the purpose of making sure that future Americans would not fall for the same mistake yet again. That's why it is the second highest amendment, right after the right of free speech, indicating its crucial priority in the enumeration of sacred rights that must be protected at all costs.

The Bill of Rights does NOT require your endorsement

The validity of the Bill of Rights does not require your endorsement. In fact, it encourages tolerance of those with whom you disagree. If you do not believe in the freedom of speech for those with whom you disagree, then you do not believe in it at all (a derivation of a quote from Noam Chomsky). If you do not believe in freedom of speech, then you do not believe in the Bill of Rights. And if you do not believe in the Bill of Rights, then you are not, at heart, an American. You are something else, something less evolved. Something archaic and outmoded. The Bill of Rights is the single most important milestone in the history of civilized society because it lays out, with near perfection, the divine principle of INDIVIDUAL rights and liberties that come directly from the Creator rather than from a "King" also known as a dictator. "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt Ratified in 1791, the Bill of Rights lifted human civilization out of the tar sands of tyranny and into the enlightenment of liberty. It was divinely inspired and stands eternal as the key milestone of human compassion, justice and equality. To oppose the Bill of Rights is to oppose human progress. That's why the Bill of Rights is the single most progressive document that has ever been recognized by any nation. 149

"If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter." - George Washington

Why the Bill of Rights extends through all time and innovation
Importantly, the rights described in the Bill of Rights extend through all time and cover all innovations and technological advances. It was not written to cover only those things that existed in 1791, but rather to serve as a template of liberty encompassing innovation, advancement and all future expressions of those rights, regardless of what devices or technologies may come into existence. The Right to Free Speech, for example, does not merely protect speech written on scrolls or rolled out of a Gutenberg press. It covers all expressions of free speech, including speech expressed through devices that did not exist in the late 1700's: e-books, websites, blogs, television programs, bumper stickers and more. This very website, Natural News is a pure expression of the First Amendment. It would seem foolish and wrongheaded to argue that the First Amendment only applied to the printing press of the day and not to modern-day websites or e-books, yet that is exactly what many misguided people argue today when they say the Second Amendment only applies to "Muskets and bayonets." The Second Amendment guarantees your right to keep and bear the firearms of your time. What are the firearms of our time? AR-15 rifles. 308 sniper rifles. 50 caliber Barretts. Semiautomatic pistol gripped 12-gauge shotguns. Handguns with night sights and high-capacity magazines. Your right to own, carry, buy, sell and transfer these items is as solidly safeguarded as your right to free speech. The Bill of Rights is not negotiable.

Those who oppose the Bill of Rights are enemies of America

Some misguided, if not treasonous, U.S. Senators, lawmakers and public servants in the executive branch of government currently suffer under the dangerous misconception that the Bill of Rights only exists because they allow it to. They foolishly believe that they can selectively pick and choose which rights to nullify via new legislation or by the stroke of an executive pen. This delusion is not merely wrong-headed and arrogant, it poses a grave threat to the Republic and all its future generations. Enemies of the Bill of Rights are enemies of America. Whether those enemies be found in the media, in Congress, in the Oval Office or on the streets of America, they are unworthy of being called "Americans" at all. Those who despise liberty do not deserve liberty. Those who deliberately and maliciously attack the Bill of Rights do not deserve the protections of the Bill of Rights. Those who despise the Constitution and its Bill of Rights are publicly indicating they would prefer to live as subjects, not Citizens. I propose that any who attempt to denounce Bill of Rights protections for others must first surrender their own rights and freedoms. Do not speak of taking away my Second Amendment rights while you enjoy the protections of the First Amendment. Surrender all your rights and freedoms first, because only then have you achieved the necessary moral consistency from which you can demand others be deprived of their rights. Relocate to North Korea, in other words, and become a subject of Kim Jong-un and then continue your assaults of the Bill of Rights as a Korean gulag blogger. Because only then will you know how much you have lost, and how much you should have valued the liberties you so carelessly abandoned. 150

The Bill of Rights is not negotiable. If you oppose it, you betray not only yourself, but all Americans.

Gun Control is Genocide

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m9LWioXYaic Gun Control is Genocide. Why? Because throughout history, citizen disarmament has always been a precursor of mass genocide carried out by government gone bad. The term for it is "democide." In the last century, governments have murdered 262 million people far more than have died on the battlefield in all the wars combined. Government becomes extremely dangerous when it controls all the firepower while the citizenry controls none. This imbalance of power leads to genocide. It is only the presence of citizen firepower that prevents government which is inherently evil and destructive from enslaving the population. The Second Amendment is the one right that defends all other rights. See PART ONE of this video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCk90Xvv3EI

Just a reminder: the 2nd Amendment is precisely about militar y-style weapons
December 29th 2012 By Kevin D. Williamson

The Second Amendment is about protecting ourselves from the state.

My friend Brett Joseph has published an uncharacteristically soft-headed piece in the San Francisco Chronicle arguing that in the wake of the massacre at Sandy Hook, conservatives and Republicans should support what he calls sensible gun-control laws. It begins with a subtext of self-congratulation (As a conservative and a Republican, I can no longer remain silent.. Some will consider it heresy, etc.), casts aspersions of intellectual dishonesty (arguments for preserving our traditional rights are disingenuous), advances into ex homine (noting he has family in Sandy Hook, as though that confers special status on his preferences), fundamentally misunderstands the argument for the right to keep and bear arms, deputizes the electorate, and cites the presence of teddy bears as evidence for his case. Brett, like practically every other person seeking to diminish our constitutional rights, either does not understand the purpose of the Second Amendment or refuses to address it, writing, Gun advocates will be hard-pressed to explain why the average American citizen needs an assault weapon with a high-capacity magazine other than for recreational purposes. The answer to this question is straightforward: The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person let alone a Harvard Law graduate believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity. There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our 151

right to keep and bear. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to secure our ability to oppose enemies foreign and domestic, a guarantee against disorder and tyranny. Consider the words of Supreme Court justice Joseph Story who was, it bears noting, appointed to the Court by the guy who wrote the Constitution: The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a 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.

Usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers not Bambi, not burglars. While your granddads .30-06 is a good deal more powerful than the .223 rifles that give blue-state types the howling fantods, that is not what we have a constitutional provision to protect. Liberals are forever asking: Why would anybody need a gun like that? And the answer is: because we are not serfs. We are a free people living under a republic of our own construction. We may consent to be governed, but we will not be ruled. The right to keep and bear arms is a civil right. If you doubt that, consider the history of arms control in England, where members of the Catholic minority (and non-Protestants generally) were prohibited from bearing arms as part of the campaign of general political oppression against them. The Act of Disenfranchisement was still in effect when our Constitution was being written, a fact that surely was on the mind of such Founding Fathers as Daniel Carroll, to say nothing of his brother, Archbishop John Carroll. The Second Amendment speaks to the nature of the relationship between citizen and state. Brett may think that such a notion is an antiquated relic of the 18th century, but then he should be arguing for wholesale repeal of the Second Amendment rather than presenting whats the word? disingenuous arguments about what it means and the purpose behind it. If we want to reduce the level of criminal violence in our society, we should start by demanding that the police and criminal-justice bureaucracies do their job. Massacres such as Sandy Hook catch our attention because they are so unusual. But a great deal of the commonplace violence in our society is preventable. Brett here might look to his hometown: There were 1,662 murders in New York City from 2003 to 2005, and a New York Times analysis of the data found that in 90 percent of the cases, the killer had a prior criminal record. (About half the victims did, too.) Events such as Sandy Hook may come out of nowhere, but the great majority of murders do not. The police function in essence as a janitorial service, cleaning up the mess created in part by our dysfunctional criminal-justice system. We probably would get more out of our criminal-justice system if it were not so heavily populated by criminals. As I note in my upcoming book, The End Is Near and Its Going to Be Awesome, it can be hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys: 152

For more than twenty years, NYPD detectives worked as enforcers and assassins for the Gambino crime family; in 2006 two detectives were convicted not only of murder and conspiracy to commit murder but also on charges related to such traditional mob activity as labor racketeering, running illegal gambling rings, extortion, narcotics trafficking, obstruction of justice, and the like. This was hardly an isolated incident; only a few years prior to the NYPD convictions more than 70 LAPD officers associated with the citys anti-gang unit were found to have been deeply involved in gang-affiliated criminal enterprises connected to the Bloods street gang. Their crimes ranged from the familiar police transgressions of falsifying evidence, obstructing justice, and selling drugs seized in arrests to such traditional outlaw fare as bank robbery they were cops and robbers. More than 100 criminal convictions were overturned because of evidence planted or falsified by officers of the LAPD. One scholarly account of the scandal concluded that such activity is not atypical but rather systemic and largely immune to attempts at reform: The current institution of law enforcement in America does appear to reproduce itself according to counter-legal norms.. attempts to counteract this reproduction via the training one receives in police academies, the imposition of citizen review boards, departments of Internal Affairs, etc. do not appear to mitigate against this structural continuity between law enforcement and crime. The Department of Homeland Security has existed for only a few years but it already has been partly transformed into an organized-crime syndicate. According to a federal report, in 2011 alone more than 300 DHS employees and contractors were charged with crimes ranging from smuggling drugs and child pornography to selling sensitive intelligence to drug cartels. Thats not a few bad apples thats an arrest every weekday and many weekends. Given the usual low ratio of arrests to crimes committed, it is probable that DHS employees are responsible for not hundreds but thousands of crimes. And these are not minor infractions: Agents in the departments immigration division were caught selling forged immigrant documents, and DHS vehicles have been used to transport hundreds (and possibly thousands) of pounds of illegal drugs. A standover crew that is, a criminal enterprise that specializes in robbing other criminals was found being run by a DHS agent in Arizona, who was apprehended while hijacking a truckload of cocaine. Power corrupts. Madison knew that, and the other Founders did, too, which is why we have a Second Amendment.

153

Mainstream media avoiding any mention of link between psychiatric drugs and violent shootings
December 24th 2012 By J. D. Heyes

Whether it's because most members of the mainstream media are simply oblivious to the effects of psychotropic drugs, whether it's a biased political agenda, laziness or a combination of all of those elements, you will be hard-pressed to find many journalists who dare to link the dangers of these medications to the growing number of horrific mass murders that have occurred with alarming frequency in recent years. The most recent of these involved 20-year-old Adam Lanza, who killed his mother before traveling to the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., earlier this month to murder 20 Kindergarten children and six adults. In the days following the shooting, initial exclusive reports from the New York Daily News said that Lanza went on his rampage when he learned he was about to be committed to a psychiatric institution by his mother. According to the report, a "bar pal" who did not want to be named told the paper Nancy Lanza told him her son was "burning himself" and that she feared she was "losing him." 154

The disappearing details What that initial report also said, according to InfoWars.com, was that Adam Lanza was on a psychotropic drug. "Adam's uncle....said he was taking an anti-psychotic drug called Fanapt," New York Magazine said in a follow-up report, quoting the initial New York Daily News story. But then, InfoWars.com noted, that little factoid disappeared from the online versions of those initial reports. "It's almost certain that the original version of the article did mention this before being amended, and that the NY Magazine piece was based on the original NY Daily News piece," InfoWars.com reported. Why would mainstream newspapers and magazines want to hide the fact that Lanza and a host of previous mass murderers were taking psychotropic drugs that almost certainly contributed to their deadly behavior? The obvious answer is that blaming the drug takes away from their anti-gun agenda. But the fact that these tragedies are being committed by psychiatric basket cases on drugs has not escaped the attention of everyone. Big Pharma dollars doing the talking? In calling for a long-overdue federal investigation into the link between psychiatric drugs and violence, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International cites three telling facts: 1) Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs that cite effects like mania, violence, hostility and homicidal ideation, as well as scores of high-profile shootings and other killings tied to psychiatric drug use, "there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence," the CCHRI said. 2) At least 14 recent shootings at schools have been committed by someone taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs. The results are telling: 58 killed, 109 wounded. In other school shootings, "information about their drug use was never made public neither confirming nor refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs," CCHRI said. 3) Between 2004 and 2011, there have been 11,000 reports to the Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch system regarding the side effects of psychiatric drugs in relation to violence. Included in these reports: 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. By the FDA's own admission, CCHRI notes, only 1-10 percent of side effects are even reported to the agency, "so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher," the international organization said. Despite these horrendous statistics, there have been no calls by the mainstream media to have use of these drugs examined, let alone banned unlike guns. Could that be, in large part, due to the fact that Big Pharma spends tens of millions a year in advertising with the corporate media? Sources: http://www.infowars.com 155

http://www.nydailynews.com http://www.cchrint.org

The Problem is Mental Illness, Not Guns

December 22nd 2012 By Frank J. Dmuchowski

What happened in Newton, Connecticut last Friday was indeed an enormous tragedy. It is so painful I can hardly allow myself to think too deeply about it. I could only imagine what the families involved are going through. My prayers go out to them. However, well before the bodies cooled, the Progressive/Liberals were singing their usual mantra on how guns are the cause of horrendous multi-shootings and killings. They are calling for draconian gun control laws as the solution of the problem. Now the cold hearted Progressive/Liberals see this tragedy as their golden opportunity to once and for all deal with the Gun issue, and stomp on the Second Amendment; Cant let a good crisis go to waste. Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) CA is already locked, cocked and ready to roll with a new and vastly improved Assault Weapons Ban. The hysteria is at a fever pitch.

156

The media also plays a major role in increasing the frequency of the shootings and the kill rate in the past year. The amount of TV time they give to reporting on these mass shootings, I believe, encourages the next nut job out there to plan a bigger and better show. Particularly, the amount of time given to the shooter is a major influence. Every bit of information about the shooter such as: age, job, school, foot size, allergies, boxers or briefs, brand of condoms, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. The media loves these mass shootings as it gives them a lot of stuff to fill their pages and/or air to increase advertising revenue. Politically, the media plays to the gun control crowd in its coverage of victims and the shooter, nudging the public to become more anti-gun. However, gun control, regardless of how draconian does nothing to address the real problem: Community Mental Illness. Unfortunately, many are losing sight of what the real problem is. All the shooting in the recent multi-casualty shootings the past few years, starting with Columbine to Newtown, including the Fort Hood massacre, have one common thread: mental illness. All of the shooters have long histories of mental illness, being first identified by the school system and/or received some treatment through private and public clinics. In each case, the schools and community mental health systems failed them. Why? It is because, community mental health and alcohol and drug treatment services are underfunded and under staffed.

Back in the 60s and 70s there was a big push by the States to deinstitutionalize mentally ill and mentally deficient people. The State Mental Hospitals opened their doors, dumping these people on the communities. Communities that were hardly able to handle the community needs prior to the release, were now flooded with a deluge of schizophrenics, paranoid psychotics, autistics, border line psychotics, etc, etc. Supposedly, the amount of money saved from hospitalization of these patients would be siphoned down to the community level. However, instead of a steady flow of cash, the community was sprinkled upon. As the patients were released with some sort of treatment plan that would supposedly provide their care and support, many would soon leave their community treatment in favor of the streets. A large portion of the homeless population consists of released inmates and those others who should be incarcerated. Having as their bible of institutionalization and a proponent of de-institutionalization, Erving Goffmanss, 1961 book: Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates; the States found the ammunition it needed to gain the political power and citizen support to shut down their Asylums. The case was made that the civil rights of the inmates was more important than the safety of the community. Many believed that the communities could and should be able to absorb the risk of a certain amount of disorder and criminal acts perpetrated by the released inmates. Consequently, laws were changed to protect the mentally ill from criminal prosecution. It became nearly impossible to have someone committed. And if it was possible to get a judge to sign off on a petition to commit, a whole set of legal hoops are set in place that provide opportunities to release the patient back to the streets. Fortunately, the tide of sentiment is turning. Some communities are no longer willing to tolerate the more serious inappropriate behaviors of the mentally ill. However, it is all too common for the community to wait until there is some horrendous incident before a mentally ill person would be incarcerated. Unfortunately, the mentally ill person leaves in their wake a wave of grieving and anguished people affected by the mentally ill persons behavior. The communitys suffering and pain could have been avoided if the school/mental health system 157

would have identified the perpetrator as dangerous and prone to the type of violence we saw in Newton. Mental health professionals must remove the Political Correct lens from their eyes. We must be willing to tell the truth that a person who meets the criteria as a mass murderer is a danger to the community and not worry about hurting anyones feelings. One of the farcical results from Goffmans book is that it created a perceptual fog thats resulted in trying to force the mentally ill square peg through the normal round one. Normalization of the criminally, mentally ill is an oxymoron. Mental health professionals have created an alternate reality in which they live and expect everyone to live in too. In schools they want to mainstream kids with serious emotional and behavioral problems with the premise that mainstreaming helps the kids to feel more normal. It doesnt make them feel more normal because the result is that they are shunned, ridiculed and bullied by the so called, normals! Mainstreaming creates the breeding ground for growing those such as James Holmes, shooter in the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, the Columbine shooters and, Paul LaRosa, causing the latest tragedy in Newtown. The professionals need to develop a profile of a possible mass murderer or serial killer so that they can isolate from the community, keeping them from doing harm. The crazies are out there running loose with no one to stop them until after it is too late.

Columbine Student's Father 12 Years Later

December 24th 2012 Guess our national leaders didn't expect this. On Thursday, Darrell Scott, the father of Rachel Scott, a victim of the Columbine High School shootings in Littleton, Colorado, was invited to address the House Judiciary Committee's subcommittee. What he said to our national leaders during this special session of Congress was painfully truthful. They were not prepared for what he was to say, nor was it received well. It needs to be heard by every parent, every teacher, every politician, every sociologist, every psychologist, and every so-called expert! These courageous words spoken by Darrell Scott are powerful, penetrating, and deeply personal. There is no doubt that God sent this man as a voice crying in the wilderness. The following is a portion of the transcript: "Since the dawn of creation there has been both good & evil in the hearts of men and women. We all contain the seeds of kindness or the seeds of violence. The death of my wonderful daughter, Rachel Joy Scott, and the deaths of that heroic teacher, and the other eleven children who died must not be in vain. Their blood cries out for answers. "The first recorded act of violence was when Cain slew his brother Abel out in the field. The villain was not the club he used. Neither was it the NCA, the National Club Association. The true killer was Cain, and the reason for the murder could only be found in Cain's heart. "In the days that followed the Columbine tragedy, I was amazed at how quickly fingers began to be pointed at groups such as the NRA. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a hunter. I do not even own a gun. I am not here to represent or defend the NRA - because I don't believe that they are responsible for my daughter's death. Therefore I do not believe that they need to be defended. If I believed they had anything to do with Rachel's murder I would be their strongest opponent. 158

I am here today to declare that Columbine was not just a tragedy -- it was a spiritual event that should be forcing us to look at where the real blame lies! Much of the blame lies here in this room. Much of the blame lies behind the pointing fingers of the accusers themselves. I wrote a poem just four nights ago that expresses my feelings best. Your laws ignore our deepest needs, Your words are empty air. You've stripped away our heritage, You've outlawed simple prayer. Now gunshots fill our classrooms, And precious children die. You seek for answers everywhere, And ask the question "Why?" You regulate restrictive laws, Through legislative creed. And yet you fail to understand, That God is what we need!

"Men and women are three-part beings. We all consist of body, mind, and spirit. When we refuse to acknowledge a third part of our make-up, we create a void that allows evil, prejudice, and hatred to rush in and wreak havoc. Spiritual presences were present within our educational systems for most of our nation's history. Many of our major colleges began as theological seminaries. This is a historical fact. What has happened to us as a nation? We have refused to honor God, and in so doing, we open the doors to hatred and violence. And when something as terrible as Columbine's tragedy occurs politicians immediately look for a scapegoat such as the NRA. They immediately seek to pass more restrictive laws that contribute to erode away our personal and private liberties. We do not need more restrictive laws. Eric and Dylan would not have been stopped by metal detectors. No amount of gun laws can stop someone who spends months planning this type of massacre. The real villain lies within our own hearts. "As my son Craig lay under that table in the school library and saw his two friends murdered before his very eyes, he did not hesitate to pray in school. I defy any law or politician to deny him that right! I challenge every young person in America, and around the world, to realize that on April 20, 1999, at Columbine High School prayer was brought back to our schools. Do not let the many prayers offered by those students be in vain. Dare to move into the new millennium with a sacred disregard for legislation that violates your God-given right to communicate with Him. To those of you who would point your finger at the NRA I give to you a sincere challenge. Dare to examine your own heart before casting the first stone! My daughter's death will not be in vain! The young people of this country will not allow that to happen!" Darrell Scott Guns are not the problempeople and what is in their hearts is the problem. Did we see this information on the mainstream mediaAre you kidding??? Blame is what our government and government officials do the best. It is never them 159

or what they may have created. The leaders WE have elected are shameful and shameless. And now Joe Biden is going to figure out how to solve the gun problem!!!! Do what the media did not let the nation hear this man's speech.

Columbine School Shootings Darrell Scott

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WtXdrJkwCsY#!

Assault-weapons ban no guarantee mass shootings would decrease data shows!

December 24th 2012 Congress is poised to launch into a contentious debate next year over reinstating the assaultweapons ban. In the wake of the Connecticut elementary school massacre, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, DCalifornia already has vowed to introduce such a bill at the start of the session. President Obama is voicing support. But crime trends over the past few decades offer a mixed verdict on whether renewing the ban would reduce the kinds of mass shootings that have spurred calls for its re-enactment in the first place. Data published earlier this year showed that while the ban was in place, from 1994 to 2004, the number of mass shootings actually rose slightly during that period. Add to that the fact that most gun crimes in America are committed with handguns, and the gun lobby enters this debate with some potent statistics. "You had that for 10 years when Dianne Feinstein passed that ban in '94. It was on the books. Columbine occurred right in the middle of it. It didn't make any difference," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre argued in an interview Sunday. "I think that is a phony piece of legislation, and I do not believe it will pass for this reason." At the same time, gun control advocates note that modest decreases in assault-weapon crimes were recorded during the ban. A revived version won't stop gun crime in America, but, advocates argue, it could spare some lives from the violence on America's streets, in its schools and in its homes. 160

"You see the enormous killing power that's out there on the streets for virtually anybody to buy or obtain," Feinstein said last week. A look exclusively at mass shootings the acts that typically prompt calls for more gun control shows a negligible impact from the Clinton-era ban. Crime stats compiled by a Northeastern University professor, the Census Bureau and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel show the number of mass shootings since the 1980s has fluctuated annually, but without any major upward or downward trend. From 1985-1994, there were 173 mass shootings and 766 victims. From 1995-2004 (starting with 1995 because it was the first full year the law was in effect), there were 182 mass shootings and 830 victims. After the ban expired, the average number of mass shootings every year continued to tick up slightly. The numbers were published over the summer in the Journal Sentinel, and counted a mass shooting as any murder where four or more people were killed at once.

The pro-gun-control Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence argues the ban had more of an impact than it's given credit for. The group claims that in the five years before the ban, the affected weapons made up 4.8 percent of crime guns traced by ATF officials. Since the ban, that number dropped to 1.6 percent. "This decline is extremely significant to law enforcement and has clearly enhanced public safety, especially since these military-style weapons are among the deadliest ever sold on the civilian market," the group claims. Feinstein's office also claims the ban can be traced to a 6.7 percent decline "in total gun murders." Even so, as the NRA points out, only a "tiny fraction" of crimes involve assault weapons no matter how it's measured. And a number of factors are at play, covering everything from policing to the state of the economy. According to the Justice Department, gun-related homicides overall have declined since they peaked in 1993. That decline is mostly attributed to a drop in murders involving handguns, which fell from nearly 14,000 in 1993 to close to 9,000 a decade later. Both sides of this debate have pointed to several reasons why the assault-weapons ban was limited in its effectiveness. Aside from the fact that handguns are the most prevalent in violent crime, the assault-weapons ban included an array of exemptions. To qualify as a semiautomatic assault weapon, a semiautomatic rifle had to have a detachable magazine and two or more of five specific features including a grenade launcher and a bayonet mount. Some gun makers simply modified their weapons to avoid qualifying under this definition. A November report by the Congressional Research Service noted that opponents argued the banned guns "were potentially no more lethal than other semiautomatic firearms." In addition, the law allowed people to keep semiautomatic weapons that they had before it took effect. The saturation of firearms in the country limited the impact of the ban. If the same 161

law were passed today that means more than 300 million firearms or one gun for every person in America would still be floating around. It's possible that drafters of a new bill will try to modify it going forward. But any assaultweapons ban already faces dim prospects in the Republican-controlled House. An even stricter ban has even dimmer prospects. Indeed, Feinstein announced last week that her newest proposal would exempt more than 900 weapons. Everything from mental health to school security to the entertainment industry is likely to be examined in the weeks ahead. LaPierre has rejected calls for gun control, and he urged the country to scrutinize the video game industry, while ramping up school security LaPierre wants an armed officer in every school. Others, though, say gun control in some form has to be part of this discussion. "There are countries that have mental illness, that have video games. They don't have the problem with guns the United States has," Democratic strategist Richard Goodstein said. "That's the big variable."

A warning to gun grabbers and collectivist media: By calling for gun control, you are unleashing your own worst nightmare!
December 26th 2012

By screaming about how they wish to destroy the Second Amendment and disarm the American people, collectivist media gun grabbers and "school shooting doomsday" fear mongers have managed to do exactly what they hoped NOT to do: They have pushed millions of AR-15s and hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition into the private hands of Americans. Over the Christmas holiday, I spoke with a friend who owns the largest retail gun shop (and advanced tactical shooting range) in one of the largest U.S. cities. He told me, "Our store sales have been $100,000 a day since the Newtown shooting." On a normal business day, his sales hover around the $10,000 mark, so what we're witnessing here is a 1000% increase in gun sales. "Our shelves have been stripped bare. People are buying everything in sight, AR-15s, handguns, shotguns, ammo, scopes, magazines, uppers... you name it, it's gone. When a new shipment comes in each day, it's gone in 10 minutes. People are waiting here for hours just to 162

buy a rifle." Much the same is true across the nation. Every gun shop in America has sold out of virtually everything. Check out the ammunition available an online retailers like www.AmmoToGo.com and www.LuckyGunner.com almost everything is sold out or backordered. Ammo magazines are now virtually impossible to come by, too. Firearms gear sellers like www.MidwayUSA.com and www.SportsmansGuide.com are completely sold out and deep into backorders that won't be filled until February, March or April. And one retailer, www.Brownells.com said that in one 72-hour period last week, they sold more ammo magazines than they usually sell in three and a half YEARS. On ebay, aluminum AR-15 30-round magazines that used to sell for $10 are now going for $60. That's a 600% increase in value in just one week. (Note to those who are buying gold: If you had bought cases of ammo magazines instead, you could right now be experiencing a 600% return on your investment!)

Ten million more guns in the hands of honest, law-abiding Americans

The FBI instant background check system (NICS), which performs background checks on all commercial gun buyers across America, has been stressed to the breaking point. It has already experienced outages over the past 10 days, and even when it's online, it's registering the most intense period of firearm purchases in the history of America. Official numbers are not yet available, but by my estimates, in the last ten days alone over 10 million firearms were purchased in America, and over a billion rounds of ammunition were taken home and put away by U.S. gun owners. This was, of course, all a reaction to the screaming gun grabbers who are hyperventilating about guns and ignorantly calling for the abolishment of the Second Amendment and the complete disarmament of the American people. This utterly insane screaming fest by whiny, pathetic gun grabbers and collectivist control freaks has only accomplished one thing: the massive ARMAMENT of American citizens, most of whom absolutely will NOT surrender their firearms under any circumstances. Support for the Second Amendment remains strong and resilient across real America. While the gun-grabbing, lying collectivist media is trying to create the illusion that Americans don't like guns, the truth is that America was founded on the right to keep and bear arms, and Americans innately understand that throughout history, liberty must be defended by force. This defense of liberty depends entirely on the People owning, possessing and using firearms. Americans fully realize that disarmament is the path to enslavement and tyranny. That's why they rushed out to buy millions of guns and over a billion rounds of ammunition. And no amount of distorted media lies, Obama fake crying on TV or even a thousand more government-staged mass shootings will convince people to turn over their guns to the most distrusted organization on the planet... the government! 163

The reaction is quietly surging

Gun-owning Americans are growing increasingly sick and tired of being called bad people simply because they choose to protect their homes, families and communities with firearms. White gun owners are sick of being irrationally called "racist" for choosing to own guns. (Historical fact: Martin Luther King owned "an arsenal" of guns and often carried a concealed handgun.) Southerners are sick and tired of being depicted as idiotic rednecks by the uppity liberal media and its distorted, race-baiting TV shows. And the gun owners of America have just about had enough of being blamed for the violence of one crazy, medicated young man who committed murder in Connecticut. If you go to any gun show right now and talk to people, as I have, you'll overhear talk like: "They're gonna have to pry this gun out of my cold, dead hands." "If Obama orders guns to be turned in, it will set off a civil war." "Dammit, I should have bought another AR-15 when I had the chance..." Meanwhile, truly anti-America, seditious TV journalists and social media trolls are screaming things like, "Kill the NRA President" and "all gun owners should be shot" confirming that the gun-grabbing liberals are themselves, the promoters of gun violence in America. It's the lawful gun owners who are so far remaining calm and keeping their firearms muzzled. But if it really comes to a shooting war and I pray it doesn't it's the gun grabbing zealots who are going to find out what it means to be "downrange." And if these gun-grabbing, anti-American collectivists do actually manage to pick up a firearm during a shooting war and try to do something with it, they won't have any idea how to clear a jam, how to use the forward assist, or how to turn on the mysterious, magical red dot inside the sight. Their college PhD classes never taught them anything practical, you see. They live in the world of "theory" while people like you and I live in something called "reality." With rifles clumsily clasped in their hands, these anti-American collectivists will have no clue how to compensate for bullet drop ("What are all these funny lines inside the scope for?") or how to estimate and compensate for a crosswind. ("Wind affects bullets? I thought they were too fast!") Nor do they know the difference between a "bullet" and a piece of "brass." ("You want to SAVE brass? Why?") They think a "primer" is a pre-calc Cliff Notes booklet, and they think "reloaded" means something to do with The Matrix. In other words, if it actually comes down to a shooting war between gun grabbers and gun owners, the gun owners will absolutely dominate the battlefield.

Gun owners already have the real power in America, as they should
In truth, gun owners already possess the real power in America. "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," Mao Tse-tung famously said. And that's why Obama wants to take away all our guns... because they are tools of real power. The only way gun owners across America can be disarmed right now is if they can be guilttripped, cajoled or otherwise tricked into disarming themselves. They cannot be disarmed by 164

force. Any attempt to do so will only result in them shooting back. If gun owners simply put their foot down, take a stand, and announce, "We will NOT give up our Second Amendment birthright!" then not even the entire federal government can force them to do otherwise.

Stand together, lawful gun owners!

Now is the time for all lawful gun owners across America to stand together, with strength and righteousness, against the unlawful tyrants, oppressors, liars and anti-American traitors who are right now attempting to crush America's liberty and destroy her Bill of Rights. This is the time for all true patriots who believe in America to SAY NO to Obama, Biden, Bloomberg, Schumer, Feinstein and all the other communist-leaning collectivists who are desperately trying to disarm the American public even while their own children, families and homes are guarded by men with guns.

It is time to say "Enough is enough!" to the lying, fear-mongering media and its laughably pathetic talking heads like Piers Morgan who has the emotional maturity of a five-year-old and the cognitive prowess of an advanced-stage Alzheimer's patient. Already wanted for questioning in Britain, Piers Morgan has denounced all Americans and said he represents "British superiority" that demands Americans be stripped of all their firearms just like they were during the British occupation of the colonies in 1775. (Right before our forefathers started shooting large pieces of lead through the thick skulls of British officers... see the movie "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson for a graphic depiction of how men with rifles saved America.)

Pray that Obama and Biden do not attempt to overplay their hand
In all, I can only pray that Obama and Biden do not attempt to arrogantly overplay their hand when it comes time for them to lay out their anticipated gun control "plan." If their plan calls for any sort of gun confiscation whatsoever especially so-called "assault rifles" it will very likely cause America to erupt into a shooting war. On the other hand, if Obama and Biden limit their actions to things most gun owners would consider "reasonable," then they can prevent any further escalation. What will gun owners consider to be "reasonable?" NOT gun registration, I can assure you. Everybody knows gun registration was Hitler's first step preceding confiscation and then genocide. NOT another "assault weapons" ban, either. The Clinton ban didn't keep assault rifles out of the hands of psychopathic killers. Why would an Obama ban work any better? NOT a ban on semi-automatic firearms. This would be seen as total disarmament of gun owners, as most firearms owned today are semi-autos. (Very few are full-auto. They are extremely rare and ridiculously expensive.) NOT an artificial limit on standard magazine capacity. Restricting 30-round magazines would 165

also be seen as the disarmament of gun owners. As the purpose of the Second Amendment was to allow the People to be their own standing army against enemies of the nation including domestic tyrants any such restriction would be blatantly unconstitutional and wholly ineffective.

Gun control restrictions that might fly

Here are some things that might be considered reasonable among gun owners and therefore not result in a huge national backlash (or even a shooting war). I'm not saying I agree or disagree with all these; they're just things that are more likely to succeed and not meet huge resistance if proposed by the Obama administration (which is widely hated by nearly all gun owners, including the police and military): Mandatory waiting periods for all firearms purchases, nationwide. A 3-day waiting period would not be considered particularly restrictive or unconstitutional. Increased restrictions on firearms purchases by those who are on psychiatric medications. (This is not likely to even be suggested, as the Obama administration is totally in bed with Big Pharma.) Strict federal laws requiring firearms to be secured (locked) in any home where teenagers or children have frequent access. (There is already a federal law on this regarding children under 18, but this could be tightened to cover young adults up to age 20, for example.) Banning of very large 100-round capacity magazines. These drum magazines all suck anyway, as they frequently jam. This is what happened in Aurora. We should only HOPE that all psychopathic killers have 100-round drum magazines... they would kill no one! Mandatory federal background checks for guns sold at gun shows. (This is already required for all commercial dealers. But private transactions are currently exempted from this requirement. This is very likely to be targeted by Obama and Biden, so expect gun shows to be severely restricted in some way.) In addition, the Obama administration is very likely to attempt to limit importations on certain types of firearms manufactured outside the United States. This might include bottom-feeding shotguns such as the Saiga-12, which the ATF attempted to restrict two years ago. Kiss your AK supply line goodbye...

Stand still... I'm reloading!

If these restrictions are not enough for the hysterically irrational gun grabbers who want to completely disarm law-abiding citizens across the country, then as one gun owner told me recently, "Sure, I'll give them all my ammo and guns, bullets first." That attitude pretty much sums up the topic in real America; not the fabricated delusional America portrayed and distorted by the mainstream media. The media is to real events as GMOs are to real food: It's all engineered, and every bite delivers a little bit of poison. In real America, people everywhere demand to keep their handguns, rifles, shotguns and 30round magazines. They inherently know that a disarmed population has historically been enslaved by a corrupt, criminal government. They do not trust Obama and nobody trusts the 166

mentally unstable Biden! And they absolutely will not give up their guns to a lying liberal gungrabbing President. If someone like Clint Eastwood called for everybody to give up their guns that would be different. But not a lying, birth-certificate-fabricating, lawbreaking President whose greatest achievement has been expanding the number of Americans on welfare and food stamps. Obama will have no real success trying to grab guns. If he's smart, he'll push for some marginal restrictions and declare it a success to his own screaming liberal supporters, most of whom are too uneducated to understand the details of any gun control restrictions in the first place. (Half of them can't even READ!)

Gun control IS racism

By the way, the very first gun control laws in America were put in place by the KKK. Gun control is racism. Gun freedom is equality. A gun in the hands of a free black man makes him an equal to a free white man, according to the laws of physics. This is why the Second Amendment first benefits African-Americans, and secondly everyone else.

If more African-Americans truly understood history, they would be screaming to defend the Second Amendment and make sure guns remain legal in the hands of citizens. History has shown, after all, that any concentration of firepower in the hands of the few ALWAYS gets turned against the innocent.

Gun myths exposed: Assault rifles, full-auto, buying guns online and more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KVh76TfqJ-k

Gun Control Actually Increases Gun Violence!

December 26th 2012 By Richard Larsen The atrocity committed in Connecticut last week is still to me incomprehensible and ineffable. I can find no adequate words to express my grief for all of those affected by such an inhumane act. As the joys of anticipation of Christmas for those families were dashed and replaced with the profoundest grief at losing a loved one, especially the children, the weight of their sorrow has hung over all of us. As a sentient people, we should be repulsed, angered, saddened, and outraged at such a heinous act. The challenge is to channel the emotions and the feelings that have distressed us, into actionable ways to address such violence. Our feelings and emotions instinctively call for reduction or elimination of the tool of choice for the perpetrator. Yet we must, when 167

reaching for solutions, transcend our feelings, and reason through logically what is viable, what will work, and what wont. The immediate call for more gun control is instinctive, yet must be approached logically rather than emotionally, based on empirical data. And there is a lot of it available. The city of Chicago currently has the most restrictive gun control laws on the books, has been declared a gun free zone where handguns are banned, yet it is the most bloody city in the world in terms of gun-related deaths. The city averages 40 deaths per month from guns, and is nearing 500 for the year. Chicagos murder rate is 19.4 per 100,000, which is by far the highest rate in the nation, at nearly 3 times New York which is at 6, and nearly 2 times Los Angeles 7.5. In fact, Chicago ranks as the number one deadliest Alpha city (significant urban center in the global economic system) on the planet. Since it is no longer possible to legally own guns within city limits, the only ones who still have them are criminals. It doesnt appear gun control works for Chicago. In fact, the city illustrates how correct the aphorism is that if guns are outlawed, only the outlaws have guns. The law-abiding citizens do not. The Center for Disease Control (CDC), in 2003 thoroughly analyzed fifty-one in-depth studies dealing with gun control. Those studies included everything from the effectiveness of gun bans to laws requiring gun locks. From their objective analysis, they found no discernible effect on public safety by any of the measures we commonly think of as gun control. In 2005, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine conducted a similar analysis of extant gun laws across the country. They arrived at a similar conclusion, as the abstract for their research concludes, that evidence for the effectiveness of a given firearms law on an outcome is insufficient. After reviewing over fifty different gun control laws, and coming to the conclusion that their effectiveness on an outcome is insufficient is euphemism for they had no discernible effect. Some have argued for a so-called assault weapons ban, which would restrict firearms clip size for ammunition, among other things. We had such a federal law on the books from 1994 through 2004. A 2004 University of Pennsylvania study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice to ascertain the effects of the ban, revealed, We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nations recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence. So-called gun free zones obviously dont work either, as Chicago clearly demonstrates, and the very concept is ludicrous. Every shooting in a school is done illegally per federal law (1995 Gun Free School Zones Act). For those intent on inflicting harm, nothings quite so appealing as a gun free zone, for they know all the law-abiding citizens are going to be compliant, giving the perpetrator a veritable shooting gallery to work with, unfettered and undeterred from his mayhem by a legally armed citizen. In short, criminals arent the least deterred by gun free zones, and if anything, theyre likely to consider any signage indicating a gun free zone as a welcome sign. Since gun control doesnt work, lets look at increasing the ability of citizens to protect and defend themselves. Simi Valley, California is consistently listed among the safest of American cities. They have all of Californias gun control laws in force, but locals know it as the home to a lot of police officers from neighboring communities. Nothing like trained and armed homeowners to keep a community virtually crime free. 168

In 1982, Kennesaw, Georgia, witnessing an increase in local crime, did something counterintuitive to the likes of Chicago and New York: they passed an ordinance requiring heads of households, with some exceptions, to own a handgun. Crime dropped precipitously, and has stayed down. So much so, that Family Circle selected the town as one of the ten best in the nation to raise a family in. Our problems with violence and mass shootings have much more to do with cultural and societal issues, mental illness, and a lack of ability on the part of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves. Guns are not the root of the problem. Our nation was brought to its knees eleven years ago by nineteen fanatics armed with box-cutters. The tool of destruction is not the perpetrator; the person using or misusing it is. Gun control has proven impotent in curbing the problem, and gun free zones are absurd, since they practically advertise themselves to be potential venues of mayhem and violence. More gun control is not a solution, but only serves as a Band-Aid to our emotions so we feel like were doing something. The problems are much deeper in our society than Band-Aids can cure.

Seeking Total Security Leads To An Orwellian Sur veillance State

December 29th 2012 By Ron Paul

The senseless and horrific killings earlier this month in Newtown, Connecticut reminded us that a determined individual or group of individuals can cause great harm no matter what laws are in place. Connecticut already has restrictive gun laws relative to other states, including restrictions on semi-automatic, so-called assault rifles and gun-free zones. Predictably, the political left responded to the tragedy with emotional calls for increased gun control. This is understandable, but misguided. The impulse to have government do something to protect us in the wake of national tragedies is reflexive and often well169

intentioned. Many Americans believe that if we simply pass the right laws, future horrors like the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting can be prevented. But this impulse ignores the self evident truth that criminals dont obey laws. The political right, unfortunately, has fallen into the same trap in its calls for quick legislative solutions to gun violence. If only we put armed police or armed teachers in schools, were told, would-be school shooters will be dissuaded or stopped. While I certainly agree that more guns equals less crime and that private gun ownership prevents many shootings, I dont agree that conservatives and libertarians should view government legislation, especially at the federal level, as the solution to violence. Real change can happen only when we commit ourselves to rebuilding civil society in America, meaning a society based on family, religion, civic and social institutions, and peaceful cooperation through markets. We cannot reverse decades of moral and intellectual decline by snapping our fingers and passing laws. Lets not forget that our own government policies often undermine civil society, cheapen life, and encourage immorality. The president and other government officials denounce school violence, yet still advocate for endless undeclared wars abroad and easy abortion at home. U.S. drone strikes kill thousands, but nobody in America holds vigils or devotes much news coverage to those victims, many of whom are children, albeit of a different color. Obviously, I dont want to conflate complex issues of foreign policy and war with the Sandy Hook shooting; but it is important to make the broader point that our federal government has zero moral authority to legislate against violence. Furthermore, do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, metal detectors, X-ray scanners, and warrantless physical searches? We see this culture in our airports: witness the shabby spectacle of once-proud, happy Americans shuffling through long lines while uniformed TSA agents bark orders. This is the world of government provided security, a world far too many Americans now seem to accept or even endorse. School shootings, no matter how horrific, do not justify creating an Orwellian surveillance state in America. Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security? Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal because it would require total state control over its citizens lives. We shouldnt settle for substituting one type of violence for another. Governments role is to protect liberty, not to pursue unobtainable safety. Our freedoms as Americans preceded gun control laws, the TSA, and the Department of Homeland Security. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference, not by safety. It is easy to clamor for government security when terrible things happen; but liberty is given true meaning when we support it without exception, and we will be safer for it.

170

Legislators: Taxing Ammo into Oblivion Might Be Easier Than Ridding the Country of Guns
December 30th 2012

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Thomas Jefferson

The late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once proposed taxing a particularly lethal bullet by 10,000%. It didnt go anywhere but the idea of taxing ammo keeps coming back. It was recently discussed as part of the UN Arms Trade Treaty but was rejected by the US administration. Some legislators are now seeing the implausibility of ridding the country of 300 million guns and are coming to the conclusion that it would be easier to tax ammo into oblivion. 171

Sen. Beth Bye, D-West Hartford, and Rep. Bob Godfrey, D-Danbury said that constituents are urging stringent gun and ammo regulations in the wake of the Newtown massacre. They came up with proposals to limit access to high powered weapons and ammunition. One proposal would place a 50% tax on bullets. We tax cigarettes and alcohol even though a lot of people dont get sick and die from them. It seems like a bullet is at least as dangerous as a cigarette, Bye said. Bye said it would be like the cigarette tax and would only apply to ammo not used at target ranges because they only become a threat once they are out of a controlled setting. If their only goal is to put Connecticut gun dealers out of business, this should prove effective. Everything liberals dont like, they tax. Lets tax their violent movies and video games instead. Bye claims they will look at mental health issues but it seems like its an aside in her mind when it should be the focus. Connecticut already has the fifth strictest gun laws. In Illinois, the taxing of ammo is getting attention. Rep. Kelly Cassidy, D-Chicago, has proposed a new 2% tax on ammo. It is just a tax, he said. Cook County Board President Preckwinkle wants to place a violence tax on guns and ammo. Obamas record on gun control is that of a big government guy who wants total control over gun rights. He consistently states that he believes in the Second Amendment but he also believes in complete government control over how gun rights are implemented. On Dec. 13, 1999, former Chicago Defender staff writer Chinta Strausberg, wrote an article headlined Obama unveils federal gun bill, in which he reported that then Illinois state Sen. Obama, who was running for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, proposed to increase the federal taxes by 500% on the sale of handgun ammunition weapons he says are most commonly used in firearm deaths. Then-senator Obama never put through any legislation taxing ammo According to Strausbergs report, the proposal was made at an anti-gun rally held at the Park Manor Christian Church, 600 E. 73rd St., headed by the Rev. James Demus. Also in the report, Obama is said to have proposed charging a gun owner with a felony if the owners firearm was stolen from his residence and caused harm to another person provided that weapon was not securely stored in that home. This proposal coincides with his opposition to the self-defense exemption when he was a state senator. As a state senator, Barack Obama opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if they violated any handgun ban in using their weapon inside their home. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. Supporters said the fundamental question was whether homeowners have the right to selfdefense. Obama and several Chicago Democrats believed a law with a self-defense exception could open loopholes that let gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became Illinois state law. 172

Obama has opposed concealed carry since his days in the state senate. He told the Pittsburgh Tribune in 2008, I am not in favor of concealed weapons, Obama said. I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations. He did, however, support retired police officers maintaining the right to concealed carry. President Obama has not always been honest when talking gun control. Click here for a video in which Barack Obama lies about his support of the DC gun ban. As senator, Obama voted to ban almost all centerfire ammunition and he supported frivolous lawsuits against firearms manufacturers. [via redstate] It is hard to know what Obama means when he says he wants sensible gun laws, because he is often nonspecific, but it appears that he is a big government guy who wants total and airtight government control over gun rights. Eric Holders anti-gun stance in this CNN video might provide us with a hint as to which way Barack Obama will go with his commission.

CNN- Obama To BAN Guns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL5A32FE52C159E2A4&v=vKfL2ETnF8&feature=player_embedded Interestingly, it was Holders justice department that allowed thousands of assault rifles to be bought by Mexican cartels, the same assault rifles Obama and Holder strongly oppose. WORLDNETDAILY- Next step? No guns allowed for right-wing 'extremists' http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=97491 House Bill Aims to Strip Rightwing Extremists of Second Amendment Right http://www.infowars.com/house-bill-aims-to-strip-rightwing-extremists-of-seco... "This year will go down in history! For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration! Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" Adolf Hitler, circa1935 "Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."-Sarah Brady CNN-Obama: Gov can Take your Rights and Guns http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9GFgm9kE7Y Proposed Law May Allow Obama ATTORNEY GENERAL Holder to Ban Guns at Will http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/proposed-law-may-allow-obama-ag-holder-... Obama on Registering ALL Law-Abiding Gun Owners (Like Criminals) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoqNYC7yzE4 Rahm Emanuel Speaks at the Brady Center (Gun Control is "#1 Issue") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an8Moh3xuUs 173

Biden thinks gun owner should have his head examined-Gun Owners are crazy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9aIb-IplqY (Article)Anti-gun Obama takes off the mask! http://defmech.blogivists.com/2008/11/08/anti-gun-obama-takes-off-the-mask/ Obama And The Second Amendment http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifEg1aq6Emo Alex Jones 1/2/09 Obama Gun Ban Pt.3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZEVdYn21UBc Why Gun Owners Fear Obama http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXegQ-pboac http://www.gunbanobama.com/

Gun ban' utopia creates violent crime increase http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/firearms/control/ukutopia.html

The Assault Weapons Ban Didnt Work Then and It Wont Work Now
December 31st 2012 By Doug Giles

Senator Dianne Feinstein is queuing up come January 2013 to retable-yet again-an Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in order to severely mitigate the possibilities of another Sandy Hook atrocity. Great idea, Dianne, as the first AWB that Clinton signed into law worked wonders in schools from 1994-2004. It was awesome. It panned out wonderfully aside from the following: November 7, 1994: Wickliffe, Ohio: (Wickliffe Middle School shooting) Keith Ledeger, 37, a former student at the school, shot and killed custodian Pete Christopher and wounded four other adults. January 12, 1995: Seattle, Washington: A 15-year-old Garfield High School student left school during the day and returned with his grandfathers 9mm semiautomatic handgun. He wounded two students. October 12, 1995: Blackville, South Carolina: (Blackville-Hilda High School shooting) Anthony Sincino, 16, killed one teacher and wounded another before committing suicide.

174

November 15, 1995: Lynnville, Tennessee: (Richland High School shooting) James Rouse, 17, killed a student and teacher and seriously wounded another teacher with a .22-caliber rifle. February 2, 1996: Moses Lake, Washington: (Frontier Middle School shooting) Barry Loukaitis, 14, killed a teacher and two students and wounded another student when he opened fire on his algebra class. August 15, 1996: San Diego, California: (San Diego State University shooting) Frederick Martin Davidson, a 36-year-old graduate student killed three professors that he believed were involved in a conspiracy against him. September 17, 1996: State College, Pennsylvania: (Hetzel Union Building shooting) Jillian Robbins, 19, shoots and kills one student and injures two outside. February 19, 1997: Bethel, Alaska: Bethel Regional High School student Evan Ramsey, 16, shot and killed the schools principal and one student, and wounded two other students. October 1, 1997: Pearl, Mississippi: (Pearl High School shooting) Luke Woodham, 16, murdered his mother at home before killing his ex-girlfriend and another student and wounding seven others at Pearl High School. He and his friends were said to be outcasts who worshiped Satan. November 27, 1997: West Palm Beach, Florida: Conniston Middle School student Tronneal Magnum, 14, fatally shot Johnpierre Kamel, 14, outside school after an argument over a wristwatch. December 1, 1997: West Paducah, Kentucky: (Heath High School shooting) Three students were killed and five wounded by Michael Carneal, 14, as they participated in a prayer circle. December 15, 1997: Stamps, Arkansas: Joseph Colt Todd, 14, concealed in a wooded area on school grounds, shoots and wounds two students as they were entering Stamps High School. March 24, 1998: Craighead County, Arkansas: Mitchell Johnson, 13, and Andrew Golden, 11, killed four students and one teacher and wounded ten others as Westside Middle School emptied during a fire alarm intentionally set off by Golden. April 24, 1998: Edinboro, Pennsylvania (Parker Middle School dance shooting) Andrew Wurst, 14, fatally shot teacher John Gillette, 48, and wounded two students and a teacher at an 8th grade graduation dance. May 19, 1998: Fayetteville, Tennessee: Jacob Davis, 18, shoots Robert Creson, 18, in a dispute over a girl. May 21, 1998: Springfield, Oregon: After killing his parents at home, Kip Kinkel, 15, drove to Thurston High School where he shot and killed two students and wounded 25 others. June 15, 1998: Richmond, Virginia: A 14-year-old student of Armstrong High School wounds a teacher and a school volunteer. December 10, 1998: Detroit, Michigan: Professor Andrzej Olbrot is killed by graduate student Wlodzimierz Dedecjus, 48. April 20, 1999: Littleton, Colorado: (Columbine High School massacre) Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, killed 12 students and one teacher, and wounded 21 others before committing suicide at Columbine High School. May 20, 1999: Conyers, Georgia: (Heritage High School shooting) Six students injured by Thomas Solomon Jr., 15. November 19, 1999: Deming, New Mexico: A 13-year-old girl fatally shot at Deming Middle School by Victor Cordova Jr., 13. Cordova stated he had intended to commit suicide but was jostled by others and the gun moved. 175

February 29, 2000: Elementary School, Flint, Michigan: 6-year-old Dedrick Owens, youngest-ever school shooter. Kayla Rolland was the single fatality. May 26, 2000: Lake Worth, Florida: Lake Worth Middle School Florida teacher Barry Grunow was fatally shot by his student, 13-year-old Nathaniel Brazill, who had returned to school after being sent home at 1 p.m. by the assistant principal for throwing water balloons. Brazill returned to school on his bike with a 5-inch Raven and four bullets stolen from his grandfather the week before. Brazill was an honor student. Grunow was a popular teacher and Brazills favorite. August 28, 2000: University of Arkansas shooting at Fayetteville, Arkansas: At approximately 12:14 pm, Dr. John R. Locke, 67, Director of the Comparative Literature Program was shot and killed in his office by James E. Kelly, 36, a Comparative Literature PhD candidate who had recently been dismissed from the program for lack of progress toward his degree. Kelly shot Dr. Locke three times before taking his own life in Dr. Lockes office after it was cordoned off by campus police. September 26, 2000: Darrel Johnson, 13, offender in Louisiana school shooting with 1 student fatality. March 5, 2001: Charles Andrew William, age 15, offender in California school shooting at Santana High School, 15 wounded 2 of whom died. March 30, 2001: Donald R. Burt Jr., age 18, offender in Indiana school shooting with 1 student fatality. September 24, 2003: John Jason McLaughlin, age 15, offender in Minnesota school shooting with 2 student fatalities. February 2, 2004: Unidentified offender in Washington, DC school shooting with 1 student fatality. May 7, 2004: Unidentified 17-year-old offender in Maryland school shooting with 1 student fatality.

And thats excluding the Fairchild Air Force Base Massacre in 1994; the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building Massacre in 1995; the Caltrans Maintenance Yard Massacre in 1997; the Connecticut State Lottery Headquarters Massacre in 1998; the Wedgewood Baptist Church Massacre of 1999; the Xerox Office Building Massacre in 1999; the Edgewater Technology Office Massacre in 2000; and the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks which killed nearly 3,000 people (in which the culprits used box cutters and airplanes to pull that one off). We should have had an Assault Box Cutter and Airplane Ban in place I guess. Yep, excluding the aforementioned, the AWB that the Left put into practice nearly two decades ago really mitigated murderous schoolyard and workplace evil for its ten-year run, right? Ah, who am I kidding? The Assault Weapons Ban didnt work. School shootings shot through the roof, and lo and behold killers still found a way around the uber-strict regulations to carry out their death wishes with an assortment of weapons. Yep, correct me if Im wrong, but I believe the biggest spike in school shootings in our nations short history occurred during the initial AWB. Google it and get back to me. Oh, and another thing according to a comprehensive Congressional Research Service report on guns and gun control legislation: Less than 2% of 203,300 state and federal prisoners who were armed during the crime for which they were incarcerated used, carried, or possessed a semiautomatic assault weapon. If the hooligans did use a gun it was mostly your normal, non-funky firearm, i.e. mostly hunting guns and non-assault weapons. But we can rest assured that the Progressives would never come after our Remington 870s and our revolvers (because they promised). Never. Ever. Ever. 176

In addition to the AWB not really stemming the tide of gun violence in the public school systems, it sure didnt calm things down in the gun-free Windy City, as Chi-town racked up a whopping 7,636 murders during the Clinton ban. Speaking of Chicago, this year alone 446 kids have been shot where guns have been verboten, and just this week Chicago hit 500 murders that have now occurred in the gun free Toddlin Town for 2012.

It appears as if our former AWB and our current gun free zones dont work.

MOLON LABE!!! Come and Get Them

December 30th 2012

Two simple Greek words of defiance, MOLON LABE or , echo through the ages to Americans here and now , thousands of years after the Battle of Thermopylae. These two words signify the refusal to simply roll over and submit to the demands of a tyrant with overwhelming force at his disposal demanding free people to lay down their arms. Through out human history there is example after example of Citizens exhibiting extraordinary courage in the face of overwhelming force and superior technology to fight for and if necessary die for their freedom and the freedom of future generations. When King Xerxes swept across the European Continent on his quest for World Domination, he encountered such iron willed determination and irrepressible spirit of resistance in Leonidas and the Spartans defending Greece. Xerxes demanded the Greeks lay down their arms in submission and subservience to him. The response from Leonidas and the Spartans was simple, MOLON LABE! Greek for Come and get them!. Outnumbered 300 to 1, and facing certain annihilation before the one million 177

soldiers of Xerxes Army, the Spartans stood defiant willing and prepared to sacrifice their very lives in a stand against tyranny and oppression. Though every one of the Spartans, including their leader Leonidas was killed during the Battle of Thermopylae, they exacted such a terrible price from Xerxes troops that they lost all taste for any more fighting. The same spirit of resistance in the face of overwhelming force and tyranny gave birth to the United States. It was repeated again during WW II by a tiny band of innocent Jews in the Warsaw Ghettos of Poland who, heavily outnumbered, starving and poorly armed held off more then a company of the most fearsome troops in Hitlers war machine, the SS and Wehrmacht for over a month. It was repeated yet again in Afghanistan in the 1980s, when simple villagers and farmers took up 100 year old rifles to fight the Soviet Army.

Two well known axioms apply to the current fight over the issue of gun control in the United States. History repeats itself and Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it . Given the statements and press releases coming from the Offices of the usual suspects in Congress regarding new gun control measures, it seems neither lesson is being heeded. Comments and proposed Legislation by Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, Barbara Boxer , Carolyn McCarthy and NY Democrat John Adler reveal their ignorance of history and what has happened time and time again whenever tyrannical forces raise their heads and seek to disarm Citizens. And so it would seem that the lesson must be taught once more, at the cost of enormous bloodshed on both sides. Those so called leaders in Government are so helplessly out of touch, so swollen with undeserved and unearned hubris that they cannot conceive of any possible resistance to their insidious plot. They cannot bring themselves to begin to understand that millions of American Citizens will NOT comply with their unconstitutional and dictatorial demands to disarm, Congressman Adler was actually quoted as saying as much, that he felt it was insane to even consider the possibility that Americans would be willing to shoot other Americans over new, draconian gun restrictions. They are so out of touch, so in love with their own power and willingness to abuse that power against those they claim to serve that they are apparently quite willing to sacrifice innumerable lives of Citizens on the altar of their Anti Gun Ideology. We are treading dangerously close to 100 more Waco Massacres and Ruby Ridge assassinations if Congress refuses to learn from history, refuses to listen to the Citizens that are their bosses and pull back from their gun banning scheme. You can only push people so far before they push back, and Feinstein and her cronies at the Federal and State level seem single-mindedly determined to shove as hard as they can. What they cant comprehend is the blowback that is a certain reaction. There are MILLIONS of Americans who have simply had enough of elite rulers ordering them around, violating their Oaths and chipping away at our freedoms and rights under one false 178

pretext after another. If cooler heads in Congress dont prevail in the coming weeks of the debate on gun control, it is a virtual certainty that there will be bloodshed on both sides. Thermopylae, Hastings, Lexington, Concord, Warsaw, the Hindu Kush, all of these locations scattered around the globe have at one time or another born witness to mans indomitable spirit of resistance to tyranny. No one yet knows what the next location will be, Dallas? Cheyenne? Atlanta? Green Bay? , but rest assured, if Congress falls for the pied piper tune of Feinstein and others on gun control, the list of places where freedom stood toe to toe against tyranny will certainly grow several pages longer. Feinstein and others on gun control, the list of places where freedom stood toe to toe against tyranny will certainly grow several pages longer. And the defiant cries of MOLON LABE will once again echo through the air around the Country, as free Citizens once again display superhuman courage and bravery in the face of tyranny and oppression and willingly give up their lives in defense of freedom for future generations.

Gun Opponents Should Learn What The Founders Meant When They Wrote The 2nd Amendment
January 1st 2013

Every individual with a sense of humanity detests seeing families destroyed, innocent children sacrificed, and promising lives snuffed out, as witnessed at Sandy Hook School. The argument that reducing the number of guns will produce a safer society beguiles the public, promotes politicians, and fails to hold the perpetrator accountable for their actions. Disarming innocent people does not make innocent people safer. Yet, the mob is even willing to punishing innocent people for the acts of the wicked.

179

While gun rights supporters assert that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as found in the Second Amendment of our Constitution, is an individual right like the freedom of speech or religion, and has been supported by the Supreme Court of our nation. Gun opponents assert that the right pertains only to collective bodies such as the militia, the military, police or National Guard. The Washington Post asserts, as a gun opponent, that The sale, manufacture, and possession of handguns ought to be bannedWe do not believe the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep them.1 Believing that our Constitution offers no protection for individual gun ownership, gun opponents therefore encourage efforts to restrict or ban citizens access to firearms, particularly handguns. Even United States Senator Diane Feinstein, (D-CA) in her forthcoming legislation is planning to outlaw 120 firearms.2 These opponents to our Second Amendment frequently utilize highly-publicized, tragic instances of violence (such as the Sandy Hook School shooting, the theater shooting in Colorado, etc.) to fortify their argument that guns should be left only in the hands of professionals. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a supporter of Senator Feinstein, has stated The individuals right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected.3 Cabinet Secretary of Education Arne Duncan prefers to abandon our Constitution, stating in a speech given at a Washington DC elementary school that We have common values that go far beyond the Constitutional right to bear arms.4 The Founding Fathers of this nation understood that there exists inalienable rights that individuals possess and that our American government was formed with the sole purpose of defending and protecting those individual inalienable rights. Among civil societies this concept of safeguarding individual inalienable rights as the purpose of government is solely unique to our nation. The Second Amendment is one of those inalienable rights the Founding Fathers demanded of the government they created, embodied in our Constitution; and our office holders all take an oath to protect and defend. Opponents will twist the Founders original intent to argue that they never intended to allow citizens to be armed with semi-automatic rifles. The fact is that a common error in constitutional interpretation is the failure to examine a document according to its original meaning. James Wilson, one of only six founders who signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, was nominated by President George Washington as an original Justice on the Supreme Court, exhorted: The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.5 Justice Joseph Story (appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison) also emphasized this principle, declaring: The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all documents is to construe them according to the sense of the terms and the intention of the parties.6

180

At the time it was framed, the Second Amendment was a certification to protect what was frequently called the first law of nature the right of self-protection an inalienable right; a right guaranteed to every citizen individually. To understanding the import of the Second Amendments intention to secure an individuals inalienable right to keep and bear arms, it is important to establish the source of inalienable rights constitutionally. Constitution signer John Dickenson, like many of the others in his day, defined an inalienable right as a right which God gave to you and which no inferior power has a right to take away.7 Our Founders believed that it was the duty of government (an inferior power) to protect inalienable rights from encroachment or usurpation. This was made clear by Justice Wilson, while a serving Justice on the Supreme Court, to his law students that the specific protections found in our government documents did not create new rights but rather secured old rights that our documents were merely to acquire a new security for the possession or the recovery of those rights which we were previously entitled by the immediate gift or by the unerring law of our all-wise and all-beneficent Creator.8 Justice Wilson asserted that every government which has not this in view as its principal object is not a government of the legitimate kind. 9 The Founders of this nation understood the source of inalienable rights is never from government. When Government grants rights, government can remove those rights. They understood that self-defense is an inalienable personal right, and the Second Amendment simply assures each citizen that they have the tools necessary to defend their life, family, or property from aggression, whether from an individual or a government.

181

Top 10 Events that Prove Obama Planned Gun Control Long Before Newtown Tragedy
January 1st 2013 By Aaron Dykes infowars.com

Numerous Events Throughout President Obamas First Term Have Been Patently Exploited to Destroy the Second Amendment Under the Radar

It should be painfully obvious that the gun grabbers including the likes of President Obama, Senator Dianne Feinstein and Vice President Joe Biden, among many others are not responding to the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting alone, but are using that terrible tragedy to implement a gun control agenda they have long ago planned, waiting for the right timing to achieve their aims. Rahm Emanuel, Obamas first Chief of Staff, famously said You never want to a serious crisis go to waste. What I mean by that, is its an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before. 182

It is a simplification of the problem-reaction-solution formula for control that was formally expressed in the Hegelian Dialectic well over a century ago. It has not only been the unofficial motto of the Obama Administration, but of all the tyrants operating from the Oval Office and around the world for some time. It has been clear for sometime that the Obama Administration planned all along to achieve significant gun control, but planned to do so under the radar and in his second, (nearly) unaccountable term, where the President does not face re-election or the worry of alienating voters, when he can essentially act as a dictator without even the need for congressional approval. Heres a round-up of the Top Ten covert actions taken by the Obama Administration to pursue its gun control agenda during his first term in office, in approximate chronological order to demonstrate a timeline, all building up to the crescendo we are now witnessing: 1. Rahm Emanuel tells Attorney General Eric Holder to STFU on gun control in January 2009, at the start of Obamas first term. Very early on in Obamas first term, Attorney General Eric Holder publicly announced that the administration would pursue a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban passed during the Clinton Administration, but which expired in 2004. ABC News Jake Tapper reported that in February 2009, then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel became furious at Holders public statements, which had riled up the pro-gun lobby. For example, Sen. Max Baucus issued a press release in response, entitled: Senators to Attorney General: Stay Away from Our Guns. According to Tapper: Emanuel was furious. He slammed his desk and cursed the attorney general. Holder was only repeating a position Obama had expressed during the campaign, but that was before the White House needed the backing of pro-gun Democrats from red states for their domestic agenda. The chief of staff sent word to Justice that Holder needed to shut the fuck up on guns Clearly, the plan was to remain under the radar on gun legislation. 2. Covert Fast and Furious Program Begins to Demonize Assault Weapons, Second Amendment Revelations about Fast and Furious have become part of an ongoing saga all of its own, but it is abundantly clear that the ATF, the Department of Justice and other agencies willingly walked thousands of guns into the hands of Mexican drug cartels early on in the Obama Administration in order to later blame the horrendous effects of the illegal flow of weapons south of the border, and build support for gun restrictions. Investigations in the House have made clear that Attorney General Eric Holder has been less than forthcoming about what and when he knew about the program. During testimony on May 3, 2011, Holder told the Judiciary Committee he had probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks. CBS News, among others, have produced documents proving Holder was briefed as early as July 2010. Rep. Issa threatened to find Holder in contempt, though no meaningful action has yet taken place. 3. New ATF regulations demand southern Border States succumb to greater reporting requirements; purchases of more than two semi-auto weapons more heavily regulated 183

On January 6, 2011, Reuters reported that the White House was lamenting over delays in new regulations for Border States (curiously two days before the tragic Tucson shooting). Reuters wrote: A planned Obama administration clampdown on Mexico border gun dealers which would require them to report multiple assault rifle sales has been delayed by the White House amid stiff opposition from the powerful gun lobby. By July of 2011, those new restrictions went into place via policies and regulations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). At least one gun store in Albuquerque tried to challenge the new federal requirement that more than 8,000 dealers in Texas, Arizona, California, and New Mexico must report on the sale of multiple semi-automatic weapons. Undoubtedly, the pretext was based upon the government-staged Fast and Furious flow of weapons southbound, but aided by the hysteria over the mass shootings in Tucson, located in one of the affected Border States. 4. Exploiting the Tragic Shooting by Jared Lee Loughner and Attempted Assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords The tragic January 8, 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona undoubtedly shocked the nation. Jared Lee Loughner was accused of shooting nineteen people including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, while killing six. While many questions were raised about the alleged killer Loughner, a possible second shooter (or handler) and other unusual aspects of the case, the media and the White House undoubtedly exploited the case immediately to support, if not outright push for, gun control legislation. The day after the shooting, USA Today published an article entitled, Debate on gun control heats up after Giffords shooting stating in part: Gun laws have to be examined, Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Arizona, said Sunday on NBCs Meet the Press. He said that doesnt mean denying guns but reviewing how they become accessible. The likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center and Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik blamed the rhetoric of the radical right-wing, while the political establishment overtly called for bipartisanship and moves to tone down heated political speech. The post-shooting rhetoric became so shrill that many pundits demonized the mere act of questioning government in the spirit of pulling together in the wake of tragedy, somehow placing collective blame on the entire country for the horrendous actions of one individual. Gun control advocates demanded that Obama use the tragedy to push for new firearms legislation, but the calculating Obama Administration knew it was not the right time for overt moves. President Obama did use a memorial service as a stump speech for re-election and a handy bounce in the polls, but resisted the urge to advocate changes on the 2nd Amendment. 5. Obama Tells the Brady Center Hell Attack 2nd Amendment Under the Radar During a March 30, 2011 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady of the Brady Center and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, President Obama reportedly told the Bradys I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control).We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar. This was interpreted at the time to reflect the use of Fast and Furious to steer the gun control debate, but clearly encompasses the coordinated, deliberate exploitation of numerous shooting tragedies, as we have all seen. 6. ATF Tried To Ban Importation of Most Shotguns 184

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms attempted to ban the importation of all shotguns that didnt meet a sporting purpose. In doing so, it attempted to block shotguns that hold more than 5 rounds. According to the Greeley Gazette: The ATF completed a study regarding the importability of certain shotguns. The basis for a possible ban is based on a loosely defined Sporting Purpose test. Using the vague definition almost all pump-action and semi-automatic shotguns could be banned as they are all capable of accepting a magazine, box or tube capable of holding more than 5 rounds. Other characteristics determined to be military by the ATF can also be used as a basis for a ban. However, the NRA reported in November of 2011 that this attempt had been blocked in Congress via an appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2012. The bill prevents the federal government from using any funds to prohibit the importation of shotguns with one or more features disliked by the Agency, such as adjustable stocks, extended magazine tubes, etc. as well as from many other actions. However, Ammoland and other Second Amendment advocates point out that the attempt to block the importation of certain shotguns only solidifies the already clear anti-gun agenda of the Obama Administration. 7. Attacking Self-Defense Laws Via the Trayvon Martin Shooting The February 26, 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin sparked a huge controversy over the rights of self defense. While the intentions of Trayvon Martin and the judgment of George Zimmerman may never be fully clear, and the unjustified death of anyone is always a tragedy, the media carried out a deliberate misinformation campaign from the beginning to inflame public debate, agitate lines of racial division and stir the pot for gun control. The primary image of Trayvon Martin shown on television in the wake of the shooting was of a younger Trayvon, heightening the perception of a predatory and targeted killing. Meanwhile, phony racial groups on all sides ramped up the divisive debate over the case with the new Black Panther party demanding blood on the streets in recorded statements, and false reports of supposed neo-Nazi groups taking to the streets of Florida. But more than that, the case sparked fresh debate over gun control, with major outlets like the Christian Science Monitor asking if it was a turning point in gun rights debate? while observing that so far, Trayvons death is having the biggest impact on the national gun policy debate. The debate technically centered around Floridas Stand Your Ground law, but clearly always had national dimensions. President Obama shamelessly exploited the Trayvon Martin shooting, famously stating that If I had a son, hed look like Trayvon, further drawing the identity politics of race into the situation, while one member of Congress wore a hoodie on the floor to decry the shooting. Obama added in his speech after the Trayvon shooting that, All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happen. Did he mean to indicate gun control in that statement? 185

8. Exploitation of the Batman shooting massacre While the other cited events exhibit the Obama Administrations ramped up approach to gun control, the response to the tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado during the premiere of the Batman film The Dark Knight Rises, clearly marked the dawn of Obamas all out rush for playing public sympathy to achieve his ambitious and unconstitutional agenda. The shooting itself remains mired in troubling unanswered questions, including reports of a second shooting suspect, reports that the theater exit door was opened to let a shooter in, revelations about accused shooter James Holmes ties and involvement in mind control research programs, his bizarre behavior while in jail, his unlikely arsenal and much more. But as troubling as the shooting that killed 12 and injured 58 others in Aurora is, the response by the establishment to demand in a coordinated fashion that Obama enact gun control as a response to the actions of a supposed lone wolf is more frightening. TIME magazine slammed Obama for missing an opportunity by not using the Batman massacre to push for gun control while New York mayor Michael Bloomberg demanded action from the presidential candidates on firearms:

I mean, there are so many murders with guns every day, Bloomberg continued. Its just got to stop. And instead of these two people, President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney talking in broad things about, they want to make the world a better place. OK, tell us how. And this is a problem. No matter where you stand on the Second Amendment, no matter where you stand on guns, we have a right to hear from both of them, concretely, not just in generalities, specifically, what are they going to do about guns? Meanwhile, many in the media, including NBCs David Gregory (now calling for gun control in the wake of Newtown), recycled blame on the angry political discourse in the country. The media undoubtedly greased the skids for new gun control in the wake of the horrific Batman massacre, giving President Obama the opportunity to refuse action again as Caesar refused the crown of emperor three times in Shakespeares play before repeated injury gave him no other choice but to take action. 9. Obama unabashedly admits his intention to reintroduce assault weapons ban during debate with Mitt Romney President Obama had already been outed as an anti-gun president, after all, he had already been cynically dubbed gun salesman of the year after sparking waves of record firearm sales based on fears that he would restrict the Second Amendment during his second term. But his performance during the second televised debate with Mitt Romney left no doubt. Obama openly declared his intention to reinstate an assault weapons ban during his second term, while further blaming handgun violence in Chicago. President Obama then reiterated his support for that renewed assault weapons ban following the tragic Connecticut school shooting, knowing the dazed public would have little memory of his calls for the ban on the campaign trail. 186

Meanwhile, Senator Dianne Feinstein was meeting privately with the ATF prior to the election to discuss the possibilities for new gun control legislation. To enact it, these gun grabbers needed only await the perfect crisis at the right time to exploit it and gain ground for their unconstitutional policies. 10. Bob Costas Called for Gun Control After NFL Players Murder-Suicide Our memory as a society is so short under the current frenzy surrounding the tragic Newtown, Connecticut shootings that many have already forgotten about NBC sports reporter Bob Costas very public cries for gun control, though they were very loud. After quoting from sportswriter Jason Whitlock, Bob Costas went on in the days to follow stating that young men cant own guns without something bad happening. Obviously this list is not comprehensive. There have been many other significant actions to restrict the Second Amendment by stealth, including Sen. Schumers attempt to legislatively prevent veterans (and others) diagnosed with PTSD or other mental illnesses from owning guns. (New definitions of mental disorders are quite sweeping, and threaten to cast a wide net that will indeed infringe upon rights meant to be guaranteed.) There is also the significant moves towards supporting the United Nations controversial Small Arms Treaty that many fear will be used to restrict the Second Amendment, particularly in the areas of import & export. Though negotiations last summer failed, the treaty will be revived for negotiations and is anything but dead. But the point is sufficiently made government could not respond to tragedy so quickly with legislative solutions if they werent already preparing them. And no president could garner support for such unconstitutional measures without first priming the population with heavy media propaganda saturated with the sadness of tragedy, with dead children and innocent victims and the cries from others demanding that President Obama finally take action and do something. CASES YOU NEVER HEARD ABOUT WHERE GUNS SAVED LIVES But just as telling as Obama & Co.s significant actions to undermine the Second Amendment by exploiting tragedy are the are the countless incidents where guns were used to stop crimes altogether, or to stop mass shootings before they got worse, but were never driven into the national spotlight. Generally speaking, these incidents were NOT exploited in the corporate news media despite the fact that they were both dramatic and newsworthy. Just a handful that come to mind include the 65-year-old woman who stopped 5 armed robbers in a jewelry store, the 22-year-old concealed carry permit holder who pulled his weapon on a mall shooter earlier this month without shooting, stopping the killers murder rampage and causing him to commit suicide, the 71-year-old concealed carry holder who fired on two armed robbers at an online gaming cafe in Florida and sent them quickly fleeing the scene for their lives. In countless cases across the country, home invaders are shot or stopped by gun owners, including numerous children whove used assault rifles to stop criminals in their tracks. Robberies at small businesses are routinely stopped by armed employees, owners or even customers, but the cases rarely make big news. 187

A CATO Institute study released earlier this year found that tens of thousands of crimes are prevented each year by ordinary citizens with guns, with this number just based on a round up of local news reports of incidents. A multitude of other crimes are likely deterred each year just by display or declaration of arms by potential or would-be victims and/or bystanders, though most of these incidents are never officially reported. The NRA has estimated that firearms are implemented for protection at least two million times a year, stating that the presence of a firearm, without a shot being fired, prevents crime in many instances. Gun Owners of America estimate that number at 2.5 million times per year, while the generally anti-gun Clinton Justice Department, who presided over the first Assault Weapons Ban, admitted that at least 1.5 million crimes are stopped per year due to armed citizens. Without argument, guns are controversial tools which have deadly potential when used by humans with that intent. However, self-defense, protection of property and staving off tyrannical government is the very point of bearing arms, guaranteed under the 2nd Amendment. But those who wish to control populations by restricting access to guns (and finalizing a change in the balance of power between illegitimate government and its people) would have you believe that banning firearms will prevent crime and banish evil. Unfortunately, history shows that this is beyond dangerously naive, while academics in the study of Democide have made clear that despotic governments in the arena with helpless, disarmed populations are the greatest cause of unnatural death, killing more than 260 million people in the 20th Century alone.

Could Obama's War On Guns Become WAR? Harsh Warning From Oathkeepers Founder!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og45MkhLo-E&feature=player_embedded

Published on Jan 6, 2013 As governments from D.C. to Local move to strip American's of their freedom and their protection, Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oathkeepers, has a very strong warning as to where this may lead. 188

Report: 532 Murdered In Gun-Outlawed Chicago During 2012 2,670 People Shot
January 1st 2013 INCLUDEPICTURE "http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/chicagopd-550x366.jpg" \*

MERGEFORMAT

Just another 1 of the 532 Murder Crime Scenes with Hand Gun in Chicago
In 2012, 532 people were murdered in the city of Chicago, according to statistics compiled by the Crime in Chicago website. The number of people murdered the year before was 441, meaning in the city of Chicago, murders have increased by 91 from 2011 to 2012. The Chicago Police Department was not available to confirm these numbers today, which is New Year's Day. The website also claims that, through December 25, 2012, there 2,670 people were shot in Chicago last year. That's also an increase from the year before, when 2,217 people were shot in Chicago that year. 189

In all, it means that on average almost 1.5 people were murdered in Chicago each day last year, while on average 7.3 people were shot each day. Official numbers from the city of Chicago appear to be a tad bit lower, however. Last week Chicago marked its 500 homicide this year. "The city has seen its 500th homicide for 2012, a tragic number that is reflective of the gang violence and proliferation of illegal guns that have plagued some of our neighborhoods," said Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy in a statement last week. "Every homicide in Chicago is unacceptable to me and the hardworking men and women of the Chicago Police Department, who, this year, achieved a record drop in overall crime throughout our city." The mayor of Chicago is Rahm Emanuel, who came into office in 2011.

Exposing The Lefts Demonizing Of The Modern Musket: Real Numbers Of Violent Crime In The US
January 2nd 2013 By Tim Brown With all of the calls for more gun control, I ran across some very interesting information that I want to share with you regarding the true statistics of violent crime in the United States. I think you will be shocked, or at least most will be at the real numbers. These are those kinds of numbers that were referenced by the likes of Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt when he slammed CNNs Piers Morgan recently. Often when numbers are thrown out by talking heads and politicians with an agenda they never cite their sources and if they ever do, usually the source has a particular agenda of their own. So, lets ask what our own Federal Bureau of Investigations say about violent crime in America. First, take a look at The FBIs Uniform Crime Reports. These reports have been put out every year for a while now and you can reference back to 1995 on the current page. Take a look at the 2011 report on Crime in the United States: HYPERLINK "http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/01/pulling-back-the-lefts-demonizing-of-themodern-musket-real-numbers-of-violent-crime-in-the-us/table-1/" INCLUDEPICTURE "http://freedomoutpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/table-1.jpg" \* MERGEFORMAT

190

Table 1 Notice that in 1992 the United States had a violent crime rate of 757.7 per 100,000. The murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate was 9.3 per 100,000. When you consider the numbers, we are talking an extremely small percentage. Nearly 20 years later, would you think that the United States violent crime has increased or decreased, especially in light of the fact that there are hundreds of millions of guns in our country? If you said increased, you are wrong, dead wrong. In 2011, the same reports shows that the violent crime rate has dropped to half of what it was in 1992. The violent crime rate reported in 2011 was 386.3 per 100,000. How about that murder rate? Same thing. It dropped nearly fifty percent as well to 4.7 per 100,000. So why are the politicians and media types like Piers Morgan pushing a fear agenda on the American people? Why is there no one taking credit for a 50% reduction in violent crime in America? I would think it is because the politicians have become politically correct and dont want to actually have to deal with particular segments of the population, calling them out as the major troublemakers and instigators of violent criminal activity. So lets take a look at where the violent crime we are seeing is coming from. Table 16 of the FBIs CIUS report for 2011 indicates where the trouble spots are. 191

Table 16 If you will notice, in metropolitan areas, where the population is greater than 250,000 the violent crime rate is double that of the national average that we looked at in Table 1 above. The murder rate is more than double the rate of the national average. Now if this is the case, why are everyones guns in jeopardy? Why must every law abiding American citizen be punished because of pockets of violent criminals who are not being dealt with adequately? It seems apparent to me that these areas should be the ones being targeted the most, and I dont necessarily mean banning firearms, because in many cases these areas have the strictest gun control laws in the nation. If you recall during the debate between Piers Morgan and Larry Pratt, Morgan attempted to deflect the argument away from the numbers Pratt was giving him, which were very similar to the ones above. Morgan wanted to try and compare Americas numbers to those of Great Britain. So how does England compare with the United States? Take a look at the Home Office Statistical Bulletin, which gives the crime numbers for England and Wales for 2011/12. Keep in mind that these numbers will be the lowest in the UK as separate crime stats are kept for Northern Ireland and Scotland, which have higher numbers than the ones in this report. England and Wales have a combined population of about 56 million.

192

Home Office Statistical Bulletin for Violent Crime in England & Wales Take a look at the number of violent crime offenses that took place in 2011. According to this report, there were 762,515 violent crime offenses. In a population of 56 million, that comes out to 1,361 per 100,000! Thats 3.5 times the rate of the United States! England and Wales does have a smaller murder rate than the United States, which is around 1.3 per 100,000. However, what we are not told in the discussion is what instruments are used to commit the murders or the violent crimes that are listed. Clearly the disarmed UK public has a higher rate of violent crime than the mass-armed citizenry of the United States. This is important, because from those of us who advocate that people be allowed to defend themselves, a firearm is the very best means of doing that. Additionally you carry a firearm in hopes that you never have to use it. Additionally, keep in mind that in the United States we have 186 metropolitan areas where the population is 250,000 or greater. In the UK, they have only 32. So what is the moral here? Less guns do not mean, less violent crime. In addition, as seen in the above reports for the United States, more guns does not necessarily mean more violent crime or more murders. One last thing. We hear so much demonizing of the AR-15 rifle and how terrible it is. Well friends, according to the FBIs CIUS report on Murder Victims by weapon, the total number of firearms used to commit murder in 2011 were 8,583.

193

FBIs CIUS report on Murder Victims By Weapon This number is down by about 1500 from 2007 and I might add, without an assault weapons ban. The report also indicates the kinds of firearms used in these murders: Handguns, rifles, shotguns, other guns, firearms (not stated). Of the 8,583 murder in 2011 committed with a firearm, only 323 rifles were used. The AR-15 and other rifles, referenced as assault weapons by the Left, are a subset of that 323. These are things to keep in mind when dealing with emotional, irrational, and moronic gun control freaks. Fact, the United States violent crime rate is down 50% in the past 25 years. Fact, the United States murder rate is down 50%. Fact, the United States has 3.5 less times violent crime rate than the disarmed United Kingdom. Fact, rifles deemed by gun grabbers as assault weapons are used in a very small minority of murders that occur annually in the United States. Put that in your pipe and smoke it liberal gun control advocates!

194

Shooting from the Hip: The Medias Inaccurate Gun Reporting

Gunning for your guns!
January 3rd 2013 In a recent conversation about gun control it was suggested that Australia could provide a model of what we should do here: Google it, and youll find scores of articles like this one imploring us to follow Australias example. The central component of Australias program is a prohibition of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns (and pump-action shotguns as well) along with a forced buy-back program that has resulted in the destruction of some 630,000 weapons at a cost of $500 million. There is dispute, as one might expect, about the effect of this stringent gun control policy. The article linked above refers to studies that laud its effectiveness; this recent piece in the Wall Street Journal by Joyce Malcolm, a respected American historian of gun policy, cited other studies and argued that the positive effects of the Australia policy have been greatly exaggerated. Whatever the effects in Australia (or Great Britain, also described by Malcolm), however, I think the relevance of policy in other countries is severely limited. For every journalist, politician, and other liberal who plaintively asks: Why cant we be more like Australia, Great Britain, Japan, wherever? there is the predictable (and at least equally reasonable) rejoinder: Why cant we be more like Switzerland? Switzerland requires all males between the ages of 20 and 30 with few exceptions to possess a government-issued rifle capable of automatic fire (the Sig 550) and/or the Sig 220 semi-automatic handgun for officers. Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, Stephen Halbrook has observed, it is one of the safest places to be. In terms of the relevance of foreign examples, however, the case of Australia may indeed be instructive. What would its policy look like here? For starters, how many weapons, and of what kinds, are we talking about? Last week, NBC News reported: According to the Congressional Research Service, in 2009 there were an estimated 310 million firearms in the United States (not including weapons on military bases), of which 114 million were handguns, 110 million were rifles, and 86 million were shotguns. A separate calculation by the Government Accountability Office estimated that 118 million handguns were available for sale to, or were possessed by, civilians in the United States in 2010. The NRA has estimated that semi-automatic weapons make up about 15% of privately owned firearms in the U.S. That would be over 45 million weapons, but I suspect that estimate is far too conservative. If there are 118 million handguns in private hands, there are probably almost 45 million semi-automatic handguns alone. Regarding the AR-15, the iconic assault rifle used in Sandy Hook and several other mass shootings, the New York Times recently quoted two sources estimating that 3.3 million to 3.5 million were made in the U.S. and not exported. And thats just one model of one semi-automatic rifle; it does not include the wildly popular Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, which are of a design different from the AR-15s. Nor does 195

the NRA estimate include pump shotguns which can be fired almost as rapidly as semiautomatics as Australia did. The United States, in short, is awash in semi-automatic and other rapid-fire weapons and the high-capacity magazines that feed them. (A 1999 study by criminologist Christopher Koper for the National Institute of Justice found that the 1994 high-capacity ban was of limited effectiveness because of the immense stock of about 30 million such magazines already in circulation, a number that is no doubt higher now.) Not only does the sheer number of rapidfire weapons and high-capacity magazines in private hands make the Australia experiment virtually irrelevant here; it also provides the basis for a strong argument beyond the Second Amendment that a new prohibition of them would be unconstitutional. Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has powerfully argued that the unenumerated rights protected by the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments provide stronger support for the individual right to bear arms than even the Second. In Putting the Second Amendment Second, for example, Amar explains: In identifying these unenumerated rights retained by the people, the key is that a judge should not decide what he or she personally thinks would be a proper set of rights. Instead, the judge should ask which rights have been recognized by the American people themselves for example, in state constitutions and state bills of rights and civil rights laws. Americans have also established, merely by living our lives freely across the country and over the centuries, certain customary rights that governments have generally respected. Many of our most basic rights are simply facts of life, the residue of a virtually unchallenged pattern and practice on the ground in domains where citizens act freely and governments lie low. In Americas Lived Constitution, summarizing chapter three of his recent Americas Unwritten Constitution, Amar writes: Although unenumerated rights are by definition not expressly listed in the terse text, the written Constitution signals their existence and provides broad guidance about where and how to find these rights. One of the most obvious places where these rights are to be discovered is in the lived practices and beliefs of the American people themselves. Another source of these lived rights is where Americans live: their homes. Although lawyers can argue about where permitted regulation ends and impermissible prohibition begins, semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols are simply facts of life in America, and banning them would indeed be challenging. One need think only of the lack of success of an earlier experiment with Prohibition (a miserable failure on all counts) whose contraband after all was consumed and so not stockpiled to begin to see both the practical and constitutional challenges of separating millions of Americans from their even more millions of semi-automatics. One final, dispiriting point. I mentioned that I was prompted to look into the Australia example after a Christmas conversation with a gun control-supporting friend. Since he is unusually well-informed about a wide range of subjects (far more than I) as evidenced by the fact that he had read both about Australia and was familiar with the Akhil Amar argument discussed above I was initially surprised that he believed that assault rifles were more powerful and could fire much faster than ordinary rifles in wide circulation. Initially, because I then remembered that my friend gets nearly all of his information from the mainstream media and NPR. Two post-Sandy Hook articles from the New York Times illustrate the pitfalls of relying on such sources. 196

A December 17 article by reporter Erica Goode, for example, uncritically quotes Tom Diaz, a senior policy analyst at the anti-gun Violence Policy Center, claiming that the AR-15 used by Adam Lanza in his murderous killing spree in Connecticut and in the recent mass shootings at a Colorado movie theater and shopping mall in Oregon are made and designed for war. They are not. They are made for civilians. The military versions are capable of automatic fire; the civilian versions are not. They fire no faster than any other semi-automatic, and they are and have been for a while designed to prevent conversion to automatic fire. As a professional anti-gun wonk, Diaz probably knows that the versions available to the public are not designed for war, but he probably, or at least reasonably, suspects that New York Times reporters and readers wont. Ms. Goode does acknowledge that defenders of the firearm argue that unlike the AR-15s military counterparts, the civilian models are almost all semi-automatic, not fully automatic, and so should not be classified as assault rifles. This distinction, however, is a fact, not simply a matter of interpretation that defenders and critics can reasonably argue. Moreover, her statement that civilian models are almost all semi-automatic is misleadingly imprecise. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal since 1934 and there are virtually none on the streets today. In the same misleadingly even-handed way, Ms. Goode notes that: Critics describe them as high-power weapons in addition to firing multiple rounds quickly, they have a higher muzzle velocity than traditional rifles. But defenders say that most AR-15s are chambered for .223 or 5.56 ammunition, low-caliber rounds that are less deadly than those used in many handguns. The semi-automatic weapons at issue are, of course, high-power weapons capable of firing many rounds quickly, but then so are all semi-automatic rifles. Again, however, it is a fact, not a matter for interpretation or argument, that a .223 round fired from a so-called assault rifle has no higher velocity than a .223 round fired from any of the many non-assault rifles that chamber that round. The velocity of the .223 is indeed higher than most heavier rounds, but that doesnt make it more powerful because it also has a smaller bullet. Another article that appeared in the Times on the same day, by N.R. Kleinfield, is guilty of the same inaccuracies and distortions, noting for starters that Adam Lanzas Bushmaster AR-15 is a military-style assault weapon. As weve seen, it isnt unless by military style Kleinfield is referring only to superficial cosmetics like a pistol grip and folding stock. The Times editors are no better informed than its reporters. A Dec. 29 editorial repeated the mantra about the military-style assault rifle used by Adam Lanza noted, again inaccurately, that such rifles put military firepower into the hands of civilians and bristle with features useful only to an infantry soldier or a special forces operative such as quick-change magazines that let troop reload easily. Detachable magazines that let shooters reload easily are, of course, featured on all semi-automatic rifles and pistols, not just ones sporting a military-style appearance, and no rifles for sale to the public have military firepower because they lack the militarys automatic fire capability.

197

Regarding the devastating power of the .223, Kleinfield adds, with unwitting humor that disqualifies him as a reliable reporter on gun matters, that some of the bullets fired inside the Sandy Hook school, according to a law enforcement official, penetrated the glass windows of the classrooms and went into vehicles in the parking lot. Of course any bullet from virtually any pistol or rifle including the lowest powered .22 and even many air rifles would easily penetrate glass windows. He adds that [t]he .223-caliber bullet is a small, high-velocity round that has been used by Western military forces for decades, in part because it inflicts devastating wounds. In fact, as a writer on Military.com notes, the .223 (or 5.56mm NATO) was selected because it offered soldiers more ammo carrying capacity than the larger .30 caliber rounds that had been in use. Moreover, as this thorough Military Law Review article on the controversy over hollowpoint ammunition points out, the military has actually avoided the use of ammunition that causes the most devastating wounds, not only for humanitarian reasons but also because military weapons and their ammunition were (and remain) designed for incapacitation rather than lethality which supported the prevailing doctrine that wounding enemy soldiers increased the logistical burden on the enemy. Virginia and other states actually ban the use of .223 rifles in deer hunting not because it is too powerful and causes such devastating wounds, but because it is too small and weak to ethically harvest deer. According to Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Deer Project Coordinator Matt Knox: We could argue til the cows come home, but we err on the conservative side of achieving humane and ethical kills. Kleinfield does helpfully point out that the police found numerous empty 30-round magazines for the Bushmaster rifle and a number of magazines for both pistols (a 10mm Glock and 9mm Sig Sauer) Lanza had, but he doesnt seem to realize that the presence of all these magazines with their hundred of unfired bullets strongly suggests that a limitation on magazine capacity would have had no effect on the lethality of Lanzas carnage. True, he did use 30-round magazines, but Ms. Goode quoted the medical examiners observation that Lanza had fired up to 11 bullets into each victims body. Since there were 26 victims, its obvious that Lanza had no difficulty changing magazines. Of course the shooter wasnt rushed, since according to CNNs timeline the police didnt arrive until 20 minutes after the shooting started. All a high-capacity magazine ban would accomplish (assuming it would accomplish anything except driving up the price of the 30 million already in private hands) is that shooters intent on mass slaughter would bring more weapons (Lanza had three) and/or magazines. Indeed, a perfectly predictable but unintended consequence of banning high-capacity magazines would be to decrease the appeal of 9mm handguns and increase the popularity of more the powerful and lethal .40 and .45 caliber and . 357 Magnum, since the main appeal of the 9mm has always been its higher-capacity magazines. Kleinfield also helpfully quotes Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, who said Mr. Lanza had killed himself as police officers entered the school, suggesting that he was prepared to take more lives had they not arrived. Malloy added that we surmise that it was during the second classroom episode that he heard responders coming and apparently, at that, decided to take his own life.

198

It thus seems likely that the slaughter of unarmed innocents, both students and staff, could have been ended much sooner if Lanza had been confronted much sooner with armed opposition. All things considered, attempting to combat mass shootings by emulating Australias experiment with prohibition would be rather like attempting to eliminate drunk driving by banning bourbon.

Our Government Arms Itself While Disarming The American People!

January 4th 2013 By Susanne Eovaldi

As Florida becomes the first state to register one million concealed carry permits and the Illinois legislature proposes the nations most draconian gun regulations, the US government is quietly using $1.6 billion in borrowed money to amass ammunition for the domestic operations of Homeland Security. A 91 page standard transaction form filled out by the Department of Homeland Security Training Center in Glynco, GA reveals a staggering amount of ammunition purchased (in unit price in the thousands) by the Department. The .223 Rem Caliber 62/64 Grain JHP was purchased in quantity of 1,100; the .40 S&W Caliber 180 Grain JHP buy quantity was 2,824; 209 9 MM Luger 115 Grain JHP along with even buckshot is on this order form now hard to Google. The purchase of 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo and other weaponry, which may or may not include bullets banned by the Geneva Convention, leaves many Americans wondering why all this heavy stuff is needed inside the United States! For the DHS operates only within the nations borders, only on American soil. The first page of this huge, federal government ammo buy states: Acceptance of an award certifies that the firm will comply with FAR 52,22-50, combating trafficking in persons, by notifying all employees and subcontractors at all levels. Period of Performance: 10/01/2012 to 09/30/2017. The next item on page 1 states: Lot 1-base year: date of award and continuing for 12 months (actual 12 month period of performance will be reflected on award document) This contract is for commercial leaded training ammunition (CLTA) in accordance with this document 199

Commercial Leaded Training Ammunition is being acquired upon award of this order, but the period of performance extends out over five years! This offer due date was made on 08/20/2012 at 1430 ET and extends out to September of 2017. What is this? Way into September of 2017, these CLTA ammunition bundles are being acquired for domestic use by Homeland Security. And the Department is buying the stuff with money our country does NOT even have! Just what is their purpose? One source even says that radiation pellets for protection of the thyroid gland are even included! Yet just as federal bureaucrats have decided to arm their agencies for a level of action seemingly not anticipated since World War II, State legislators in Illinois are hoping to place legislation on the Governors desk next week that will guarantee an outright ban on countless rifles, shotguns, and some 80% of the states most widely-owned handgun models. Why would elected officials prepare the GOVERNMENT for a massive gunfight on U.S. soil while working to disarm the American people it ostensibly serves? Could it be the leftist breed that now dominates the nations capitol harbors a greater fear of the American people than of the countrys well-known enemies?

The Giant, Gaping Hole in Sandy Hook Reporting

January 5th 2013 By David Kupelian

One piece of crucial information has yet to be disclosed!

Since last months horrifying and heartbreaking school massacre in Newtown, Conn., politicians and the press have, as everyone knows, been totally obsessed with firearms. Indeed, President Obama has vowed to impose strong new gun-control measures on the nation very soon, with or without Congress. Other possible factors from violent video games to the failure of our mental-health system to the unintended consequences of making schools gun-free zones have taken a back seat to guns. Within hours of the gruesome mega-crime, the media had provided extensive, roundthe-clock coverage of precisely which firearms, manufacturers and calibers the perpetrator had used, how he had obtained them from his mother, where they were originally purchased, and so on. But where, Id like to ask my colleagues in the media, is the reporting about the psychiatric medications the perpetrator who had been under treatment for mental-health problems may have been taking? After all, Mark and Louise Tambascio, family friends of the shooter and his mother, were interviewed on CBS 60 Minutes, during which Louise Tambascio told correspondent Scott Pelley: I know he was on medication and everything, but she homeschooled him at home cause he couldnt deal with the school classes sometimes, so she just homeschooled Adam at home. And that was her life. And here, Tambascio tells ABC News, I knew he was on medication, but thats all I know. 200

It has been more than three weeks since the shooting. We know all about the guns he used, but what medication may he have used? (One brief mini-hoax emerged when the New York Daily News published a story claiming the shooter, according to his uncle, had been on the controversial antipsychotic drug Fanapt. That story was quickly withdrawn after the uncle turned out to be a fraudster with no relation to the murderer.) So, what is the truth? Where is the journalist curiosity? Where is the follow-up? Where is the police report, the medical examiners report, the interviews with his doctor and others? But let me back up. Perhaps youre wondering why this issue of psychiatric medications should be so important. As I documented in How Evil Works, it is simply indisputable that most perpetrators of school shootings and similar mass murders in our modern era were either on or just recently coming off of psychiatric medications:

Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves. Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during shortterm controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox thats 1 in 25 developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion. Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban semiautomatic assault weapons in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine. Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin. In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania. In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the schools lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin. In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, living on Minnesotas Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac. In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors. Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danyshs description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: I didnt realize I did it until after it was done, Danysh said. This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun. 201

John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty. Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children aged 7 years down to 6 months in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession. And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: What she described was feeling a presence Satan telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah, Ringholz said, adding that Yates delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan. Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor. In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added homicidal ideation to the drugs list of rare adverse events. The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexors homicidal ideation risk wasnt well-publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change. And what exactly does rare mean in the phrase rare adverse events? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience homicidal ideation murderous thoughts as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug. Effexor is Wyeths best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the companys annual revenues. One more case is instructive, that of 12-year-old Christopher Pittman, who struggled in court to explain why he murdered his grandparents, who had provided the only love and stability hed ever known in his turbulent life. When I was lying in my bed that night, he testified, I couldnt sleep because my voice in my head kept echoing through my mind telling me to kill them. Christopher had been angry with his grandfather, who had disciplined him earlier that day for hurting another student during a fight on the school bus. So later that night, he shot both of his grandparents in the head with a .410 shotgun as they slept and then burned down their South Carolina home, where he had lived with them. I got up, got the gun, and I went upstairs and I pulled the trigger, he recalled. Through the whole thing, it was like watching your favorite TV show. You know what is going to happen, but you cant do anything to stop it. Pittmans lawyers would later argue that the boy had been a victim of involuntary intoxication, since his doctors had him taking the antidepressants Paxil and Zoloft just prior to the murders. Paxils known adverse drug reactions according to the drugs FDA-approved label include mania, insomnia, anxiety, agitation, confusion, amnesia, depression, paranoid reaction, psychosis, hostility, delirium, hallucinations, abnormal thinking, depersonalization and lack of emotion, among others. 202

The preceding examples are only a few of the best-known offenders who had been taking prescribed psychiatric drugs before committing their violent crimes there are many others. Whether we like to admit it or not, it is undeniable that when certain people living on the edge of sanity take psychiatric medications, those drugs can and occasionally do push them over the edge into violent madness. Remember, every single SSRI antidepressant sold in the United States of America today, no matter what brand or manufacturer bears a black box FDA warning label the governments most serious drug warning of increased risks of suicidal thinking and behavior, known as suicidality, in young adults ages 18 to 24. Common sense tells us that where there are suicidal thoughts especially in very, very angry person homicidal thoughts may not be far behind. Indeed, the mass shooters we are describing often take their own lives when the police show up, having planned their suicide ahead of time. So, what medication was Lanza on? The Sandy Hook school massacre, we are constantly reminded, was the second-worst school shooting in U.S. history. Lets briefly revisit the worst, Virginia Tech, because it provides an important lesson for us. One would think, in light of the stunning correlation between psych meds and mass murders, that it would be considered critical to establish definitively whether the Virginia Tech murderer of 32 people, student Cho Seung-Hui, had been taking psychiatric drugs. Yet, more than five years later, the answer to that question remains a mystery. Even though initially the New York Times reported, officials said prescription medications related to the treatment of psychological problems had been found among Mr. Chos effects, and the killers roommate, Joseph Aust, had told the Richmond Times-Dispatch that Chos routine each morning had included taking prescription drugs, the states toxicology report released two months later said no prescription drugs or toxic substances were found in Cho Seung-Hui. Perhaps so, but one of the most notoriously unstable and unpredictable times for users of SSRI antidepressants is the period shortly after theyve stopped taking them, during which time the substance may not be detectable in the body. What kind of meds might Cho have been taking or recently have stopped taking? Curiously, despite an exhaustive investigation by the Commonwealth of Virginia which disclosed that Cho had taken Paxil for a year in 1999, specifics on what meds he was taking prior to the Virginia Tech massacre have remained elusive. The final 20,000-word report manages to omit any conclusive information about the all-important issue of Chos medications during the period of the mass shooting. To add to the drama, it wasnt until two years after the states in-depth report was issued that, as disclosed in an Aug. 19, 2009, ABC News report, some of Chos long-missing mental health records were located: The records released today were discovered to be missing during a Virginia panels August 2007 investigation four-and-a-half months after the massacre. The notes were recovered last month from the home of Dr. Robert Miller, the former director of the counseling center, who says he inadvertently packed Chos file into boxes of personal 203

belongings when he left the center in February 2006. Until the July 2009 discovery of the documents, Miller said he had no idea he had the records. Miller has since been let go from the university. Although Chos newly discovered mental-health files reportedly revealed nothing further about his medications, the issues raised by the initial accounts including the officials cited by the New York Times and the Richmond papers eyewitness account of daily meds-taking remain unaddressed to this day. Some critics suggest these official omissions are motivated by a desire to protect the drug companies from ruinous product liability claims. Indeed, pharmaceutical manufacturers are nervous about lawsuits over the rare adverse effects of their mood-altering medications. To avoid costly settlements and public relations catastrophes such as when GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to the family of 60-year-old Donald Schnell who murdered his wife, daughter and granddaughter in a fit of rage shortly after starting on Paxil drug companies legal teams have quietly and skillfully settled hundreds of cases out-of-court, shelling out hundreds of millions of dollars to plaintiffs. Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly fought scores of legal claims against Prozac in this way, settling for cash before the complaint could go to court while stipulating that the settlement remain secret and then claiming it had never lost a Prozac lawsuit. All of which is, once again, to respectfully but urgently ask the question: When on earth are we going to find out if the perpetrator of the Sandy Hook school massacre, like so many other mass shooters, had been taking psychiatric drugs? In the end, it may well turn out that knowing what kinds of guns he used isnt nearly as important as what kind of drugs he used. That is, assuming we ever find out. Following Comment by Jack Graff: Besides the fact that the Propaganda pigeons in media deliberately withhold relevant truths, where are the intellectually honest and non agenda driven journalists DEMANDING this information from the our government as to exactly what drugs this mass killers were taken? Why, when it is so very apparent that our Government is rogue and not as it should be, do we think they are above manipulation, even murder to accomplish the Globalist One World Government agenda? Is that normalcy bias at play? I own guns and NEVER shot anyone other than in justifiable self defense and my clean record proves that. I will be glad to give my life to ensure that our right to keep and bear arms ALWAYS REMAINS. Shall not be infringed means to me: we don't debate the issue, it is NOT TO BE INFRINGED, AMMENDED, MODIFIED, CHANGED, OR REWRITTEN IN ANY MANNER.

204

Total media blackout on shooting where private citizen stopped mass murder by using a gun!
January 7th 2012 By J. D. Heyes

Just two days after the horrible massacre of 20 Kindergarten children and six adults by an armed psychotic, another mass murder did not take place at a movie theater in San Antonio. For those of you who don't live in that south Texas City, did you read about this non-massacre in your local paper? Did you see it online? Hear about it on the radio or television? If not, trust us when we say it's not your fault. It's the fault of the mainstream media, for they have once again failed in their mission to be impartial conveyers of news and information because of an anti-gun agenda. Late in the evening of December 16, two people were wounded after gunfire erupted at a local movie theater; the shots, of course, sent panicked moviegoers scrambling for the exits and ducking for any cover they could find.

No stacks of bodies to photograph so nothing happened, right?

But what happened next was not the ending we are all tired of hearing about - a lone, armed gunman mowing down scores of helpless, unarmed people whose only "crime" was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Remember, though, this is Texas, and Texans take their constitutional rights seriously, especially their right of self-defense. Rather than nationwide headlines of carnage and photographs of sobbing family members, silence from the mainstream media - because the script took a twist. There were no stacks of bloodied bodies because the gunman was stopped by an armed, offduty law enforcement officer who used his firearm to protect himself and others. According to the San Antonio News-Express, witnesses reported that numerous shots were fired inside and outside the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex, which set off a 205

scramble to safety as cops and emergency medical personnel responded. Detective Louis Antu, a spokesman for the Bexar County Sheriff's Office, said the shooting began near the theater, at a China Garden restaurant. At one point the suspect even took a few shots at a San Antonio Police cruiser, Antu said. "He was shooting at a marked unit," Antu said. "He knows he was shooting at an officer so that's (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder." Once the suspect reached the theater, however, a female off-duty Bexar County Sheriff Deputy who happened to be working at the theater (and was obviously armed), shot back and struck him. "She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater," Antu said. Witness Tara Grace, who was buying a drink from the concession stand when the shooting began, ran into a nearby bathroom and locked herself in a stall with five other moviegoers to get out of the way. "We thought we were going to die," she said. But she didn't - because an armed citizen protected her and the other patrons.

This time, there was no Aurora

Understandably, many theater-goers immediately invoked memories of the mass murders in Aurora, Colo., at this past summer's premier of the newest Batman movie; there, 12 people were killed and another 58 were wounded because no one else at the theater was armed, or even allowed to be armed. What happened at the San Antonio Theater "brings back memories of the other theater shooting, and the elementary school shooting," said Cassandra Castillo as she waited outside the theater for her son, who is a projectionist there. "You only think the worst." And that's because government policies only provide for one outcome in these kinds of situations the worst outcome. But when trained, armed citizens are permitted full access to their constitutional right of selfdefense, the worst outcomes in such dire situations can, and very often are, avoided. It's just too bad you don't hear much about these heroes and how they are able to use our wonderful Constitution to save lives. You can thank the corporate media and their blatant antigun agenda for that. Sources: http://www.mysanantonio.com http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com http://beforeitsnews.com

206

The Left Is Convinced Americans Wont Fight For 2nd Amendment Rights
January 7th 2013 By Doug Book

Once cowed at the thought of provoking Second Amendment supporters, leftists will soon attempt to ban assault weapons (and much more) as legislation offered by Dianne Feinstein makes its way to the Senate floor. It seems that D.C. liberals have finally become convinced that American gun owners are too cowardly, too lazy or too dependent upon the generosity of Big Brother to fight for their Second Amendment rights. During the past four years, the gun banning-Left have watched as American buyers broke sales records in the purchase of semi-automatic rifles. Opting for these and other powerful, efficient weapons, it is estimated that some 100 million private citizens are now in possession of over 300 million firearms. And these numbers continue to grow with each passing month. Yet its against this backdrop of Americas unprecedented determination to assert the fundamental permanence of Second Amendment guarantees that Diane Feinstein, Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama and others will choose to implement gun bans, demand the federal registration of firearms, and even legislate outright confiscation. Maybe Democrats are confident that fallout from Sandy Hook will provide the floor votes necessary to disarm the American people. But if the Left is willing to risk picking this fight with millions of American gun owners, it must also believe something far more important that Americans who have spent years arming themselves against the ultimate expression of tyranny by their own government the overthrow of the Second Amendment will choose to not fight when the time finally comes. 207

For decades, the Left has watched Americans simply lie down before every imaginable outrage and legislative assault on our liberty. The Constitution has been prostituted by powerhungry, America-hating Marxists in Congress, on the federal bench and in the White House. Elected officials have laughed when asked to provide Constitutional authority for the passage of massively unpopular pieces of legislation. Tax dollars are insolently manipulated to purchase votes, grease the skids of questionable legislation, and add to the wealth of bureaucrats and elected officials. And through it all, Americans are robbed of more and more liberty as we do nothing but vote em in and cuss em out every two years. Liberals have come to depend upon the willingness of Americans to subordinate their desire for liberty to the wishes and whims of the political ruling class. The cowardly are rewarded for relenting while those with the courage to question dictatorial authority and refuse to submit are accused of domestic terrorism. And all who press their own beliefs or worse, those of the nations Founders are met with ridicule or intimidation in what was at one time a nation of free, thinking individuals. In short, the Left has come to expect cowardice or disinterested submission from a people trained for decades to accept as given that the good intentions of their elected betters are sufficient to fulfill the requirements of constitutional authority. And its a safe bet neither Democrats nor RINOs will expect anything different from the majority of Americans this time around as Feinstein and Company legislate last rites and a funeral for the Second Amendment.

We know what the Left believe. Well soon find out if they are right.

208

LAPD Uses Defunct Rocket Launchers To Scare People Into Gun Control
January 8th 2013 By Philip Hodges

The recent gun buy-back program in L.A. allegedly yielded a pair of rocket launchers according to LAPD Chief Charlie Beck. Beck stated at a press conference, Those are weapons of war, weapons of death. These are not hunting guns. These are not target guns they have no place in our great city. This announcement that the gun buy-back program was successful in getting these weapons of death off the streets provided for some scary headlines in mainstream media. The police departments as well as the medias desired reaction was obviously to scare people and to associate law-abiding gun owners with those paranoid, white Nazis who want to wage war with the U.S. government. 209

It was working, but then it turned out that those rocket launchers were not any danger to anyone at allunless they were used to hit someone over the head. These particular rocket launchers were one-use, AT-4 grenade launchers. After theyve been used once, thats it. Theyre not capable of being used again. Thats how theyre designed. In fact, once theyre used, theyre even sold for cheap at military surplus stores or on eBay. Breitbart reported that it got even better: But even more absurdly, at least one of the tubes was a training piece and never fired a grenade and never could have. It was a device used only for showing young soldiers what such a weapon looks like. It is a hands-on training tool that is 100% inert, un-fireable, and safe as a plastic kids toy gun. Writing for Business Insider, Paul Szoldra, a former Marine, wrote, It is, quite literally, a long, green fiberglass tube that does nothing.The turn-in of these expended rockets is the equivalent of me picking up empty shell casings that have been fired, and maybe even the ammunition box they came in, and turning it in for a free gift card.

So, was this just a setup to make fodder for news headlines that would further the establishments gun control agenda? Did the LAPD provide the rocket launchers themselves? Did they get them from a Hollywood production company that used them on movie sets as props? Or did some guy actually turn in the worthless pieces of plastic without the police chief knowing that they were defunct in exchange for $100 in taxpayer money? Either the media/police are trying to pull a fast one on us, or some guy pulled a fast one on them. Either way, the LAPD and media are showing their incompetence and utter desperation to justify gun control measures. Breitbart also reported that the LAPD have tried pulling this publicity stunt before: Back in May, Beck again paraded before the media with a rocket launcher he claimed his department had received during a gun buyback program. That piece, too, was clearly marked trainer and was incapable of ever firing any rockets. And for the record, I dont think there is anything wrong with someone owning a real rocket launcher. The more armed we are, the safer we are from government tyranny, which is why they want complete disarmament. They use the media under the guise of news to convince people to be afraid of guns and anyone who opposes a government overstepping its bounds. When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny, said Jefferson.

In Defense of the Second Amendment

January 8th 2013 210

By Gary North Article source

I want to go over in considerable detail the fundamental issues of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: the right to keep and bear arms. There is a great deal of emotional commitment in the United States to one of two extreme positions: (1) the right of every non-felon adult citizen of the United States to own any weapon he chooses, and (2) the right of the government of the United States to outlaw the ownership of firearms. I am hard core. I would extend this right to convicted felons who have served their time or have made restitution to their victims. I would not let the federal government revoke this fundamental right of citizenship. To understand the Second Amendment, we need to go back to something like the beginning.

FEUDALISM AND POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY

In English common law in medieval times, meaning as late as the 13th century, the feudal legal system limited ownership of military weapons to members of the knightly class, and those classes over the knights. In other words, the ownership of weapons had to do with legal status. The common man, meaning a peasant, could not be called into military service. Military service was a matter of inheritance of land and status, and this inheritance mandated military training, which created a military mindset. Thus, the weapons associated with this class, which was also a matter of social status, were not to be shared with the peasantry. This placed the peasantry at an obvious disadvantage in terms of military power. It also extended to political power. They had little political power. They were represented mainly by priests. One of the marks of the knightly class was the right to wear armor. Armor was heavy. So, a peasant who had a simple walking staff was in a position to knock a knight off his horse. A knight in shining armor who was lying on the ground could not get up by himself. He was defenseless. So, the fact that a peasant was not allowed to carry a sword, or a bow and arrow, did not necessarily place him at a complete disadvantage, one-on-one, when dealing with a knight on horseback. It all depended on the tactics of surprise. The knight who was not expecting to be knocked off his horse might be at a disadvantage. Peasants early on learned how to use walking sticks as weapons. Peasants could not be deprived of their walking sticks. So, they retained a degree of power which was not legally associated with their class. The movie scene of Robin Hood, an outlaw from the knightly class, battling Little John on a log over a stream was unlikely. Little John would easily have killed him. Knights were not trained in the use of staffs. 211

Anyone who possessed expensive weapons began with a competitive advantage in the use of power. The knightly class was careful to guard its legal rights. Magna Carta was a document created by the barons to defend their rights against the king. These rights were jealously guarded both against intrusions of power from below, as well as any intrusions from above. It was part of a hierarchical social and legal social order. There is no question that, under most circumstances, the knightly class could deal with the peasants in the field of military battle. There were peasant rebellions from time to time. But, over the centuries, the knightly class did prevail against attempts by the peasants to overturn the legal status of the knightly class. One of the advantages of this system was that civilians, meaning peasants and the people who lived in towns, were to be left alone by the warriors. They were not to be slaughtered in a military confrontation. Warriors were to do battle with other warriors. Warriors were not to use the specialized implements of warfare against civilians. This was a good arrangement for civilians.

GUNPOWDER

Gunpowder signaled the end of feudalism. It did not cause this decline, but it accompanied it. Armies became professional. Mercenaries appeared. Legal access to weapons was no longer based on birth and legal status. With the demise of the feudal order after the 14th century, and the rise of professional armies, which were funded by taxation rather than by a grant of land by the king to specific families, access to military training became available to common men. The more that the armies depended upon conscription or payment by the central government, the greater the demands for the right to vote by the lower classes. This demand became open during the Puritan revolution of the 1640s in England. Oliver Cromwell's New Model Army was made up of commoners as well as members of the higher social orders. Puritans believed in the exercise of the franchise in their local congregations. English Puritans were Congregationalists. They did not believe in a hierarchy of bishops, nor did they even believe in the hierarchy of presbyteries. Presbyterianism was a Scottish concept, not an English Puritan concept. So, with the triumph of Cromwell and the New Model Army, the issue of the franchise became an important political issue. Debates were held in 1647 within the New Model Army over what constituted the right to vote. The Levelers, who were not Communists, believed that the franchise should be extended to members of the New Model Army, irrespective of their wealth. This was opposed by the upper classes, including Cromwell, but there was an open debate over the issue. Cromwell's son-in-law, Ireton, argued for wealth, meaning personally owned land or money, as the basis of the right to vote. Rainsboro, a representative of the Levelers, argued that mere residence in the land should qualify a man to vote. 212

With the coming of the rifle in the 18th century, it became possible for independent farmers -"peasants" -- to purchase the implements of war. These could be used for hunting. Civilians were still not part of the warrior class, but as the price of weaponry fell, beginning in the early 18th century, a shift of political power also began to take place. In the second half of the 18th century, the common citizen in the British colonies of North America possessed a rifle. In most cases he was a man of the countryside. He had the ability to use it. For the first time, weapons that were available to common people had equal firepower to weapons available to the central government.

THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

So, the central government faced a crisis. The colonists in North America were in a position to resist the King's will. After 1763, resistance against the King's representatives increased, and the ability of the King to impose his will on these upstarts became more a matter of finances than technology. The American Revolution was a revolution of common people who were armed with weapons. The long rifle, fired from a distance, was a formidable weapon. A man who could shoot straight at a distance of several hundred yards could kill an officer on horseback. Officers wore special uniforms. This enabled their troops to identify who was in charge. They rode on horseback, above the troops. There was a universal agreement among the warriors of Western Europe that they would not target the officers. This, of course, was an agreement among officers. The Americans honored no such agreement. Americans would target the officers from hundreds of yards away. The chain of command of British troops was disrupted by the American rifle. This was considered unsportsmanlike. But the Americans did not honor the same rules and sportsmanship. This is why the militias were the formidable opponents of the British Army. George Washington only had two major victories, Trenton in 1776 (won by surprise) and Yorktown in 1781 (won by the French Navy). His army was usually unable to make direct confrontations in 213

the field with the British Army. In contrast, militia units, firing from a distance against massed armies, and then running into the woods, could not be dealt with by British Army tacticians. The British armies were always tied to the cities. They could not venture far into the countryside to get food, because too many of them would be gunned down by militia members. They were dependent upon the British Navy to deliver supplies to them. It was therefore impossible for the British to win that war. For as long as the Americans would stay in decentralized units, firing from a distance into the organized troops of the British, the British could not extend military control, and therefore political control, over the Americans. The Americans kept fighting until British taxpayers grew weary of funding the war, and until the French, during one 30-day period, provided the naval support to block the British Navy from resupplying Cornwallis's Army. George Washington got the credit, as did the centralized army under his command, but it was the militia that had kept the British at bay for the previous five years.

Americans fully understood this when the leaders wrote the Bill of Rights in 1790. This is why the Second Amendment was inserted into the Constitution. The voters understood that it was their ability to fight any organized army, through the organization of the militia, which was basic to their concept of citizenship. It was the citizen warrior, armed with a rifle that was every bit as good as that possessed by members of the Army, who was perceived as possessing final political sovereignty. The whole concept of "we the people," which introduced the Constitution, rested on the well-known ability of the American citizen warrior to grab his rifle and fight.

DEMOCRACY AND WEAPONS

Professor Carroll Quigley of Georgetown University was an expert in the history of armaments in Western Europe. He is famous among conservatives for about 20 pages late in his book, Tragedy and Hope, in which he discussed the influence of the Morgan banking interests. Very few conservatives have ever read all of this book. In chapter 2, "Western Civilization to 1914," on page 34, Quigley wrote a very important assessment of the relationship between weaponry and political power. In a period of specialist weapons the minority who have such weapons can usually force the majority who lack them to obey; thus a period of specialist weapons tends to give rise to a period of minority rule and authoritarian government. But a period of amateur weapons is a period in which all men are roughly equal in military power, the majority can compel a minority to yield, and majority rule or even democratic government tends to rise.... But after 1800, guns became cheaper to obtain and easier to use. By 1840, a revolver sold for $27 and a Springfield musket for not much more, and these were about as good weapons as anyone could get at that time. Thus, mass armies of citizens, equipped with these cheap and easily used weapons, 214

began to replace armies of professional soldiers, beginning about 1800 in Europe and even earlier in America. At the same time, democratic government began to replace authoritarian governments (but chiefly in those areas where the cheap new weapons were available and local standards of living were high enough to allow people to obtain). The American Civil War transformed military tactics. The rise of the railroads and telegraphy made possible the coordination of the movement of mass armies. The only way that the American South could have won that war, other than simply by outlasting the Northerners on the battlefield, thereby weakening the will to continue the war among Northern voters, was to resort to guerrilla warfare. But the generals were mostly the products of West Point, or were promoted on the battlefield by graduates of West Point, and their concept was the same as George Washington's, namely, that centralized armies financed by the national government were the basis of military success. They were not in favor of guerrilla warfare. (This was not true of Nathan Bedford Forest, a businessman turned self-funded cavalry officer. He was a guerrilla, and he was highly effective.)

From the end of the Civil War until today, nations have been committed to what is sometimes called second-generation warfare. These are armies, navies, and air forces that can assemble massed firepower, using highly precise and very expensive weapons. These military units no longer can consistently defeat guerrilla movements on the ground. Fourth-generation warfare, meaning guerrilla warfare, is now reestablishing the sovereignty of the common man. Vietnam is the obvious case, but Afghanistan certainly qualifies. In the case of Afghanistan, the common man has always had the advantage. Nobody has been able to conquer Afghanistan for more than a few years. This goes back to Alexander the Great. The topography of the nation, and the commitment of its men to fight to the bitter end, meaning the bitter end of the invaders, has been such that these people have not been defeated. The one Western European nation that fully understands this is Switzerland. Every Swiss male up the age of 60 is expected to serve in the military. Every Swiss male who serves in the military is expected to master the use of the rifle. It is a matter of honor to be a good rifleman in Switzerland. Bankers in their 50s compete against clerks in their 20s as marksmen. This has been true for five centuries. This is a nation of citizen warriors. It is a nation with a very weak central government, the weakest in the modern industrial world. The presidency is a symbolic office, and it is held on a rotation basis, with only one year as its term. Yet the nation's army can be mobilized in a matter of days. Switzerland has the longest history of political freedom of any continental European nation. It is true that the Swiss surrender their ammo back to the local armory at the end of each summer's training. It is also true that the political tradition of democracy is so deeply ingrained that it would be impossible for any Swiss government to refuse to return those weapons the following summer. The Swiss are not a disarmed population. They simply let the government store the ammo during the year. The attitude is not that the government lets the citizens have access to weapons. The attitude is that the citizens allow the government to 215

store the ammo. The mentality is completely different from the gun control advocates in the United States. In every nation except Switzerland, gun control advocates want to centralize the ownership of any weapon that could be used systematically against agents of the government. This is not a random outlook. All the arguments about reduced crime are refuted by the statistics of increased crime whenever the government confiscates the guns of the population. Guns are as easily available to the criminal class as illegal drugs are available to the citizens and all other residents. Gun control advocates insist that the centralization of gun ownership into the hands of the monopolistic government is a moral obligation. Why is it a moral obligation? It is a moral obligation because these people really do believe that the central government possesses legitimate original political sovereignty, an exclusive sovereignty, over the weapons that could be used against the central government. It is one of those peculiarities that conservatives who say they believe in the right of gun ownership, and who sometimes even say that this is a means of defense against tyranny, are also in favor of invading foreign nations, when those foreign nations have adopted the concept of universal gun ownership that is comparable to the philosophy of American conservatism. The well-armed "little people" in Middle Eastern countries are able to defeat American invading troops, just as others like them did in Vietnam, precisely because the decentralization that is made possible by a diffusion of gun ownership and explosives is effective in combating the expansion of centralized political and military control. In other words, American troops cannot defeat these tiny countries, precisely because of widespread ownership of effective weapons that can be used against the occupying troops.

MILITIAS: REAL AND PHONY

I want to make it clear that I do not believe that it is possible, under anything like present conditions, for Americans to take up arms against the central government. In a period of financial crisis, in which the central government can no longer deliver the goods economically, and which therefore begins to lose its power to control local communities, there may be confrontations between armed camps. The obvious armed camps that I am thinking of are the gangs. The gangs are well armed, and in comparison with most small-town police departments, far better armed than the law enforcement agencies. The police know this. The gangs are ruthless, and they have something like a military chain of command. In a time of national economic breakdown, there will be some communities in which the gangs possess primary authority. This is true today in much of Latin America. The citizens of the United States are so far removed from the citizens of the American colonies in 1776 that it would be inconceivable to organize a military resistance to the central government. I do not suggest that this be done. I do suggest that there is a relationship between the ownership of firearms and the assertion of political sovereignty. I do insist that the right to keep and bear arms is a symbolic affirmation of the ultimate political sovereignty 216

of individual citizens over the central government. This was understood in 1790, and it should be understood today. I do not think it is. I think the advocates of gun control understand very little about this symbolic relationship. They are usually advocates of the right to vote. They officially come down on the side of citizens' rights. But they do not understand the symbolic nature of the right to keep and bear arms as an affirmation of the authority of the citizen, armed with a gun and armed with the right to vote, to veto the decisions of political rulers through politics. The defenders of Second Amendment liberties understand far better than the gun control movement that there is a connection between the right to keep and bear arms and the fundamental assertion of political sovereignty by the citizenry. They understand that the federal government's violation of Second Amendment liberties is part of a comprehensive program to centralize political power and to overcome the ability of citizens to use the ballot box to resist the extension of this centralized political power. I do not think that many advocates of the Second Amendment believe that there is going to be a time when American citizens get their guns, leave their homes, and somehow adopt urban guerrilla warfare tactics. But they do understand that the gangs may do this. They do not believe the local authorities will always be in a position to defend them against criminal violence. They understand that the decentralization of weapons ownership is basic to the preservation of peace in society, because guerrilla groups, which the gangs are, are mobile, well-armed, well-organized, and ruthless. I am arguing that the citizen who owns defensive weapons, and was trained in their use, constitutes the great barrier against centralized power from above and decentralized criminal violence from below. It is the man in the middle, the armed voter, who is the backbone of Western liberty. Whenever a political movement seeks to disarm the citizen, it is necessarily simultaneously seeking to expand the power of the federal government, and also the power of armed criminals, including gangs. By disarming citizens, the state asserts an ultimate sovereignty over them, and yet it is incapable of carrying out this assertion of sovereignty in local affairs. The central government can do almost nothing about the gangs. It can do very little against criminal behavior. The decline in crime that we have seen over the last 30 years has been mainly a social phenomenon. The biggest single factor is that men tend to commit fewer crimes as they get older. Also, married men commit fewer crimes and acts of violence. The high point of crime in the West was around 1980. This was also the low point of age. After 1980, the average age of residents of the West began to increase. Crime rates dropped. This was not because the federal government became more adept at fighting crime. Members of fringe groups call themselves patriots, and sometimes call themselves members of a militia. They adopt a kind of suicidal romanticism regarding their ability to resist the armed forces of the United States. These weekend warriors may go out and stumble around in the woods, armed with semiautomatic rifles, pretending that they would be able to stay in the field for six or seven years, on their own authority, with their own productivity, supported by rural people who see them as liberators. That might have worked in Southern states in 1863, but it does not work today. There are too few people in the rural areas to support roving bands of militia members. These militias would become the equivalent of gangs in short order. Fortunately, they are too incompetent to achieve the status of gangs.

SYMBOLIC OWNERSHIP
217

For most gun owners, the ownership of firearms is more symbolic than practical. Most people do not spend a week or two in the summer practicing their skills at shooting. This is what all males in Switzerland do every year. The Swiss are serious about their ability to defend their country against invasion. Americans believe that the government, meaning the federal government, is supposed to do this. When the federal government proves incapable of doing this, especially along the southern border of the United States, some conservatives seek to empower state governments to do it. The federal government resists this, because the federal government recognizes that this is an assertion of state's rights and state sovereignty. The federal government is happy to let immigrants flow into the United States across our southern border, because there is really not much that the government can do about it, other than to authorize state governments to do something about it, or county governments to do something about it, and the federal government is not about to do that. I am arguing, therefore, that for most gun owners, most of the time, the ownership of firearms is more symbolic than practical. This is also true of gun control advocates. I do not think most gun control advocates believe that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy that is chomping at the bit to take up arms, get organized, leave their middle-class lifestyle behind, and overturn the United States government. If any gun control advocate believes this, he has approximately the same connection with reality as the weekend militia member does, stomping around in the countryside with his buddies. Symbols are important. A citizen who has the right to keep and bear arms, even though he is not planning to join the state militia, which is in fact an arm of the federal government, understands that he possesses a degree of sovereignty that is not possessed by citizens in nations that prohibit widespread firearm ownership. He understands that he is in a unique situation. He still has the fundamental marks of political sovereignty, namely, firearms. His firearms testify to the fact that the central government does not yet feel sufficiently confident to confiscate his firearms in the name of the central government's exclusive monopoly of violence. His firearms testify to the fact that he is still a citizen, and that he still possesses rights that politicians and bureaucrats cannot legally overturn. The reason why gun control advocates want this right overturned is because they are in favor of centralized political control. They believe that their class, namely, the intellectual class, is in control of the agencies of civil government. For the most part, this assumption is correct. They assume that their class, and only their class, has the wisdom to allocate weapons. They believe that their class alone possesses the right to determine which citizen has access to weapons, under which circumstances, and for how long. In effect, the gun-control advocate is rather like a medieval knight in the 15th century. He resents the fact that weapons are becoming cheaper, and that the common man who joins the Army becomes a threat to his social class, and therefore to his social standing. He resents the fact that his weapons no longer give him a monopoly of violence. Weapons have come onto 218

the market, and these weapons can be used effectively by commoners who do not spend decades of training in their use. The citizen soldiers of the late 18th century faced the problem of the local militias. Professional soldiers found themselves facing common men who could assemble together in the fields, shoot their officers at a distance, shoot the scouts who went out into the field to find them, and then disappear into the woods. Tactics changed, and then strategies changed.

CONCLUSION
I believe we are coming close to the end of the nation-state as we have known it for the past 500 years. I believe that the military historian, Martin van Creveld, is correct. The central governments are running out of solvency, and their ability to provide protection against crime and also provide retirement benefits for the mass of humanity, is in decline. Over the next half-century, and perhaps even less, politicians are going to realize that they can no longer protect citizens against armed criminals locally, and they cannot afford to support their aging populations. At that point, there will be a transfer of legitimacy back in the direction of local civil government. Local civil governments will rest heavily upon armed citizens who are in a position to be deputized. So, I expect a greater decentralization. This decentralization will take place most rapidly in societies where citizens have never surrendered their right to keep and bear arms. This is why I think the United States is the most likely nation to be the working model for this process of decentralization. Americans are more heavily armed than any other people in the democratic world. They may not be as heavily armed as rural residents of Afghanistan, but they are surely better armed than any other Western nation except Switzerland. I doubt that my view of the Second Amendment is widely shared in those circles that are committed to the defense of the Second Amendment. My defense of the second amendment is based on a particular concept of political sovereignty. I believe that individual citizens are sovereign, not because of a grant of authority by the state, but because of a grant of authority by God. The state therefore does not have the right to confiscate the firearms of the people, precisely because the state did not make the original grant of sovereignty to the people. Firearms are marks of political sovereignty. They should be defended on this basis, not on the basis of some hypothetical revolution, which is not going to take place. I am saying that such a revolution is not necessary, precisely because the people do possess the right to keep and bear arms. They need not take up arms against the government, precisely because they already possess the arms.

219

Facts Anti-Gun Advocates Dont Want You to Know

January 9th 2013

After last summers shooting in Aurora, Colorado and last months shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut, anti-gun advocates want you to believe that America is a nation infected with violent crimes and murders. They want you to believe that we are one, if not the, most violent nation in the world and that we have to rid the nation of guns to solve the problem. But what are the real facts? Amidst the Noise released a video on You Tube that provides some very stunning facts about violent crimes in the US and Great Britain that anti-gun advocates dont want you to know this. 220

For instance, according to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Table 1, violent crimes in the US have dropped by nearly 50% in the last twenty years. In 1992, there were 757.7 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In 2011, there were only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people. Thats a reduction of 49%. In the same Table 1, we also see that there were 9.3 homicides per 100,000 people in 1992 and that number dropped to 4.7 homicides per 100,000 in 2011. Thats a reduction of 49.4% in the homicide rate in the past twenty years. The politicians also want you to believe that assault rifles are responsible for many of the homicides that occur and that they need to be banned. According to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Table 8, there was a total of 12,664 homicides reported in 2011. Of those, 8,583 were committed with a firearm. Of those, only 323 were committed with a rifle. Now realize that assault rifles are a subset of the 323, which means that they account for less than 3.8% of homicides committed by firearms and less than 2.6% of all homicides. Have you ever wondered where the highest concentrations of violent crime are? Again turning to the FBIs Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States Table 16, we find that the vast majority of violent crimes are occurring in Americas largest cities. In 2011, there were 754.5 violent crimes per 100,000 people in cities with populations of 250,000 or more. Compare that to the national average that year of 386.3 per 100,000 and see where most of the violent crimes are occurring. Incidentally, the locations of this highest violent crime rates also corresponds to the areas that vote Democrat and re-elected Barack Obama. Now remember that the anti-gun politicians want you to believe that America is far more violent than other nations. So lets compare our violent crime rate to England and Wales. The Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Crimes Detected in England and Wales 2011/12, reports that there were 762,515 violent crimes in the past year. The population of England is 53,013,000 and the population of Wales is 3,006,400. Do the math and you end up with 1,361.6 violent crimes per 100,000 people. In other words, England and Wales has violent crime rate 3.5 times HIGHER than the US. The truth is, as the video reveals, that liberal anti-gun politicians dont want you to know the real facts about guns and violence. If you knew the truth, they wouldnt have any justifiable reason to try to outlaw and ban guns. All of the air goes out of their anti-gun balloon. The other truth revealed in the video is that inner-city culture is the real problem for a large percentage of the violent crimes that take place in the US. Its not guns, its the people. And its the people who vote for Obama and others that want to ban and outlaw guns. In order to truly reduce violent crimes and deaths by guns, you have to change the culture. Unfortunately, Obamas politics only help to reinforce the current culture and keep the people trapped in it. The inner city culture is like a frog in a pot of water. If you place a frog in a pot of hot water, hell jump out because the conditions are uncomfortable. Put the same frog in a pot of water at room temperature and it remains there because it is comfortable to it. As the water is heated up, the frog continues to stay in the water because the change is gradual. Eventually the heat kills the frog. Too many of the inner-city people are so comfortable in their misery that they dont perceive the danger of it. As conditions deteriorate, they continue to remain until eventually they become victims of their own complacency. 221

On one hand Obama is helping create the problem by enslaving the poor with entitlements. On the other hand, Obama is using the problem to attack conservatives and gun owners. He has no desire or intention of dealing with the real issues, but would rather use them to promote his socialistic agenda and policies which require him to disarm the American people. Help stop Obama, Feinstein and Bloomberg by sharing these facts with everyone you know and encourage them to do likewise.

Armed Half of the Country Says Hell NO

The growing sentiment across the country is that the armed half of the population is saying NO to ANY new gun control. This is EXACTLY what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they gave us the Second Amendment. We, the armed half of the country, truly hold the power, and THAT is what Obama, Biden, Feinstein, Bloomberg and their treasonous ilk fear. Gun Control is NOT about preventing another Sandy Hook or Columbine. Gun Control is about disarming the populace to shift the balance of power into an ever expanding, freedom stealing government run by liars, whores and thieves! History has proven time and time again that it is dangerous to believe laws to restrict lawabiding citizens from having semi-automatic weapons will reduce violent crime. Just the opposite occurs when you disarm the law abiding. Sandy Hook is another perfect example of the fallacy of gun control. Here is what happened... Another psych drug failure steals guns, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. Under the influence of the psych drugs, he shoots and kills his own mother, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW, He transports these guns loaded, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. He brings guns onto school property, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. He breaks into the school, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. He discharges the weapons within city limits, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. He murders 26 people WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. He commits suicide, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. And the power hungry leaders of our country somehow think passing ANOTHER law banning guns will protect us from monsters the psychiatric drug companies and their drug pushing psychiatrists started creating ever since these mind altering drugs were introduced to our youth! If you haven't noticed, these psych drug monsters are not concerned about breaking laws they only care about fulfilling their own drug induced, mind altering agenda. The only people that a gun ban law would impact are the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, which will only serve to shift the balance of power into the hands of these psych drugged murderers and into the hands of our rapidly expanding, freedom stripping government.

222

Remember, Gun Control is PEOPLE CONTROL. Do you want to be controlled?

Our Bill Of Rights And The New Witch Hunt

January 9th 2013

From June through September of 1692, the Salem Witch Trials condemned hundreds of people as witches. The accused were men, women, and children and included people from surrounding neighborhoods. Once the fervor against the witches began, there was no end to the accusations. People from all levels of society were accused and tried as witches, including the Governors wife. At least nineteen condemned men and women died from hanging. Other witches either died in jail or lived the duration of their lives as social outcastsalways afraid of the authorities. No one explanation provides the answer to why the Salem Witch Trials reached such a great height. Indeed, the Salem Witch Trials remain curious even today because of the magnitude of people who were accused, convicted, and executed for it. Historians have stated economic, 223

social, and frontier troubles with Native Americans and petty jealousies as a few of the reasons why so many accusations arose. Whatever the cause(s), one thing is certain: many innocent people lost their lives because of the hysterics prompted at the behest of a few. As with those hunting for witches in 1692, today, the liberals are also looking for witches. The unfortunate and inhumane killing of innocent children in Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012 has renewed the liberals taste for vengeance. Unfortunately, criminals are not the focus of their wrath, but it is the Bill of Rights. Liberals feel that the law needs to be reformed. Indeed, they would like to do away with the Bill of Rights completely if at all possible. They are not interested in finding true solutions that work to keep such tragedies from recurring; instead, their ultimate goal is the destruction of our liberties as American citizens. To achieve this goal, they have shamelessly used the tragedy of the Newtown shooting to promote their own political agenda: banishing the Second Amendment altogether. Their argument is that by banning guns, there will never be another tragedy in America. Indeed, their argument would serve well if only it made any sense. In most states, law-abiding citizens who own guns must first pass a thorough background investigation and fingerprinting/ identification process before they can acquire any weapons. Some states require firearms safety training before they issue permits. Suffice it to say, those people who own guns legally must meet state standards (which differ widely by individual states) to own guns. For someone to go through the stringent process of becoming a gun owner only for the sake of going on a shooting spree seems illogical to say the least. Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule; but most law-abiding citizens are aware of the risk they take if they use their guns to hurt innocent people. Typically, people who own guns legally do so for protection, recreation, or mere nostalgia. If anything, many of these law-abiding citizens have used their weapons to defend themselves and even protect others. A 2012 study performed by Clayton E. Cramer and David Burnett for the Cato Institute in Washington D.C. shows several true examples of law-abiding citizens who used their guns for self-defense purposes. The right to bear arms is a fundamental right given to every American citizen. George Washington once said: The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all thats good. Yet, liberals have long forsaken Washington and are now working diligently to eradicate the Bill of Rights, too. Criminals will continue to find ways to get guns as they do even now with the current laws in place. If anything, by banning guns, the government will only further assist criminals in attacking innocent people who will have no way to protect themselves from the criminals dastardly deeds. Consider what a difference it would have made on September 11, 2001 if any American citizen on Flights American 11, United 175, American 77, and United 93 had carried legally-obtained guns. What liberals dont seem to understand is that those who want to commit a crime by definition are not law-abiding individuals to begin with. As such, to expect such people to honor reformed laws that ban guns altogether is foolhardy. The only thing these reforms will bring about is the further destruction of American society. As with the Salem Witch Trials and September 11, 2001, the Newtown shooting has become an infamous part of American history. All of us will remember it forever. It is a disgrace for the liberals to suggest that only they feel the pain for the loss of those innocent lives. It is equally shameful for them to use the tragedy of the Newtown shooting as a way to punish law-abiding American citizens by eradicating our constitutional rights. Laws need to be reformed, but 224

not to hurt those who abide by them. September 11, 2001 united all Americans regardless of their personal beliefs; should not the Newtown tragedy do the same?

Doctors Vs Guns: Statistics Dont Lie

Now lets get really controversial. Which is more dangerous your doctor or your gun? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ddwyKPeNU&feature=player_embedded Published on Jan 8, 2013 Now let's get really controversial. Which is more dangerous your doctor or your gun? Let's start off with two statistics from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Statistic Number One: There are about 700 thousand doctors in the United States. Statistic Number Two: 120 thousand accidental deaths are caused by physicians per year. When we apply a little math, we come up with an average of 0.171 accidental deaths per physician. Now, let's consider two other facts, this time from the FBI: Statistic Number Three: There are 80 million gun owners in the United States. Statistic Number Four: The number of accidental gun deaths per year all ages included is 1,500. When we whip out our calculator we find an average of 0.0000188 accidental deaths per gun owner. Conclusion: Statistics show doctors are about nine thousand times more dangerous than gun owners. Or to put it another way guns don't kill people, doctors do. Well, not everyone has a gun, but nearly everybody has at least one doctor. Here's the hard pill to swallow you are over nine thousand times more likely to be killed by a doctor than by a gun owner. Pass it on. 225

This message was NOT paid for by the American Medical Association.

Second Amendment: My Line In The Sand Is Drawn Here!

January 9th 2012 By Chuck Baldwin infowars.com

The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty If Barack Obama and his gaggle of gun grabbers have their way, the American citizenry will have all of their firearms taken away. If their current attempt to outlaw semi-automatic rifles is successful, does anyone think it will stop there? Dont be nave! The goal of people like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein, Charles Schumer, et al., has always been total gun confiscation. In fact, Senator Feinstein is actually on record as saying so. According to Infowars.com, Senator Dianne Feinsteins ultimate plan has always been to have Mr. and Mrs. America turn in their guns to the government, period. Feinsteins bill would criminalize millions of Americans and completely eviscerate second amendment rights. She tells us a gun ban is about saving the children and reducing crime, but her comments on 60 Minutes in 1995 reveal her true plan is to target law-abiding American gun owners. 226

On Thursday, Feinstein will introduce her dream bill to disarm the American people. The legislation is open-ended and includes provisions to re-register firearms and submit the fingerprints of law-abiding Americans as if theyre sex offenders. Feinsteins bill will also include a buy-back provision that will allow the government to confiscate all firearms. Both Feinstein and New York governor Andrew Cuomo have said that is their plan. It is a gun confiscation bill. The proposed bill is open declaration of war on the Second Amendment. Its no coincidence that the communist Chinese, the biggest holders of U.S. debt, have demanded the American people be disarmed. History tells us that it is the instinct of all tyrants to disarm the slaves. The report plays a video in which Senator Feinstein said, If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every gun Mr. and Mrs. America, turn em all in. See the report at: http://www.infowars.com/video-dianne-feinstein-says-prepare-to-turn-in-your-guns/ Writing for the National Association for Gun Rights, Dudley Brown said, After reading Senator Dianne Feinsteins new so-called Assault Weapons Ban, I can only describe it as the effective END of the Second Amendment in America. The definition of an Assault Weapon in this bill is so broad you can drive a truck through it! Theyre targeting EVERYTHING rifles, shotguns and even handguns. You see, the gungrabbers are going for broke. Even owners of supposedly grandfathered firearms will be treated like common criminals. If passed, Feinsteins so-called Assault Weapons Ban would: Ban the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of 120 specifically named rifles, shotguns and handguns Ban the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of ALL firearms with a detachable magazine and at least one military characteristic which could mean just about anything that makes a gun look scary. Bans the sale, transfer, importation, and manufacturing of magazines holding more than 10 rounds Force owners of ALL grandfathered weapons to undergo an intrusive background check and unnecessary fingerprinting Force owners of ALL grandfathered weapons to federally register their guns after obtaining permission slip from local law enforcement showing their guns are not in violation of state or local law. Thats right. If you own a $10 magazine thats more than 10 rounds, youll have to register it with the BATFE in their National Firearms Registry.

And you and I both know registration is only the first step toward outright confiscation. So dont be fooled. See the report at: http://tiny.cc/5urcqw As I stated in this column last week, The semi-automatic rifle is the vanguard of our liberty; it is the surest and most trustworthy means of our self-defense; and it is the primary companion of any man who would both protect and feed his family. 227

Make no mistake about it: to take away an Americans right to a semi-automatic rifle is to FULLY DISARM HIM. There is no Second Amendment; there is no right to keep and bear arms; there is no citizen militia; there is no liberty without the semi-automatic rifle! In that column I also quoted Thomas Jefferson who rightly observed, The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. See my column at: http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/archives/5335 And it is Jeffersons observation that the strongest reason that the American people must always retain the right to keep and bear arms is to protect themselves against tyranny in government, that is universally ignored in the modern gun-control debate. Throughout the United States, there are tens of millions of fully-armed citizens who are more than capable of defending themselves and their communities against any enemy whether that enemy is an internal or external one. In fact, many millions of these citizens have been trained in the US armed forces. Firearms especially semi-automatic rifles in the hands of millions of American citizens is truly the only thing that stands between freedom and tyranny for the people of the United States. That Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein want to disarm the American people should be considered an act of war against our liberties! In other words, ladies and gentlemen, this is a line in the sand that none of us can afford to ignore. Heres how we must fight: 1. We must literally inundate our US representatives and senators with the most vociferous protest. We must make sure that every representative and senator in America is told that under no uncertain terms their reelection will be determined by how they vote on this issue. Obviously, people such as Senators Feinstein and Schumer come from liberal, anti-gun states which is why they feel safe in proposing these draconian gun-control measures. However, the vast majority of US House members represent average God-fearing Americans to whom the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct. And make no mistake about it: the legislative battle will be won or lost in the US House of Representatives. Here in Montana, however, our two US senators (both Democrats) proudly profess to be proSecond Amendment. Montanans should be sending a strong message to both of these senators to hold the line for our right to keep and bear armsincluding semi-automatic rifles. I cannot imagine that any civil magistrate from either major political party could hope to be reelected in the State of Montana who would support Senator Feinsteins gun-grab bill. And I would hope and pray that there would be dozens of other states in which the Second Amendment is equally honored. Folks, CALL YOUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS NOW! If we expect to retain any semblance of freedom for our posterity, we must pick up the phones and barrage our representatives and senators with opposition to this gun-control bill. And we must do it NOW! Furthermore, we must let our elected officials know that under no uncertain terms there can be NO COMPROMISE, that only outright opposition to any new gun-control measures will be deemed acceptable. There are already far too many gun-control laws in this country. We 228

cannot accept any more abridgements and restrictions to our right to keep and bear arms. NO MORE! 2. We must demand of our State governors and legislators that they resist any attempts of the federal government to outlaw our firearms. Should the Republican-led House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., cave-in to the Obama gun-grab like they did on Obamas tax increases, it will be up to the states to say NO! If there is a single issue for which individual, sovereign states would be willing to defy the federal government and protect the rights and liberties of their citizens, it will be this issue. If the states, and liberty-minded people of the states, do not stand as one on this issue, there is no issue for which they would stand. We either draw the line on this issue or our liberties are gone forever! This means State legislatures should pass laws defying the federal gun ban and protecting the right of citizens to keep and bear arms within their states. Governors should be willing to utilize State law enforcement agencies to protect their citizens right to keep (and not register) their guns, and county sheriffs should stiffen their backs and refuse to allow any federal police agency from enforcing the gun ban. After all, the county sheriff is the highest law enforcement authority in his or her county, trumping even federal law enforcement officers. 3. Individual citizens like you and I must be willing to draw our personal line in the sand on this issue and refuse to comply with any law requiring us to register or surrender our firearms including our semi-automatic rifles. Ladies and gentlemen, whatever the consequences might be, and whatever anyone else does or doesnt do, I am prepared to become an outlaw over this issue! I dont know how to say it any plainer: I will not register my firearms, and I will not surrender my firearms. Period. End of story. Its not just a saying with me: when my guns are outlawed, I will be an outlaw! It is time RIGHT NOW for every American citizen to make up his or her mind on this issue. There are many laws, which I personally find repugnant and even unconstitutional, to which I grudgingly submit. For example, while I very much understand, and even philosophically agree with, those who refuse to pay income taxes, I pay income taxes. Even though I believe the income tax to be unconstitutional, onerous, and maybe even nefarious, I have not drawn my line in the sand on that issue. I havent drawn a line in the sand on the requirement for all sorts of government licenses, i.e., marriage licenses, drivers licenses, CCW permits, Social Security cards, etc., even though I personally believe that many requirements for licensure stretch the boundaries of legitimate government. And, again, even though I understand those who refuse to take them, I have a marriage license, a drivers license, a CCW permit, and a Social Security card. There are many issues over which I am willing to be annoyed, but for the sake of perceived Christian testimony and/or perceived good citizenship, I reluctantly and grudgingly comply. But on the issue of taking away my right to keep and bear armsincluding a semi-automatic rifle I absolutely refuse to comply! My line in the sand is drawn here! Make no mistake about it: it is not just semi-automatic rifles that these gun grabbers are after. Ultimately, they want to take all of our guns. We either stop them now or there will be no stopping them at all. It is no hyperbole to say that this attempt by people such as Barack Obama and Dianne Feinstein to make outlaws out of law-abiding citizens for simply exercising our right to keep 229

and bear arms is the most important political battle of our lifetimes! I am not exaggerating when I say that the future of freedom and liberty for our children and for our country not to mention the future of our own personal lives and freedomhang in the balance. Similar/Related Articles The Second Amendment Wheres the Line? Dicks Sporting Goods Pulls Semi-automatics as Attack Against Second Amendment Intensifies What Is Your Line In The Sand? Rise of the Republic Media Mogul Murdoch Calls for Outlawing Automatic Weapons ATF Plans Gun Registration in Border States Second Amendment Intended to Prevent Absolute Despotism Montana Lawmaker Moves to Protect Second Amendment Feinstein Favors Firearms Registration Britains Firearm Ban Coming to America? Ron Paul on the Second Amendment Battle in DC Second Amendment Under Fire this Month Second Amendment Opponents Regroup as Dust Settles Following Illinois Concealed Carry Ruling Following comments by Jack Graff: Just because something looks like a law, doesnt make it so. If its unconstitutional, there is no duty to obey it. To push the law by force would be treason. There is a punishment for treason. The people will have to carry it out, because a rogue government wont. Just pray that the MILITARY understands the situation. They would not intervene. The main reason THEY want your guns is to make it easier to force the RFID chip on you. They know youll fight that. Secession is the only answer. All Confederate Militia must be prepared. 1. Ammo food water etc. 2. Gas mask to defend against sleep agents and flammable tear gas, (like in Waco) 3. Cape to hide heat sig from night vision: Invisibility stealth. 4. Tent and fire extinguisher and fire proof house. 5. A coalition of friends. 6. A plan. 7. Be psychologically and spiritually ready for whats likely coming. President and Congress must uphold their oath to protect the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights. We, the people of the United States, a democratic republic, demand that the president and congress uphold their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We demand that all executive orders in violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights be immediately overturned and declared null and void.

230

We demand an independent criminal investigation into all events which deemed these executive orders necessary, including but not limited to Fast and Furious, Benghazi and other government created opportunities. We demand that anyone passing laws in violation of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights be tried for treason and immediately removed from public office.

Americans are Too Smart for Gun Control

January 10th 2013 By Michael S. Brown

In the wake of the December school shooting in Newtown, Conn., politicians and journalists who hate to see guns in the hands of ordinary citizens turned into a raving mob who sensed that victory over their enemies was near. Reality is now starting to set in. There are several reasons why we probably wont see any new laws and certainly no laws that will prevent school attacks. The first reason is that the American people are now seeing the hypocrisy and dishonesty of the anti-gun lobby. For years, we have been promised that President Obama and his party would never move against lawful gun owners. Now that he is not facing any more elections, the promise is forgotten. Who doubts that this was the plan all along? 231

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, is about to introduce the most restrictive weapons ban in American history. Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York has said that confiscation may be an option. New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg is apoplectic at the thought of revolting peasants out there he cant control. All of these politicians are protected by armed guards who can use any guns they wish, but they dont think the public merits the same privileges. In NBCs Washington studio, Meet the Press moderator David Gregory, while criticizing the National Rifle Association proposal to put armed guards in schools, displayed a 30-round magazine that is prohibited in the District of Columbia. As a member of the media elite, he will never spend a day in jail. It was also revealed that he sends his children to a school that is protected by armed guards. Guns for me, but not for thee. People are starting to remember that the history of gun control laws is one of utter failure. Ask Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago how his super-strict gun laws are working for him: 506 murders last year and he is still demanding tougher gun laws. The federal law that made schools gun-free zones was a proud accomplishment of the antigun lobby. Did they know that this would make schools magnets for homicidal lunatics? It seemed like harmless, feel-good legislation at the time, but after seeing how frantically they exploit the deaths of schoolchildren to support their agenda, conspiracy theorists are wondering if it was part of a cynical plan to justify more laws. More likely they were just blinded by faith in their agenda. Lets imagine that a law banning semi-automatic firearms is enacted. The Supreme Court has said that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. However, the strange and twisted history of gun control efforts also created another Supreme Court decision called United States v. Miller in 1938. This was seen as a victory for gun control at the time, because it allowed the strict regulation of shotguns and rifles with barrels less than 16 inches long under the theory that they were not suitable for militia service. Guns that were suitable for militia service were fine. Todays so-called assault weapons, or what some call freedom rifles, are perfect examples of guns that are well suited for militia service. What will happen if new laws are passed and withstand judicial review? The long history of American gun laws gives us a pretty good idea. You can be absolutely certain that none of the new laws would have stopped the Connecticut school attack. In fact, gun law proponents frequently say that this law would not have stopped the tragedy, but it is a step in the right direction. Why then are they using that particular attack to promote their law? We also know gun laws are always written by people who hate guns. Ironically, they are the ones who know the least about guns, so there will be many ways around the laws. Only lawabiding citizens will be inconvenienced or have their lives ruined by inadvertent technical violations. Many gun control laws have been tried in many places over the last few centuries. Aside from those that were obviously intended to disarm minorities prior to a campaign of genocide, none have ever had the desired effect. The American people are not stupid. Even a furious campaign of emotional fireworks will not persuade the majority to support futile and counterproductive new laws.

232

Former Marine On Assault Weapons Ban: Unconstitutional Laws Arent Laws

January 10th 2013 By Mike Brown

Cpl. Joshua Boston, a former Marine, who penned a scathing letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) over her proposed assault weapons ban bill, appeared on CNN and absolutely owned the host as he responded to questions regarding the Second Amendment and his letter. In the end, when asked if the ban was in place and that required him to register his weapons, would he break the law? His response was simply, Unconstitutional laws arent laws. 233

Boston, a veteran of Afghanistan, was asked why he wrote the letter and if he expected it to get as much attention as it did. While he didnt expect the attention, he did say why he wrote the letter. I wrote it because I kept seeing in the news this debate about gun control and all the points being brought up by Senator Feinsteina lot of it is misinformation. Its fearmongering that she is spreading and that is being perpetrated by the media as well. Theres just not a whole lot of double checking and not a lot of facts coming out in this discussion. The former Marine, once a Marine always a Marine, did say that his letter was a response specifically to her proposed legislation on her website, not necessarily towards other legislation. However, from his response, I gather that his arguments apply across the board as later he would state that the Second Amendment doesnt apply to hunting and sporting purposes. He said that the text of the Second Amendment reads shall not be infringed. When asked if the ban is passed, which requires all firearms owners with any of the guns that would fall under that ban, including semi-automatic handguns and shotguns with removable magazines and having at least one military requirement, what would he do? Boston replied, Well, Im not going to be registering and the precedent has already been set by David Gregory, who apparently doesnt have to abide by the laws of Washington, D.C. Excuse me a moment.Score! He was interrupted by the host to say, Well, we dont know that. There was some miscommunication there apparently. Not to get sidetracked, but the communication was abundantly clear what the law was and that the DC police had, in fact, turned Gregory down from using a high capacity magazine on national television. So what does Boston think would happen to him if he failed to register his weapons? Whatever happens, happens, he said calmly. But I have a right granted to me by the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights and it says, shall not be infringed. The host attempted to say that the ban applied to all weapons in the bill that are being labeled assault weapons, which they are not, prospectively, not retrospectively. While that is true for the sale, the transfer, the importation, and the possession of these firearms, what they dont bring up is the grandfather portion for those who already own them. In that section, not only will you have to provide ID via a photograph and fingerprints for a national database, but also pay a tax of $200 per firearm that you own every year! She then went on to quote part of a response that Senator Feinstein gave in response to Cpl. Bostons letter. Senator Feinstein respects Cpl. Bostons service, She has heard from thousands of people including many gun owners who support her plan to stop the sale, transfer, importation and manufacturing of assault weapons and large capacity magazines, strips, and drums that hold more than 10 rounds. As Senator Feinstein has said, the legislation will be carefully focused to protect the rights of existing gun owners by exempting hundreds of weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes. It should be noted that neither Sen. Feinstein nor the CNN host named one gun owner that supports her weapons ban bill. 234

The Feinstein response was a setup for another score on the part of Boston. When asked his response, he said, Im still confused as to where the hunting and sporting clause is in the Second Amendment. Its nowhere to be found in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution, so I dont understand what she means. Boston didnt think there should be a change to the law following the shootings that took place in Colorado or Connecticut. He stated that the laws that we already have are extensive. He then warned, The fact of the matter is that predators are among us and we have to recognize that fact. We dont live in a Utopia. Our citizens have to be armed to protect themselves from these madmen. The host obviously didnt get it as she appears to think, like the politicians do, that we can somehow stop every bad thing from happening to anyone. She asked, So what is the solution then? Is that the solution to stop these tragedies, for everyone to be armed? How do you stop this from happening again? Cpl. Boston said, Not for everyone, but it certainly ups the probability of successfully stopping a shooter before you have 20 dead.30 dead. People will choose whether or not they want to carry if they want to. Ive made that choice, as have hundreds of thousands of Americans and should we unfortunately ever find ourselves in the situation to protect others in our lives we will. The host responded by demonstrating that this entire thing about banning weapons is about removing the citizens ability to protect themselves because her response is about following the law. She asked, But the law is the law. If it becomes law, then youre just willing to break it. Apparently she would have been on the side of other people in history who put terrible laws in place to disarm their people for the express purpose of controlling them and killing those opposed to them. But Boston, simply addresses her properly about unconstitutional laws. Unconstitutional laws arent laws, he said. In other words unlawful laws are usurpation of the law. At the end of the interview: Cpl. Boston 3, CNN host 0. Watch the interview below:

Ret. Marine Absolutely Owns CNN Anchor On 2nd Amendment

Unconstitutional laws arent laws http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AOjI6laKGYU Additionally, for the audience that is a bit younger, I found this little tidbit of American history:

235

Before 1968 you could mail order a semi-automatic 20mm anti-tank cannon right to your door. No background checks necessary. $0.75 per shot. We honestly need to return to those days!

The United States Constitution Designed To Lay Down The Law Of The Land
January 10th 2013

236

The President of the United States Took the Oath of Office, but does anyone really know what is stated? Under Article 2 Section 1 paragraph 8 of the Constitution of the United States the Presidents Oath of Office goes as follows; I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States According to this pledge, Oath, or whatever one wishes to call it we can see very clear that the President Swears, or affirms that he will by the Oath of Office he took, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Well low and behold, Obama has gone off the ranch on this by even considering any sort of law AGAINST the Second Amendment! Yet here we are just days into 2013 with Obama now beginning a hard push for Gun Control! Here it has to be mentioned that we have a Second Amendment which clearly states; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This is brief and to the point just like the founders of this nation wanted it to be. Yet, there are people today that cannot see the forest for the trees in front of them. These people are going to the forefront now and saying that we need more gun control. If any of the Jewish people that had lived during the Nazis rise to power in Germany, they would be shaking in their boots right about now because the same thing happened in their country. We should state that we do not believe that our President will go as far as taking guns away from law abiding Citizens at this point. However, we should be prepared since some of the ideas about gun control that come from the Presidents office now seem to indicate not just a background check for purchases, but that he also wants to have all the guns registered. To register a gun will become more expensive than most people could afford, making gun ownership nearly impossible, even for hunting. Than the next step will begin the confiscation of guns. Dont say this will not happen, it was done after Katrina in New Orleans. At that point only the criminals and the military had guns and the military shot some of them dead! Yes the mass killings were bad and should never have happened, but take a look at them and find out why they happened. Dont blame the results until you find out the problem! The problem in Aurora, Colorado and Newtown, Connecticut were the signs posted in front of both places. You see them all the time. They stand right out and bite you. They are simple little signs, but ones that allow criminals to choose and pick their targets. The signs read, This is a Gun Free Zone. Well, in both cases, the individuals bypassed places that did not have those signs up and instead sought out places where the signs were visible. Yes, they advertised where they had no guns, making easy targets of those within the buildings, and in both cases the individuals either entered an Exit door or broke into the building. The founders of this nation placed the Second Amendment into the Constitution so as to allow the Citizens to bring up arms to a government that has become tyrannical in nature. With this very idea in mind, let us take a look at a recent Supreme Court ruling on gun control and the Second Amendment. In United States v. Miller, the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawedoff-shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that with obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view. 237

The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion. It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense, who, when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Here we can see the Supreme Court stating that any able bodied Citizen can obtain and own military equipment, but in the Obama Marxist/Socialist world, along with other Socialist types, this cannot be since it would mean they have to obey the law for fear of the people, when they want the people to fear them. We have checked the State laws on the ownership of guns and should the Federal Government make an attempt to, as stated in the Second Amendment, infringe upon the state laws, the Federal Government would be overstepping their Constitutional right to do so since any law, according to our Constitution, which is not specifically given to the Federal Government, is regulated to the States. We must state that there are other Supreme Court rulings which flop all around the Second Amendment, but none of them specifically state that the Federal Government has total control over guns. Forty-four states have some sort of law which preserves the right to keep and bear arms. The six states that have limited or no rights to bear arms are: California, Maryland, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Iowa. The other 44 have all sorts of rights to own guns or bear arms, with Louisiana being the most gun owner friendly state in the union.

Louisiana Constitution Article I, Section 11 The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. CONST 1 11 11. Right to Keep and Bear Arms Section 11. The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. Acts 2012, No. 874, 1, approved Nov. 6, 2012, eff. Dec. 10, 2012. Recently, there has been a discussion on a radio show that has gone viral. It is a radio show which should instill fear into the hearts of every United States Citizen especially after listening to the clips below. These clips tell how our Federal Government is in the planning stages for complete Martial law, giving no Constitutional rights to anyone and from what the police officer states, they may even shoot you on the spot should you resist! Now this seems to be an extreme case of possible paranoia, but if this has just a sliver of truth to it, we are headed down the same road Nazi Germany went in 1938 with their total gun control laws. The clips are linked below. You check them out and see what you think. Part one on Martial Law by the Federal Government Part 2 on Martial Law By Federal Government 238

Part 3 of Martial Law By Federal Law Now we have to warn you, these sites discuss just what the government is planning and what they intend to do. Here is the problem, it seems this may hold some validity to it due to the amount of ammunition some of the Federal Agencies are buying. The list of agencies and amount of ammunition they bought is below with the site from where this information has come. President Obama has stated before that he would like to ban all guns. How do we know this? Take a look. Assault weapons bans and overall gun bans In 1996, State Senate hopeful Obama filled out a questionnaire from a Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois. He gave these responses: 35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes. Despite the fact that his campaign said Obama did not fill out the questionnaires a staffer did and that he may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, Factcheck.org has found that the writing on the form was that of Obamas. In July of 1998, Obama supported the following goals on the State Legislative National Political Awareness test: Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms

In October 2000, State Senator Obama co-sponsored legislation in the Illinois Senate to limit handgun purchases to one per month. The legislation did not pass. While debating Mr. Alan Keyes during the Illinois Senate campaign in 2004, State Senator Obama described the fact that President Bush did not re-institute an assault weapons ban as a scandal. Lets be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban. Here is proof that Obama has once again lied to the people when he stated in his 2008 campaign, I will not take your guns away. We have to wonder just how many times Obama will lie to the people before they wake up and see this? Ill reference an article by Paul Joseph Watson. It is about how the Department of Homeland Security has gone out and bought up 1.7 million rounds ammunition for various types of guns, not all associated with Homeland Security, if we take a brief minute here to look back at 1938 239

Nazi Germany, we also hear of a Department called, Homeland Security strange to say the least. Watson writes: Although the Associated Press and other media outlets dismissed concerns over the federal government purchasing large quantities of ammunition as paranoia, the fact that the DHS is preparing for civil unrest cannot be denied. Having recently acquired riot gear, the DHS also purchased a number of bullet-proof checkpoint booths that include stop and go lights. Last year, Department of Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano directed ICE to prepare for a mass influx of immigrants into the United States, calling for the plan to deal with the shelter and processing of large numbers of people. The U.S. Army has also been preparing for domestic disorder. A recently leaked US Army Military Police training manual for Civil Disturbance Operations outlines how military assets are to be used domestically to quell riots, confiscate firearms and even kill Americans on U.S. soil during mass civil unrest. On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of deadly force in confronting dissidents are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, Warning shot will not be fired. The manual includes lists of weapons to be used against rioters or demonstrators, including antiriot grenades. It also advises troops to carry their guns in the safe port arms stance, a psychological tactic aimed at making a show of force before rioters. Non-lethal weapons and water cannons are also included.

Now this should scare the pants off people, but remember, the Constitution speaks of, We The People, not we the government! It has to be noted that nearly every part of the Obama Administration has sought out ammunition including Social Security, National Weather Service, and other Federal Agencies. Is our nation on the verge of being taken over for the sake of the few? Is our nation about to become a puppet of the World? Now the most important question here is, will We The People allow this to happen under our very noses, using the shadow of gun control as a forefront to a tyrannical government? It is up to, us and if we sit down and just say that will never happen, we will be just like the Jewish people of 1938, lined up and shot because we sat back and did not pay attention!

Obama to follow in footsteps of Hitler, Stalin with 'executive order' disarmament of the American people
January 10th 2013 240

It's official. President Obama is going to march America down the dark halls of history by following in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and all the other gungrabbing madmen who have exploited fear to achieve the total concentration of power in the hands of dictatorial government. America is headed into civil war. Vice President Joe Biden said today that disarming the American people and setting them up for government genocide is "acting responsibly." As published today in the Weekly Standard: "The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executive orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required." Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act." Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the wellbeing of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly." Biden is the guy who once promised, "Obama's not getting my Beretta shotgun." Obama also made a campaign promise that he would never come after your guns. Now they're both charging forward with a plot to completely disarm all the legal gun owners across America. This is the moment when America either falls to tyrants or rises to resist it. Matt Drudge sees what's coming. DrudgeReport.com posted this headline earlier this morning, complete with pictures of Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin:

241

Gun grabbers actually want your guns so they can murder you with them The real agenda of gun grabbers has now become crystal clear: They want to kill gun owners and anyone who doesn't bow down to the Hitlerian madness of the Obama administration. Last night on the Piers Morgan show on CNN, guests openly threatened Alex Jones' children with being killed, and then one guest openly suggested that Piers Morgan shoot Alex Jones with an AR-15 -- followed by laughter from the other guests on the show. It is a felony crime to threaten to murder a person, yet none of these guests who appeared on Piers Morgan have been arrested. That astonishing video is available here: www.infowars.com/veiled-threat-piers-morgan-guest-says-shoot-alex-jon... This is nothing short of a death threat aired on national television. This is what the gun grabbers really want: to TAKE your guns so they can SHOOT you with them. It's all coming out. This is their true agenda: mass murder and / or genocide. Those who support gun disarmament of the American people are supporting mass murder: Michael Moore, Piers Morgan, Biden, Obama, Cuomo... they are all proponents of mass murder. They are the very same kind of people who once supported Hitler and Stalin, and now they're creating a new Hitler in Barack Obama, the would-be dictator who is thrusting America straight into a new civil war. Read history: Gun confiscation leads to mass murder by government ("democide") As firearms instructor Paul Howe wrote recently, history teaches us harsh lessons about government disarmament of citizens: In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated 242

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. Those are 56 million deaths that fall onto the hands of people like Obama, Biden, Morgan, Bloomberg, Cuomo and anyone who calls for gun confiscation. YOU are the mass murderers who make the Sandy Hook shooting look like nothing in comparison. It now appears Obama is going to go down in history as the U.S. President who brought us to a second civil war, where the goal of the radical left is to exterminate anyone who believes in liberty.

American are arming for war

Lock and load, friends. The darkest chapter in American history is fast approaching. Meanwhile, Americans are arming up like never before. As the Washington Free Beacon is reporting today, "Folks are grabbing just about any gun they can get their hands on..." Keep in mind the simple fact that Americans are NOT buying guns just so they can turn them in. Record gun sales everywhere across the country are a sign that Americans are arming for WAR against the radical left. Over ten million firearms were purchased in December alone, and today there's hardly a gun left on any store shelf anywhere in the country. Ammo inventories have also been wiped out nearly everywhere. Same story with rifle magazines. Bottom line? Over the last 30 days, the American people purchased and took home nearly every handgun, rifle, shotgun, magazine and bullet that was for sale across the entire country. To repeat: These items were NOT purchased just to turn them in to the government. They were purchased to defend the Republic against anti-American traitors and tyrants. We cannot help but conclude America is headed into civil war if the criminals in Washington actually try to ban guns.

This is What I Want to Hear Obama Say About Guns!

January 11th 2013 By Jon Rappoport

243

The first thing I want to hear Obama say about guns is what I'd expect from any rational person: "Here is where gun murders are occurring in the United States. Look at this map." Yes, let's start there. I mean, if we were heading up a campaign to stop gun murders and gun maiming, wouldn't we do that? Let's see where all this gun violence is happening. Is it on Western ranches? Is it in the desert? Is it in the Everglades? On Mt. Whitney? In Scarsdale? Shaker Heights? Gangs! That's a good place to start, wouldn't you say? Especially since gangs can obtain guns whether or not they're legal. So no new law is going to stop them from what they're doing. If Obama really wants to solve the problem of gun violence, why doesn't he say anything about gangs? Why doesn't he say anything about New Orleans, Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit, Philadelphia, and St. Louis? Is it because he's not trying to solve gun violence but only gun ownership? Is ownership what's really bothering him? And then I want to hear him say this, too: "A father is home at night. An intruder breaks in. The father is armed. To defend his life and the lives of his family and his property, he has every right to shoot the intruder. "If he does that, if he shoots the intruder, he's a good father." This is what I want to hear from the lips of the president, just to make things clear, just to set the record straight. No equivocation. I don't want to hear anything about calling 911 or waiting for the police. I don't want to hear anything about turning on the lights or inspecting the safety on the intruder's gun to see if it's engaged.

And then I want to hear the president say this: "There is no doubt the Second Amendment was drafted, in part, to allow citizens to protect themselves against the possible future tyranny of the central government. That potential tyranny was exactly why the whole Constitution was written as it was. To check the power of 244

federal authority." I want that on the record, too. Then and only then is a real conversation about guns possible. You see, with all the verbiage about assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, many people assume, however, that the real and legal bottom-line reasons for owning a gun in this country are secure. I don't agree. I don't agree that the president or any of his allies in the White House and Congress acknowledge those basic reasons and accept them. I hear a lot of talk about "the traditional gun culture" in America. That generalization is meant to be a tip of the hat to hunters in wide open spaces of the West. Oh yes, his father and his grandfather owned guns. Bring down a deer and eat it. Sure. And people love their guns. It's ingrained in the American spirit. I'm not falling for any of that. People own guns for reasons other than hunting. They own them to protect themselves against criminals. Which means shooting those criminals. And they own guns to protect themselves against a central government that wants to operate as a de facto monarchy. Do the president and the Congress explicitly agree? Let's hear them admit it. That would be the just the beginning of the dialogue. Without that admission, however, there is no trust and no good will. And Mr. President, when you make the admission, you'll have to go a long way, in your words, in your attitude, to overcome deep public skepticism. That's up to you. No guarantees. But without the admission, there is nothing, except the obvious conclusion you're operating a bait and switch. What you really want is all the guns, and you're taking a few radical steps in that direction. You must also explain why law-enforcement agencies have ordered more than a billion rounds of ammunition in the last year. Precisely what are those bullets for? All those agencies operate domestically. I want to hear the president admit there is a world of difference between an armed citizen defending his life, liberty, and property and the lives of his loved ones...and a criminal using a gun to commit a crime. I want him to admit that the program to take away guns cannot make a true distinction between these situations. Therefore, the honest and honorable citizen is punished and stripped of legal means for defense, as if he were a criminal. As a gesture of good will, every wealthy person who declares an intention to grab guns should spell out the precise nature of his own means of protection. This would entail listing the number of security people who guard him and what weapons they carry. It's called full disclosure. It puts the true cards on the table. 245

"I'm a limousine liberal. I don't believe in owning a gun. I wouldn't know how to shoot a gun if my life depended on it. But I do have fourteen men who work for me who carry weapons..." Good. Give us their names so their guns can be taken away. And how about taking guns away from private security companies, the big ones who do contract work for the government? Those people are very easy to locate and inspect. How about grabbing their guns first? Of course, many policemen in America own guns they don't use on the job. Those guns should be confiscated immediately, correct? I want to hear the president say: "Add up the number of guns owned in America. Then subtract from that the number of guns used in crimes. The remainder are not being used to commit crimes. Here is the precise number of guns that are behaving themselves..." Excuse me for bringing up what may seem to be a peripheral issue, Mr. President, but since the federal government and its corporate allies can now spy on each and every American, 24/7, down to the label on his underwear, and can listen to his every phone call and read his every email and text message and inspect his every purchase, while discovering what may or may not be concealed in his bodily orifices during air travel, don't you think it's reasonable to ask for an explanation of all this that goes beyond heading off terrorist attacks? Aren't we justified, in fact, in assuming that the federal government views every citizen as a potential threat? And if so, how would you assess the desire of many people to own weapons? Please offer a complete and open and honest description of this state of affairs. You might also enlighten those idiots among us who simultaneously rail about too much government surveillance and yet want the government to take away all our weapons. That would be a bonus. Again, I apologize for introducing what may seem to be an unconnected point, but I have to ask this question: Are you the last man in America to find out that many psychiatric drugs induce otherwise lawbiding people to commit murder? It would be ironic if you were. Just asking. The cat is out of the bag. Everybody and his brother is now aware, for example, that the SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) have been scrambling neurotransmitters and causing people to go crazy in violent homicidal ways. And yet, in your speech after the Sandy Hook murders, you spoke of the need to expand mental-health services. Mr. President, do you have any idea what this means? It means more of these highly volatile and dangerous drugs will be dispensed, and then we will have more murders.

Everybody has figured this out. Step out of the Oval Office bubble and come to your senses. The catch-all phrase "mental health" may make a suitable sound in a presidential speech, but really, it's a confession of an ignorance so vast as to be stunning, at this late date. Returning to how I began this article, let's hear you clarify your position about gun violence 246

versus gun ownership. You really need to do that, since you haven't shown you intend to stop gun violence, since you've said nothing definitive about gangs and those places on the US map where most of the gun violence is taking place. A commander-on-chief says: "This is the enemy, and this is where the enemy is, and this is where we're going after him." Your failure to do that is a dead giveaway that your agenda is about something else entirely. Somehow you've managed to hypnotize all those fellow liberals into neglecting to see this glaring fact. Maybe they don't want to stop gun violence, either. They just want to stop ownership. PS: Brian? Brian Williams? Are you there? Caught you on Letterman the other night. Nice impression of Regis Philbin. You spoke glowingly of the American West and its long tradition of guns. Was it just by a slip of memory you failed to mention the private-citizen use of weapons to shoot criminals? That's a long tradition, too. Or would referring to it have been cutting too close to the bone? Feel free to retrace your steps on the NBC Nightly News, the nation's most trusted source of truth. PPS: Mr. President, just thought of something else. You've heard of the name, Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla? I'm sure you've been getting briefings on him. He's standing trial in your old city, Chicago. Niebla is a member of the Sinaloa Cartel (drug gang). For some reason, his trial keeps getting postponed. Niebla and his lawyers state that he has special immunity from the DEA, because there is a deal between the US federal government and Sinaloa. In exchange for the Sinaloa providing intelligence on rival Mexican drug gangs, the US government is permitting Sinaloa to ship tons of drugs into the US through Chicago. US prosecutors have been asserting the right to suppress quite a bit of evidence in the Niebla trial, for national security reasons. Is this perhaps one reason why you don't mention gang gun violence in your campaign to take away guns? Because guns in the hands of gang members ensure the smooth flow of drugs into Chicago and then into the rest of the US? That's a lot of gang guns in a lot of hands in a lot of places in the US. Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

The Greatest CNN Inter view ever: Jones Rages Against the Machine!
January 11th 2013 247

By S. D. Wells

This is major network news coverage of a man exposing the attempt of the American Government at disarming the masses. Using the recent school shooting and theater shooting as a ploy to put some huge gun bill through the system, with thousands of pages most Congressmen admit they NEVER READ, the mass media aired the one man who could expose the ultimate fraud in just 15 minutes. This is major network news coverage of an honest, hard working, highly intelligent and educated man exposing the core, the root of all evil - the story that's in every history book - governments all over the world that disarm the people and then take complete control (http://www.loosechange911.com/). Alex Jones, host of InfoWars.com and the Alex Jones Show "There's a war for your mind," has the concrete statistics and the BIG PICTURE for every subject Piers brought up, and every subject every American needs to understand, if they want to keep living that "free" life they take for granted so well (http://www.infowars.com/). Here's Alex Jones speaking out against Senator Feinstein's bill proposal to disarm America and Obama's Executive order becoming an Amendment to the Constitution to eventually take away ALL guns. If you wonder why Alex Jones is so high strung and "outspoken" during this interview, it is because this is the only time CNN will ever have him on again, and that probably goes for all MAINSTREAM MEDIA, including FOX, MSNBC, NBC, ABC and CBS. Realize that mainstream media's goal is to keep the public living in fear, thinking about the tragedies in schools and movie theaters, not thinking about their rights to own guns, even when many of those mass shooting stories DO NOT involve the use of semi-automatic or automatic weapons (http://www.naturalnews.com). In fact, most mass killings/shootings are by young males on "psych" drugs and ADHD drugs and do not involve semi-automatic or automatic weapons. (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=2E10716E6FD870ADECD5461A6778F3AB). Blame the REAL CULPRIT of the mass shootings This was Alex Jones' big chance and he communicated the message so well that it immediately went viral on the internet. "It's not the gun that's driving the insanity, it's the drugs," yells Alex. "Why don't you want to get rid of the drugs ... because they're half your sponsors?!" Alex said, "America's number one cause of unnatural death now is suicide; not automobile accidents, not cancer. We're talking about 'suicide pills; mass murder pills!'" Piers worked very hard at that moment to interrupt Jones over and over to prevent his point from sinking in to the minds of Americans, many who worship CNN news and think its all real (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg). 248

The whole point of CNN and Piers Morgan taking the chance of interviewing this phenomenal whistle blower was so they could make him look too radical, but it all backfired, because Alex Jones' statistics and intelligence was too much for CNN, and they cut the end of the interview short. "The Second Amendment isn't there for duck hunting; it's there to protect us from tyrannical government" At one point in the interview, Jones even references the mass shootings of operation Gladio (few Americans are aware of Operation Gladio and decades of false flag terrorism). Jones repeatedly stresses the fact that total gun bans create the highest crime rates, all over the world. It's indisputable. Jones actually brought the FBI statistics with him on paper and refers to them when Piers tries to denounce him. Why is this "Natural News"? Serial killers exist in FOOD AND MEDICINE. Alex Jones has Mike Adams, Editor of NaturalNews, filling in as the host on InfoWars quite often, and you can bet those upcoming conversations will be intriguing, especially because politics at the top always drain down as poison to the bottom, in the form of bad food and serial killing medicine. Prescription drugs, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes and Alzheimer's are mostly the END RESULTS of useless prescription drugs and processed, chemically-laced food. The list is extensive and growing; from aspartame to chemo, from bleach to ammonia, from growth hormones in meat to a 20something "kid" on the latest depression and anti-anxiety pill grabbing a semi-auto and shooting up wherever. The psychotic, psycho-creating, prescription pharmaceutical laboratory concoctions have side effects of suicide and aggression, and the aspartame and the MSG have side and full effects of central nervous system disorders, so where does the buck stop? Alex Jones opened up Pandora's Box on CNN and Piers Morgan opened up more than that! Will Piers Morgan be in jail within the next year? What will happen to the central platform of believing that automatic and semi-automatic weapons may be the only way people maintain their Bill of Rights, because your RIGHT TO CALL YOUR LAWYER and GO TO COURT are already gone. If you have any doubts about that, just put NDAA and Natural News in your search engine and you'll understand instantly. (http://verdict.justia.com) (http://www.naturalnews.com) Every time Jones brings up statistics, he is cut off by a new question by Piers in a sort of Romney-esque style, but Jones runs over him with the real deal about gun violence and how there's much less gun violence when people have the right to conceal/carry. Jones reveals the true source of the recent mass shootings, saying basically what is responsible for these mass killings is not some certain gun or knife, but rather it's the psycho drugs ... the "suicide pills!" (http://www.infowars.com). Alex Jones breaks it wide open. The YouTube clips already have over 2 million views: Part I: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y) Part II: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo) 249

"Piers Morgan is a hack with little regard for journalistic integrity, which makes us wonder how and why CNN would stake its reputation on him." Check out the petition to deport Piers Morgan; "We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens," the petition said (http://www.reuters.com). Sources for this article include: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3716151.stm http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=2E10716E6FD870ADECD5461A6778F3AB http://www.infowars.com http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3713857.stm http://www.loosechange911.com/ http://www.naturalnews.com/032912_FDA_dietary_supplements.html http://www.naturalnews.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtyKofFih8Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tf-i3Y5iRYo http://www.huffingtonpost.com http://verdict.justia.com http://www.naturalnews.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg http://truthfrequencynews.com http://www.nydailynews.com http://www.reuters.com http://www.naturalnews.com

250

Nationwide ammo shortage so severe that even cops can't buy bullets & ammo rationing imminent!
January 11th 2013

One of the great myths of modern society is that the police are heavily armed and have both ammo and personnel in huge numbers. In reality, it's quite the opposite: police and sheriffs are dangerously under-staffed all across the country in nearly every city and town. Furthermore, severe budget cuts have left law enforcement with dwindling ammunition supplies. In some departments, it's so bad that nearly the only ammo available is what officers are carrying on their duty belts. And now it has just gotten far worse. Thanks to outrageous Sandy Hook fear mongering by the mainstream media and political operatives like Feinstein, Obama, Cuomo and others, the American people have been rushing out to buy up every bullet, every rifle, every handgun and very nearly every gun-related product in the country. This is all because people like Biden, Obama and Feinstein are openly declaring war on the Second Amendment and threatening to outlaw or restrict firearms, magazines and ammunition. "Channel 2 Action News has learned local police departments cannot get their hands on the ammunition they need," reports WSBTV in Atlanta. WSBTV continues: "There's been more demand for ammunition than there's ever been," reports Jay Wallace, owner of Smyrna Police Distributors in Cobb County. Wallace is now worried some departments could have to wait up to a year for factories to ship certain kinds of rounds in bulk. Leaders with most police departments ... said they're prepared to handle short shortages, but not long-term. "We're going be starting to get very concerned at the six-month level if that's all we have in stock, because then we have to start planning and rationing. Rationing? Yep. It's here already, and the global debt collapse hasn't even begun yet!

Ammunition inventory status

The mass rush by citizens to purchase ammunition ahead of an Obama / Biden unconstitutional (and unlawful) executive order banning such sales has resulted in the neardepletion of available ammunition as follows: Rifle rounds are completely gone everywhere. Shotgun shells are somewhat more available but still limited. Handgun rounds are limited and becoming difficult to find. 22LR rounds are completely gone. Lesser-known varmint rounds such as .17 HMR are still available. 251

The backlog of ammunition demand now exceeds one year. The backlog demand for rifle magazines now exceeds one million units. The demand for rifles themselves has reached record levels, with a one-year backlog on production just to meet present-day demand. Here are some of the messages you'll see across the internet right now at online retailers' websites: Cheaper Than Dirt: Consumer reaction to the political rhetoric after the shooting in CT caused a rush of online orders at Cheaper Than Dirt! which led to the largest backlog in the company's history. Ammunition and shooting accessories orders more than tripled, resulting in week-long shipping delays. The past three weeks have been spent catching up on the tremendous backlog of orders, training additional staff and increasing inventory back to acceptable levels. Firearms that are in high demand are not currently available from manufacturers due to the lack of inventory. This includes most modern sporting rifles. Ammo To Go EXPECT DELAYS: Due to high order volume, we are experiencing a shipping delay of 22-24 business days... Midway USA ALL AR-15 magazines currently showing "out of stock, NO backorder." Brownells Due to extreme order volumes, shipments may be delayed. We will continue to make every effort to get orders out the door as quickly as possible.

Why this matters: Social unrest

Here's why all this matters. In a time of social unrest, cops are your best friends. Without cops on the streets, every major U.S. city would devolve into a gang-infested crap-hole within 72 hours or less. Cops are the men and women in blue who prevent the more malicious members of the human race from expressing the kind of evil sons of bitches they really are deep inside. If you think humanity is "inherently GOOD," you've never been a cop! Ask any cop and they'll tell you the far less fashionable truth: People are inherently EVIL, selfish, deceptive and dangerous. That's why we need cops in the first place, isn't it? To keep some criminal-minded dirtbag from breaking into your home, stealing your jewelry and raping your dog. (Or whatever it is they do.) Cops get a bad rap in peace time, of course, but in a collapse scenario or something worse you'll be begging for 911 to function so you can dial a phone and have (relatively) friendly men with guns arrive at your doorstep. Society needs cops to prevent criminals from running rampant across neighborhoods and pillaging to their heart's delight. Or, better yet, society needs every household to own a rifle, a shotgun and a handgun for their own defense, but unfortunately that's not yet the case in America. (Although it nearly is in Switzerland.)

252

So what happens when cops run out of bullets? It's not good. Not unless you're a gang member just waiting to commit mayhem all over town. If gang bangers ever figure out that the cops are out of bullets, it will be all-out war in many U.S. cities, including Miami, LA, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia and NYC. A disarmed police force is no police force at all, since it's only really the threat of high-velocity lead that actually stops bad people from doing bad things. (Criminals don't care if you ask nice. They are only motivated by their own survival.) It also means that the feds will have a strong ammunition advantage over local cops and sheriffs, since the U.S. federal government has been stockpiling 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition domestically, right here in the United States. Why does this matter? Here's why:

Will states resist a federal gun grab?

Think about where all this is headed, folks: Wyoming lawmakers have already announced their "Firearms Protection Act" which would make it a felony crime for feds to restrict or confiscate guns from the citizens of Wyoming. It reads as follows: Any official, agent or employee of the United States government who enforces or attempts to enforce any act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the United States government upon a personal firearm, a firearm accessory or ammunition that is owned or manufactured... in Wyoming... shall be guilty of a FELONY and, upon conviction, shall be subject to imprisonment for not less than one year... Yeah, I didn't make that up. Wyoming folks are serious about their rifles and their ammo... as are folks in Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Texas, Kentucky, Maine and practically every rural area across the country. It's very likely that Texas, Arizona and other states may follow Wyoming's example and seek to criminalize federal gun grabbers. If Obama's gun control schemes turn out to be foolishly aggressive, this could set off a state's rights showdown between the feds and local law enforcement. But if the feds have all the ammo, where will state peace officers find ammunition to defend the people of their state? The answer is YOU. It will ultimately be YOUR ammo that will be needed to defend states against an anti-America, anti-Constitution federal tyranny that attempts to invade and overrun states. The People, of course, have always been the common defense against tyranny. In the Constitution, this is referred to as the militia. Hopefully it won't get that bad and cooler heads will prevail, but given where things appear to be headed, all this could become very relevant more quickly than you think. It's a good thing the citizens of America purchase over 1 billion rounds of ammo in the last month, as they may very well become the source of ammo for a common defense against domestic enemies of America.

253

Rifle inventory update

Here's the latest info in terms of rifle manufactures: Noveske Rifleworks = SOLD OUT POF-USA = SOLD OUT Rock River Arms = SOLD OUT Bushmaster = SOLD OUT Barrett = SOLD OUT DPMS = SOLD OUT ... and on and on. Buds Gun Shop is in a state of such total disarray that they actually cashed my check for a firearm they allowed me to "purchase" on their website, then they called me back days later and said they actually DIDN'T have the firearm after all because they had made a "mistake," and they had to issue me a refund check. This managed to tie up my funds for a couple of weeks during which all the other available rifles disappeared off store shelves. (Thanks a lot, Buds, for making me miss out on probably the last rifle purchase I'll be able to make until 2014) Seeing the opportunity to profit from the supply and demand, Buds is now running real-time auctions on firearms, live on their website. A Bushmaster 223 rifle that used to sell for $800 or so is now fetching $2,900 in the auction. Yep, your existing inventory of rifles just TRIPLED in value. Hmmm... now I think I know where my missing rifle actually went... On a personal note, I obviously don't recommend you try to buy anything from Buds until all this is over, as you never really know if they're going to deliver the rifle you've already paid for. (What a crap way to conduct business, for the record. When we sell goods at the Natural News Store, we always have them in stock and ready to ship. Is that so difficult?)

254

Obama Signs Bill Giving Him Armed Protection For Life!

January 11th 2013 Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

While simultaneously launching effort to disarm the American people! Despite launching a gun control agenda that threatens to disarm the American people, President Obama has signed a bill that would afford him armed Secret Service protection for life. The legislation, crafted by Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina, rolls back a mid1990s law that imposed a 10-year limit on Secret Service protection for former presidents. Bush would have been the first former commander in chief affected, reports Yahoo News. The new bill, which will cost American taxpayers millions of dollars, is a re-instatement of a 1965 law which will see presidents protected for life as well as their children up to age 16. The irony of Obama seeking to surround himself with armed men for the rest of his life while simultaneously working to disarm the American people via a gun control agenda that is likely to be enforced via executive decree represents the height of hypocrisy. But its not the first time that Obama has lauded the notion of responsible Americans using firearms to protect himself and his family while concurrently eviscerating that very same right for the American people. During an ABC Nightline interview broadcast on December 26 yet recorded before the Sandy Hook shooting, Obama said one of the benefits of his re-election was the ability to have men with guns around at all times, in order to protect his daughters. In addition, the school attended by Obamas daughters in Washington D.C. has no less than 11 armed security guards on duty at all times, yet the idea of arming teachers and school officials to prevent school massacres has been dismissed by gun control advocates who want school campuses to remain gun free zones where victims are disarmed and shooters are free to carry out their rampage unimpeded. The hypocrisy of gun control advocates who feverishly work to create victim disarmament yet surround themselves with armed men is rampant amongst the political class.

255

As we reported last month, despite in the same year calling for Mr. and Mrs. America to turn in their guns California Senator Dianne Feinstein, author of a draconian bill set to be introduced later this month that would treat gun owners like sex offenders, admitted to carrying a concealed weapon for her own protection after she was threatened by a terrorist group. Other prominent gun control advocates such as Mayor Michael Bloomberg have also aggressively pushed to disarm Americans while themselves employing armed bodyguards at all times. Michael Moore, another vehement proponent for gun control, also has armed bodyguards, one of whom was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon at in New Yorks JFK airport back in 2005. A White House petition created at the end of last month calls for making the White House and all federal buildings gun free zones. If the government believes gun free zones are a solution for citizens, the same standard should apply to government servants and employees, states the petition, which currently has over 12,000 signatures.

Bank of America seizes e-commerce funds of online gun parts retailer, says they 'shouldn't sell' guns!
January 11th 2013 By J. D. Heyes

It seems that gun bias is deepening in some sectors of American society, even enticing some firms to break the law or, at the very least, abuse the law in order to pursue their anti-Second Amendment agenda. That certainly seems to be the case with Bank of America, which has reportedly seized the e-commerce funds of a legitimate gun maker for no reason other than to oppose the fact that the company sells firearms and ammunition online. Joe Sirochman, owner of American Spirit Arms, posted the following on Facebook Dec. 29, verbatim: My name is Joe Sirochman owner of American Spirit Arms and I wanted to share my recent experience with Bank of America (which we have been doing business with for over 10 years). Everyone is familiar with the latest increase in guns sales, dealers selling out of inventory, Manufacturers back logged for months, large revenue all generated in the last two weeks. 256

American Spirit Arms is no exception to the overwhelming demand. What we have experienced is that our web site orders have jumped 500 % causing our web site E commerce processing larger Deposits to BANK OF AMERICA. Well, this through up a huge RED Flag with Bank of America. So they decided to hold the deposits for further review, meaning that the orders/payments that were coming in through the web (being paid by the customer and that were shipped out by American Spirit Arms), the BANK was keeping (UNDER REVIEW)as you could imagine this made me furious... 'We believe you should not be selling guns...' Sirochman went onto write that after he spent "countless hours" on the phone he finally made connection with a "a manager in the right department" who told him the reason why the bank made its decision to hold the deposits "for review." "Her exact words were, 'We believe you should not be selling guns and parts on the Internet,'" he wrote in his post. Not mincing words, Sirochman said he told the bank manager BoA has "no right to make up their own new rules and regulations," and that is firm is a lawful firearms manufacturer "with all the proper licensing." Keep in mind that as his company received electronic payment for orders, American Spirit Arms shipped the products to its customers who had ordered them; the bank's decision to hold onto the company's funds meant that Sirochman wasn't getting paid even though he had delivered the orders. "Two weeks of sales only 1/3 of collected internet sales have been released," he wrote, adding that he'd been doing business with BoA for a decade but would be moving to find a new financial institution ASAP. Within hours, Sirochman posted that he had opened accounts in a new "local" bank in Arizona, where his business is located presumably one that is either wholly supportive of his Second Amendment rights or at least neutral when it comes to political issues and that, thanks in part to the support of his followers, he had managed to secure all of his e-commerce deposits from BoA. In an interview with Fox News' Megan Kelly, Sirochman said the bank manager who objected to his gun business told him "we have every right to hold your money as long as we want." "I told them, 'This wasn't a problem before, when I'd been banking with you for over 10 years,'" Sirochman said, adding that once they started churning out much more revenue from sales, "I feel like they wanted to slow us down." Sources for this article include: http://cnsnews.com http://www.facebook.com http://www.ironicsurrealism.com 257

http://www.foxnews.com

Its Time Patriots Declare Victor y In The 2nd Amendment War

January 11th 2013 By Doug Book

Though its doubtful anyone will hear much about it, neither lawmakers, judges, or even a president has the constitutional authority to infringe upon the inalienable right of the American people to keep and bear arms. One hundred thirty eight years ago, the Supreme Court wrote that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The case was United States v. Cruikshank; and the Court made it clear that the right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, God-given and independent of any mandatory approbation by men or their laws for its force and legitimacy. The Founders were so certain as to the absolute nature of these inalienable rights in the Bill of Rights that Alexander Hamilton suggested in Federalist No. 84 that it was unnecessary even to make them a part of the written Constitution. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do, he wrote, clear in his assertion that men have no authority to meddle with rights deriving from God and nature. All these years later, the Court has not changed its attitude about the inalienable rights of the American people. In the majority opinion of D.C. v Heller, the Court states that the 2nd Amendment codifies the pre-existing right to keep and bear arms; it does not give us that right. It has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second 258

Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed. Yet for decades, it has been the aim of gun-banning lawmakers and left-wing jurists to transform the 2nd Amendment into a nonsensical hodgepodge. Children are killed by a psychopath, and the left is pleased to claim that assault weapons must be responsible and should therefore be banned. High capacity magazines are deemed unnecessary for hunting, and this somehow means they must be outlawed. Individuals thought to be too dedicated to the Constitution are accused of being potential domestic terrorists; and for some unknown reason, Libertarians and veterans are not to be trusted as gun owners. Its an extraordinary mix of non sequiturs designed to add confusion to the 27 word 2nd Amendment. Well, the Founders of this nation saw nothing complicated about the right of the American people to keep and bear arms; for theirs was a lesson of cruel experience learned from the British enemy during the Revolution. The British knew that disarming the colonies would mean an end to any war, and they focused all of their efforts on the capture of weapons, powder and ball. Surely this is a concept simple enough even for Dianne Feinstein disarm an enemy, and they will become the easy prey of a would-be tyrant. For the Founders, the right to keep and bear arms became nothing more complicated than the right of armed self-defense against tyranny. Indeed, that was the purpose of the right as later expressed in the 2nd Amendment. And in spite of the best efforts of modern hoplophobes and would-be tyrants to confuse the issue, it has not changed to this day. Its past time for American patriots to tell the left that issues concerning the right to keep and bear arms were decided long ago and in our favor. We will tolerate no further aggression against our inalienable right to defend our families, our lives, and our property from the treachery of thieves, liars, and tyrants who populate the Democrat Party. To paraphrase Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars: If you dont try to steal our guns, we wont kill you. What could be fairer than that?!

259

State Run Media: Only Obama Can Save Us From Gun Epidemic
January 21st 2013 By Tim Brown

Effeminate Girlie Man Toure

MSNBC host Toure, the open racists that declared during the 2012 election that GOP nominee Mitt Romney was engaging in the niggerization of Obama, came out with a monologue last week in which he listed the reasons why he thinks Democrats, and specifically Barack Obama, should come out in favor of sweeping new gun control measures. According to Toure, its time for Obama to deliver for the suburban and urban voters who show up for Democrats in droves. Only Obama can save us from the gun epidemic, he said. We want to envision ourselves as a nation of vigilantes protecting ourselves with our guns, Tour began. But thats not whats happening. Were an over-armed nation helping gun makers get richer by believing blatant lies that the government is plotting to take away our guns, and believing the myth that were protecting and not endangering ourselves. The effeminate, sissified Toure said that we are a nation seduced by the NRAs answer to the gun problem, is more guns.

Tour: We Need Obama 'To Save Us From The Gun Epidemic'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6uACOkLdG0 He falsely claims we are a nation that leads the world in mass killings and while rightly claiming there is about one gun per person in our country, he then goes on to claim that those guns are twenty-two times more likely to kill a friend or family member or the guns owner than to be use for self defense. What I find amazing is the outrageous lie that was put on screen after this statement. Toure actually claimed that the FBI/NCIPC reported that there are 200 justified self-defense homicides each year and that there are 30,000 gun deaths each year. While this is a blatant lie 260

and not only a lie, but a big freaking lie, he does not provide us with a specific source and by that, what I mean is where he got the data. My article on the FBIs numbers for fiscal year 2011 completely debunks his claims. Additionally, Ben Swanns report which destroyed Piers Morgans gun arguments also blows Toures claims out of the water as well. Speaking one day prior to vice president Joe Biden presenting his task forces proposals to Obama, Toure said, This is part of what could be the most crucial moment in the Obama administration perhaps the most important legislation theyll ever propose. However, he went on to tell even more lies. Gun laws do work, he blathered. Studies have shown that firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun legislation. The claim is laughable as he appeals to the liberal leaning Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. He claims that his information is strong. Hardly. Again, taking and mixing the numbers of guns and gun violence is not a fair comparison, nor an honest comparison of the data. In fact, of the states he presents as having the strongest gun laws and the lowest gun deaths, they also fall into the category of having the highest violent crime rates in the nation. For goodness sakes, he lists New York, Illinois, California and New Jersey among these states! In other words he takes the Piers Morgan approach which has been shown to be a skewed view of the data. Where gun laws are not strict, violent crime is far lower. I suggest Toure wake from his socialist sleep and actually do a report on Kennesaw, Georgia, one of the ten most family friendly places to live in the country with virtually no crime and mandatory gun laws (that means they mandate homeowners have a firearm). I understand liberals dont want to be bothered by the fact, so I guess well be waiting till Hell freezes over before that report comes from his lips. So what is Toures proposal? Ban assault weapons Requiring trigger locks Mandating safe storage in the home Ban extended magazines Universal background checks Prosecute those that lie on background checks Modernize gun tracing Expand reports on people that have guns

Toure claims these work, but to what end? Banning semi-automatic weapons aids criminals, since they will be the only ones with them. Requiring trigger locks does the same thing. It makes it more difficult for the gun owner to use his weapons to defend himself. I mean, shouldnt we apply that logic to police officers? According to Piers Morgan they could drop their gun and a kid pick it up and fire it and kill themselves. Perhaps we should have policemen put trigger locks on their firearms too. No one thinks of that though do they? I dont hear Toure calling for our military to use trigger locks. I dont hear him demanding that they not have assault rifles. I dont hear his rhetoric about safe gun storage for our troops. After all, a soldier could accidently shoot themselves or another soldier, right? See the ridiculousness of the argument? Mandating safe storage? OK, heres the thing, we should store our guns safely, but not render them useless if they are needed. A gun safe is a good idea, but if people are worried about 261

kids and guns, then start training your kids early. Teach them gun safety. Show them what the weapon will do. Take the curiosity out of the dont touch this. Trust me, in the majority of cases where kids have gotten hold of firearms and shot themselves or others, Ill almost guarantee that the majority of the time the parents never shot the weapons with their children. While Toure says the NRA wants us to believe that no legislation will help, He fraudulently claims that this is counter-factual. If you are wondering whether Toure is telling the truth in this regard, just look at the numbers. Second, pay attention to what he says following this statement. No one obvious law could have stopped Adam Lanza, but we can make our world safer. The first portion of his statement tells the truth. No law will stop criminals with guns. Therefore, there is no need to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of those who abide by the law. Our world would be safer without morons like Toure flapping his jaws on something he obviously knows nothing about. He calls those of us who believe in the Second Amendment to be extremists and says that we believe there will be a slippery slope into gun confiscation. Well, yeah. Thats the way it worked historically in England, Australia, and Germany, as well as, other nations. I suppose you think our Founding Fathers were extremists too and paranoid of a tyrannical government. Thomas Jefferson said, The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Gun safety is no longer a clear loser for Democrats who have lost pro-gun rural voters and have nothing to show for it but a fear of gun control, he continued. The suburban and urban voters who show up for Democrats in droves need the president to save us from the gun epidemic. We need him to fear nothing but fear itself. Toure also said that he hopes the White House pushes to ban assault weapons and extended magazines, make background checks universal, and prosecute everyone who lies on a background check (which they arent prosecuting on anyway), and modernize gun tracing (sort of like they did in Fast and Furious?), and expand reporting on who has guns, study gun deaths and push for safe storage in the home, something that might have stopped Adam Lanza. He finally asks, If youre not fighting to help peoples lives, then why are you in D.C.? Well, let me just respond to Toures assertions. Banning semi-automatic weapons and high capacity magazines didnt help between 1994 and 2004. It wont help now. Making background check universal is going well beyond the federal governments authority as sales between those in the same state do not require the federal governments authorization. Nothing crosses state lines. Therefore, the federal government has no authority in the matter. Joe Biden has been clear on prosecution: they just dont have the time to be bothered with prosecuting everyone that lies on a background check. Tracing guns. Seriously? From an administration that watched as 2,500 firearms walked over the U.S./Mexican border with only two of them with tracking devices, one of which was homemade and they both had 40 hour battery lives. Yeah, I dont think that is going to work well.

262

Expand reporting on who has guns? Is that so that people will know who has them so that they can lie in wait to steal them? How about expanded reports about those who dont have guns? I think that will work better.

I agree that proper storage of guns, in the Lanza case, could have prevented him from using the weapons he did. However, unless the federal government is going to live in your house every minute of every day, I have no way of seeing how they will enforce those laws. I certainly dont think I want the feds in my home, does Toure want them in his? Toure and his socialist accomplices are fools. The are knee jerk reactionists who do not have the ability to think past their agenda and their agenda is treasonous to the U.S. Constitution. We the people must keep them in check by demanding that our representatives abide by the rule of law and the rule of law contains the Second Amendment. If they want to violate that and then try and enforce it, well then, as Dean Garrison wrote, they had better determine if they are willing to die enforcing those unlawful laws.

Why Mental Illness is the Avenue to Gun Confiscation

January 22nd 2013 By Philip Hodges

New Yorks new gun law requires that mental health professionals report any person they consider likely to engage in conduct that would result in serious harm to self or others. If they dont report this concern, and if something happens involving this person such as a shooting, the mental health professional could face charges for not reporting the persons behavior to law enforcement. Obviously, this will lead to over-reporting, which is fine by state officials, because that means thats more people they get to bar from ever owning a gun. The other effect however is that gun-owners will be refusing to ever set foot in a mental health professionals office for fear that the doctor will misinterpret something they said or didnt say as evidence of a tendency to commit a crime. And you know the doctor would report anything, even if it wasnt true, because not reporting something puts them at risk of criminal charges should something happen involving one of their patients. Gun controllers love hearing themselves talk about the need to do something about mental illness as it relates to gun ownership, and their talk all stems from the recent mass shooters. But Im not sure Adam Lanza was truly mentally ill. Im not sure anybodys sure, as so little is known about him, and what is known is kept secret. Was Lanza on psychotropic drugs as the 263

Aurora theater shooter was? Drugs that could have been prescribed by a mental health professional and which side effects include suicidal and homicidal tendencies?

But these gun grabbers dont really care about those issues. They want to be able to label anyone as mentally ill so that that person will be barred from owning a gun. If youre on psychotropic drugs, that means youre mentally ill. If you refuse to take psychotropic drugs when prescribed, that means youre mentally ill. But at the same time in the liberal dogooders mind, the drugs are completely irrelevant. Merely having a history of a mental illness, real or fabricated, is enough to bar you from owning a firearm in New York. So, if you saw a therapist as a young teen, and you were diagnosed with some made up mental illness that would prevent you from ever owning a gun even 10 or 20 years later, because of a history of mental illness. The law doesnt restrict mental health professionals from reporting only their patients. Does this mean that if someones on the subway talking with a friend about the history of gun control and the true context of the 2nd Amendment, and a psychiatrist overhears their conversation, he is required to say something to law enforcement about his concerns for the mental health of the person talking about the 2nd Amendment? (If you see something, say something.) This would then spur an investigation into this suspicious person to make sure he doesnt own any guns, and if he does, force him to submit to a psych evaluation to see if there is any evidence whatsoever that he might cause harm to himself or others. If he has an unacceptable opinion of government, theyll take his guns away. Number 16 of the 23 executive actions that Obama signed off on sought to Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes. I would assume thats talking about any kind of doctor, including mental health doctors, and probably especially them.

A person is mentally ill if he doesnt put his faith in the State, and if he puts his faith in the State, he has no need for a gun.

264

CNN: No Records Of Adam Lanza For 3 Years!

December 19th 2012

Adam Lanza did not exist for the last 3 Years, no record Non Existent!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibRw4R8j35o&feature=player_embedded

In another development, CT police backtrack now saying Adam Lanza was NOT in Altercation at School Day before Mass Shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=NXjk5JxVBhw

Earlier version:
Adam Lanza in "Altercation" with Staff Members at Sandy Hook School Day Before http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xQBGbOt6z-U Earlier this week, Connecticut police threaten to arrest independent journalists or whistleblowers, who question their version of the story. www.dailymotion.com...

Sandy Hook Principal ALIVE, NOT DEAD! Gave statement on Shooting, now removed from site!!!
265

Jack Graff: I have been saying all along, possibly these people DID NOT DIE. If the Principal of the school died while trying to shield students at the school, then how could she have given this statement to the media the day of the shooting?

Sandy Hook Principal Dead or Alive? Part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkSFpVTJ18

Sandy Hook Principal Dead or Alive? Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJpTe3JUozs&feature=player_embedded Published on Dec 16, 2012 More riddles fresh off the press! WTF is up with this story YouTube? I'm SICK of it! AND I'm not afraid to say that this is a Government issued act of TERRORISM to strip the good people of their Second Amendment Right

Links: http://newtownbee.com/News/News/2012-12-14__11-05-25/Shooting%20Reported %20Sa... http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sandy-hook-shooting-vic...) http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/15/the-heroes-of-newtown-sandy-hook-elem... Oh, and don't forget this statement by the police. We better not be talking about this stuff, or they will arrest us.

CONNECTICUT SHOOTING: Police warn against false reporting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1W7-GYVOgBk

Gun Inconsistencies in Sandy Hook School Mass Shooting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEQGL6iMYZ8&feature=youtube_gdata Published on Dec 21, 2012 This video looks at some of the inconsistencies. Some film footage appears to show a long gun being taken from the trunk. Is it a shotgun? Or the Bushmaster semiautomatic? Reporter: So was the rifle the primary weapon? Medical Examiner: Yes So the semi-automatic assault weapon found outside the school in the trunk of Lanzas car was used to kill every single person? And the 4 handguns found inside the school werent used at all? Comments by Jack Graff: 266

O Ok so let me see if I understand this correctly. There were four pistols in the school. But none of them were used in the shooting. The gun that was used in the shootings was the gun that was found in the car? Also one week later and no photos of crime scene yet. Parents identified the bodies of their children by photo? Lots of problems here! The above statements from the video by the Medical Examiner in response to the question from the Reporter might suggest there was indeed a second shooter that neither the media or Law Enforcement wants to admit! It is becoming painfully obvious that it is highly unlikely that Adam Lanza shot anyone and has been set-up as a convenient patsy and since he is DEAD no one will know otherwise This is all a set up as you know and a SCAM by the Government Terrorist to further their agenda gun control aka victim disarmament. It's amazing how stupid & gullible people are. Unfortunately they are attached to CNN and lack ANY Critical Thinking ability and most will believe ANYTHING the MSM tells them or the Government or LE about this very convenient tragedy!

Police Find Long Gun In Trunk Of Car In Sandy Hook Parking Lot
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=wLrxSgkqJQc Published on Dec 14, 2012 Maybe there were two long guns in the trunk, and this only shows them removing the second one. Aerial of police finding a loaded long gun in the trunk of a car in the school parking lot appears to be a shotgun. This occurred hours after law enforcement sources already confirmed that they found a Bushmaster AR-15 in his trunk. .223 shells were found at the scene. Who was shooting the .223 inside the school then? From the NBC News Connecticut live feed on 12/14/12. "A Sig Sauer handgun and a Glock handgun were used in the slaying and .223 shell casings a round used in a semi-automatic military style rifle were also found at the scene. " "However, federal authorities cannot confirm that the handguns or the rifle were the weapons recovered at the school. " http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/connecticut-shooter-adam-lanza/story?id=1797567... "A law enforcement source told CBS News' Pat Milton that casings (spent shells) from a .223 semi automatic rifle were found inside the school." http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57559261/connecticut-elementary-school-ma... Comment by Jack Graff: A child there interviewed said that the noise began and continued for a while then ended and who ever was shooting couldnt have taken the rifle back to the car in between unless there was 2 shooters. There was a shot gun and rifle 'found' that earlier was identified in a shooting 267

in 2002. So it nails it down someone planted these pieces in the kids car. And weve seen the tapes of the other two shadows that one teacher told police about. And then in addition there is the information that the 2 teachers that were shot one never even taught there? Man this is one really run operation by those with a clear agenda to disarm the American people and make us ALL slaves ready to be lead to the slaughter when the time is right. This will be accomplished by first rounding up ALL gun owners for Extermination in FEMA Concentration Camps. And will be followed up in the second phase when ALL other Political Dissidents are also rounded-up for Extermination in FEMA Concentration Camps as well.

Full Disclosure: CO, WI, CT shootings: Are These The Work of "Lone Wolf" Gunmen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZPS7AdgNgE&feature=player_embedded Published on Jan 3, 2013 Ben Swann Full Disclosure looks at eyewitness accounts from the scenes of the Colorado theater shooting, the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting and the Connecticut elementary school shooting that indicate more than one shooter may have been involved in all three shootings

Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises, Aurora, Skull & Bones

December 18th 2012 By Jon Rappoport The confirmed discovery that at 1hr:58 of the Dark Knight Rises, Commissioner Gordon is pointing to the words "Sandy Hook" on a map of the Gotham area has caused a storm of interest. As it should since 27 people were just killed at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, and in the Dark Knight film, "Sandy Hook" is indicated as a target for attack. Unless, of course, one wants to believe this is merely a boggling coincidence, one that accidentally ties the Batman theater massacre to the Connecticut school massacre. In that case, add to the list of coincidences the fact that Suzanne Collins, the author of The Hunger Games, in which 23 children are ritually sacrificed in arena competition, lives in Newtown/Sandy Hook, and in real life someone(s) just killed 20 children in the Sandy Hook Elementary School. This is the familiar "Joker" mode of secret societies, in which little foreshadowing clues are placed in significant places. Michael Hoffman, author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare, comments on "The Method": "...a clown-like, grinning mockery of the victim[s] as a show of power and macabre arrogance...performed in a veiled manner accompanied by certain occult signs and symbolic words...They brag to us about what they've gotten away with..." 268

It's also a coincidence that the east coast of America sustained horrendous damage from a storm called Sandy recently. It's also a coincidence that an island called Sandy, New Caledonia, had been located on many maps until 2012, when an Australian surveyor ship concluded that it had never existed, and it was promptly disappeared from authoritative maps of the area. "Destroyed." Then there is the coincidence involving the Aurora theater, just before the massacre there this summer, when during film trailers, before The Dark Knight Rises premiered, a preview of Skyfall was shown, and on a building appeared, in red letters, "Aurora." More Dark Knight Rises coincidence: the studio sent out a promotional package before the film premiered this summer. An included map clearly showed Sandy Hook, within, or just south of, "Strike Zone 1," where an attack would be launched. (Click through to enter site.) http://www.ugo.com/movies/the-dark-knight-rises-viral-package More coincidence: there is a book called "The Dark Knight Manual." In the book, there is a map as well. But on this map, at the very bottom, Sandy Hook is "South Hinkley." (Click to enlarge.) http://i.imgur.com/SW8NF.jpg Does that name Hinkley ring a bell? Just another coincidence that John Hinckley is the person convicted of attempting to assassinate President Reagan on March 30, 1981. Hinckley former psychiatric patient, drugged, and, some say, operated on with mind control techniques to set him up as the patsy in the attempt on Reagan's life. Hinckley son of an oil man who was George Bush the Elder's big-time presidential supporter. John Hinckley's brother Scott had a dinner booked at Neil Bush's house the day after the Reagan assassination attempt. Scott had to cancel. Obsessed with yet another film, Taxi Driver, and its child star, Jody Foster, young Hinckley, according to received wisdom, planned the attack on Reagan to impress Foster whom he had stalked, going so far as to take a writing class at Yale, where Foster was matriculating. What and who is at Yale in New Haven, a few miles from Newtown? Historically, exactly the kind of men who, bent on controlling America, engaged in occult rituals, taking blood oaths. Secret society men. Diabolical Skull & Bones men who, for example, supported the Nazi war machine and Hitler, who in turn slaughtered millions. Nazi financiers like Prescott Bush of the Bush-family Skull & Bones members. But all these things are coincidences and accidents, and there is absolutely nothing to see or think about or connect. No pieces of this connect at all. None. Ask any android. He'll tell you. "Nothing to see, keep moving, eyes straight ahead." About the author: Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a 269

US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Sandy Hook police audio confirms multiple shooters on the scene

December 30th 2012 By: Jon Rappoport

I've been listening to a stream of police dept. audio during the initial response to the Sandy Hook shooting. This link has most of its action in the first four minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J8uVR7TifS At roughly 2:38, a police voice says: "Party in custody." Then at 3:49, "We have a suspect down." This next link, for me, was somewhat clearer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3E-Ix_aaDhg&feature=endscreen Starting at roughly 3:13, there are relevant police comments: "A teacher reports two shadows running past the building past the gym." "They're shooting." (??) "Yeah, we got 'em." "They're coming at me down Kurt's (sp) Way!" "Got 'em (?)...proned out." We get the distinct sense there are multiple shooters. Whoever is proned out, whoever is in custody, whoever is "coming at me," whoever is down...we don't know what happened to them. 270

Reporters on the scene have, as far as I know, provided no information and neither have police. The suspects have disappeared down the memory hole. Then we have these television interviews with families of the victims. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VizQGl8bu8&feature=youtu.be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmdXR3TtOvM&feature=endscreen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddF6UzgoPiY&feature=endscreen It's astounding. Parents are smiling. They're actors from Central Casting? One thing is for sure. They're androids, if you measure their responses against reports of what happened in the Sandy Hook School. And as androids, they're only matched by the TV reporters who are interviewing them. If you're tempted to say the parents and family members are in shock, or they're reacting to being on television, forget it. Their attitudes don't match a massacre by any stretch of the imagination. Is Sandy Hook/Newtown a Stepford Village? Are these people all programmed to be pleasant and accommodating No Matter What? It's about as bizarre as the purported video footage of the Aurora Theater during the shootings there this summer. As people exit the lobby and come out on to the street, there is no sign of blood and no one is coughing from the reported tear gas inside the theater. With these Sandy Hook parents, we're looking at a level of conditioning in which Being Nice can completely overwhelm even the murder of one's own child. Tears? Not one person in these interviews has actual tears running down his or her face. One of the fathers, Robbie Parker, has had his interview played and replayed all over the planet on YouTube, and you can watch him smiling and grinning, for all the world looking like he's just been appointed CEO of a company he works for...and then he steps to a podium to make his statement, and as one poster succinctly describes it, "gets into character." This isn't just an internal event. You can watch Parker huffing and puffing and pushing himself into what he thinks is a tragic and grief-stricken state of mind. He does it so badly you wonder why no one in the room calls him on it. It's beyond strange. Yet reporters later talked about Parker "struggling through tears and suffering to make a heartfelt statement..." The reporters are just as deranged as Parker is. This boggling show isn't confined to Sandy Hook. A commenter below a Deseret News article on Parker replied: "Brave young father, wise to forgive early and choose to move forward nothing can be gained by dwelling on what cannot be changed." At times, watching these interviews, I wondered whether the parents had been conditioned to believe, in the face of ANYTHING, that good and nice children all take a choo-choo train to heaven and there is nothing to regret about their murders at all. 271

In an earlier article, I pointed out that, indeed, at 1hr: 58 of The Dark Knight Rises, Gary Oldman, talking about an impending attack on "Strike Zone 1," is pointing to the words "Sandy Hook" on a map in front of him. These are the only legible words on the map. By happenstance, the production designer of Dark Knight Rises, Nathan Crowley, is related to the infamous British black-magic legend, Aleister Crowley, who was sometimes called The Great Beast 666. http://www.theartnewspaper.com In an interview, Nathan said, "Yes, Aleister Crowley is a direct relative, he's my grandfather's cousin, but we were never allowed to even mention his name because we were a very Quaker family." Nathan is also the production designer of Lady Gaga's video ad for her Perfume, Fame. http://www.adweek.com In terms of "the dark side," the full 5:41 version of the video-ad makes Dark Knight Rises look like a Disney cartoon by comparison. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az1-oLmxhHQ But not to worry. What happened at Sandy Hook was exactly as the major media portrayed it, and nothing more. Sure. You bet. Sandy Hook, Dark Knight Rises, Aurora, Skull & Bones Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Adam Lanza's dead body to be used to criminalize innocents who have similar gene
December 31st 2012

272

Unknown sources are funneling money into new research aimed at finding the so-called "evil" gene that may have been responsible for the recent mass shooting that allegedly took place at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. According to the U.K.'s Daily Mail, researchers from the University of Connecticut have been tasked with dissecting the dead body of Adam Lanza, the young man accused of killing 20 children and six adults at the school, in search of a malformed or mutated gene that may have triggered his alleged bout of violent rage that fateful December 14 morning. Even though there is technically no solid evidence proving that Lanza was even responsible for the killings in the first place, the mainstream media has already declared his guilt, which means the pressure is on to manufacture a reason for the killings in light of the fact that there is no identifiable motive. As you may recall, there were at least two other suspects who fled the scene that day, according to initial reports, one of whom was taken down in the woods next to the school. But these two suspects completely disappeared from all subsequent media reports, and Lanza was pinned as the patsy who committed the crimes (http://www.naturalnews.com). Much of the "official story" surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre, in fact, makes no sense at all, and there are numerous glaring inconsistencies in virtually all major media reports that scream of a cover-up. Nevertheless, the general public has apparently been hoodwinked yet again by what appears to be another false flag attack designed not only to eliminate the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, but also to identify a "flawed" gene that supposedly causes people to go on mass shooting sprees for no reason. "They might look for mutations that might be associated with mental illnesses and ones that might also increase the risk for violence," explained Arthur Beaudet, a professor at the Baylor University College of Medicine in Texas, about the new research. "By studying genetic abnormalities we can learn more about conditions better and who is at risk and what might be dramatic treatments." Such "dramatic treatments," of course, are sure to include heavy doses of various psychiatric medications, which have actually been shown to induce more erratic and violent behavior (http://www.naturalnews.com). But what is even more concerning about this plan is that it will be used to criminalize innocent people who possess the "defective gene," and who will be declared guilty of crimes before they even happen or in Adam Lanza's case, be declared guilty without any evidence or a proper trial. 'Prepping,' storing guns at home to be criminalized along with 'evil' gene Once the researchers preparing the new study identify this "evil" gene, everyone who possesses that gene will become a criminal, or at the very least a major liability when it comes to getting a job that involves interacting with people. Those who possess the "evil" gene will 273

likely never be hired at public schools, for instance, as their genetic "defect" will simply be too high of a risk "Think of the children!" they will surely say. If this Big Brother control scenario is not disturbing enough, the Daily Mail also saw fit to include a caveat that perhaps Adam Lanza's mother's "prepping" tendencies may also have set him off. Described as a "prepper" who "stockpiled food and guns in readiness for a disaster," Nancy Lanza is all but blamed directly in the Daily Mail story for triggering her son Adam's alleged "mental condition." So guns, prepping, and the "evil" gene are now all responsible for mass shootings, and we must do something about them immediately! Can you see the writing on the wall? Sources for this article include: http://www.dailymail.co.uk

The Sandy Hook Elementary Sacrifice and Deception

January 3rd 2013

http://adventofdeception.com/the-sandy-hook-elementary-sacrifice-and-deception/ After researching the Sandy Hook Elementary school massacre there is no doubt the world wide news event was a blood sacrifice intertwined with the gun control subject. As in 9/11, the London subway bombing, the Batman shooting, a FEMA simulated training exercise occurred the same day, at the same time, identical from the "real" event. The fake event overshadowed the "real event" which was an inside job. The FEMA simulated training exercise provided media confusion. The below movie nicely combines the police scanner communication and all the phony parent (actors) interviews which none of these people ever shed a tear. The beginning of the video shows excerpts from the 2009 movie (Rampage). I found the video to be very compelling that proves that the Sandy Hook Elementary murders was another inside job that provided a winter solecist sacrifice for the activation for the New World Order. Click Here to view videos Any open minded person will view the press interview of the coroner as an actor, a mind control subject, or a complete dumb ass. Take note that he says that all the deaths were from the Assault Rifle, yet there is video proof that the rifle was in the trunk of the car. Notice at 274

time 5:38. Click Here to view videos There has been a lot of confusion going around about the Sandy Hook Elementary Shootings so much contradictory info so much seemingly fake info including victims family interviews which lack any real emotion just too many things that flat out dont make sense and then that fact that none of these contradictory stories were being retracted. Well after a lot of research on the topic I present you with a very detailed analysis of 2 separate events which took place that day which involve a real school shooting (Sandy Hook Elementary), and a very similar DHS/FEMA drill being held 50 miles away in the same state (Drilled in a firehouse which is to simulate Sandy Hook Elementary with a 30 min delay between real event and fake event) and how this massive puzzle might all fit together. This is not a short breakdown by any means so be prepared. SUMMERY: Layer 1: The REAL Event Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting Layer 1A: The Operation Prep Layer 1B: The Actual Black-Op Layer 1C: Evidence Cleanup, Patsy Setup & Official Police Arrival Layer 2: The FAKE Event DHS/FEMA Exercise/Drill/Simulation (Simulating Sandy Hook Elementary) Added: DHS/FEMA Drills General Plot Added: Ryan Lanza likely Participates in DHS/FEMA Simulation Added: The 2 Operatives Plan to Cover ALL Bases (be at both event) Added: Another (small scale) Active Shooter Drill Also Takes Place Nearby Layer 3: Systematic Media Confusion Real vs. Fake Event Coverage Layer 1: The REAL Event Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting Location: Sandy Hook Elementary, CN Date/Time: Dec 14, 2012 | 9:35 am 9:49 am EST Involved: 2 killers (police) & 1 patsy (Adam Lanza), 1 Lookout/Cleaner (civilian) Deaths: 28 deaths (20 children, 7 adults, 1 suspect) Weapons: 2 pistols, 1 AR, 1 shotgun Once upon a time Layer 1A: The Operation Prep 2 police drive to Sandy Hook Elementary in the early hours of December 14, 2012. One officer gets out of his car leaving it in the parking lot (you will see why this is important later) and hops into the other officers car. The 2 police now in 1 police car (which contains a duffel bag with 2 identical dark uniforms which include 2 dark jackets with dark shirts, 2 dark/camo pants, 2 pairs of dark gloves and 2 dark masks) go to Adams moms house early in the morning of the event and knock on her door (bringing the duffel bag with the dark uniforms with them), waking her still in her pajamas by arriving earlier than expected (yes she was expecting them). These 2 police are there to take Adam Lanza to a REALISTIC DHS/FEMA simulation/exercise which is to take place later that day (in Bridgeport, CN) 50 miles from his home where Adam will be playing the role of a school shooter alias Ryan. 275

Side Note: (When assigning Adam an alias for the drill they asked him if he had any brothers, which is where he told them about his brother Ryan. The alias Ryan is then chosen as Adams drill name, and his brother Ryan is also invited to come to the drill, which he does (Ryans drill alias would then be Adam basically they switch identities for the drill). Also due to this being a very realistic drill/simulation they are told to bring something of each others with them ideally an ID of some sort. Anyways I get more into the drill later in Layer 2). Adam Lanza, excited to be chosen to be part of this DHS/FEMA drill which he voluntarily signed up for (and answered specific questions to qualify for such as does your household contain any weapons, if so which kinds & are you yourself experienced with firearms, if so which) is escorted out of his house by one of the officers and his mother and willingly hops into the squad car prepared to do his part in what he thinks will be a realistic simulation/drill managed by DHS/FEMA. Meanwhile while Adams mom is outside saying goodbye to Adam the 2nd police officer runs to the basement, puts his dark uniform (gloves & mask included) on over his police clothing and retrieves the AR 1 of 4 needed patsy guns (all 4 patsy guns were known to be on location due to him registering with DHS for the drill, which is why he was chosen to be part of this DHS/FEMA drill to begin with). By the time Adams mom comes back in the house after waving goodbye to him, the 2nd officer already has 1 of 4 patsy weapons (AR) prepped and ready, and has made his way upstairs to Adams moms room. The officer hides in the corner of her room making noises as he wants her to come up to investigate what the noise is. She makes her way into her room to try to figure out what the noise is, only to enter the room and be shoot and killed on her own bed by the police officer (wearing his dark uniform using one of her own weapons (AR)). He then makes his way back downstairs to the basement, preps and readies the other 3 of 4 needed patsy guns, and also smashes Adams computer into literal pieces (the same computer which would contain the proof of a connection to the DHS/FEMA drill he voluntarily signed up for via his computer). The officer then puts the 4 patsy guns into the duffel bag, as well as removes the dark uniform (keeps only the gloves on) and puts it in the duffel bag as well. The officer then makes his way upstairs, grabs Adams moms car keys on the way out, and leave the premises (dressed in his police uniform as he first entered the house wearing) in her vehicle with the 4 needed patsy guns. Just too simplify things from this point on I will be referring to. The officer in Adams moms car as Op 1 The officer still in his police car (and has the patsy Adam) as Op 2 At this point op 1 calls op 2 on the phone to confirm everything is a go You have the needed package (does the patsy still thinks going to be part of the drill)? Yes You have the needed equipment (moms car, 4 patsy weapons, smashed computer)? Yes Good meet you at the scheduled location then (Sandy Hook Elementary). Op 1 then makes a call to their civilian counterpart (the cleaner) to let him know the operation is a go and to get into position. The cleaner would arrive at the school well before the shooting, for a legitimate reason and would be buzzed in willingly in this SPECIFIC case the cleaner was their helping his daughters class build gingerbread houses her class was not shot up and this mans daughter lived the event unharmed go figure. The cleaners makes his way to the school with his daughter (which does go to school there), gets buzzed in willingly (unarmed/no threat), and goes to her class as scheduled to make tasty treats while he waits for the scheduled time to do his role in all of this.

276

Once everything is confirmed both operatives arrive at Sandy Hook Elementary (which is NOT the DHS/FEMA drill location but Adam doesnt know this). Op 1 arrives at the school first and puts 2 of the 4 patsy weapons in his police car using a duffel bag to not draw attention to himself (and leaves the other 2 weapons in Adams moms car) and waits inside his cruiser for op 2 to arrive (op 2 arriving 2nd as planned and this was done so that Op 1 could get out of Adams moms car and get into his cruiser to avoid Adam seeing the officer in his moms car and possibly knowing something is fishy). Instead Adam and op 2 arrive to see op 1 sitting in his police car waiting for them. Both officers would be acting really chatty and friendly (to distract him as much as possible that this might not be what it seems a real event). At this point Adam suspects NOTHING. He thinks he is at the DHS/FEMA drill location and will be told what role he will playing in this REALISTIC yet fake drill (involving crisis response of children) and will try to do his best at the role given why wouldnt he its all simulated right? Both operatives get out of their cruisers and go over the details with Adam of how the drill is going to go down (during this time op 1 gives op 2 the 2 weapons from his cruiser in the duffel bag (he has the other 2 in Adams moms car still). They describe Adams roll in the drill (which in fact is not going to be a drill at all they are 50 miles away from the real drill location) as more of an accomplice roll, assisting during the event sort of like a killers helper if you will. They explain that op 1 is going to go through the front door (breach), and op 2 and Adam are going to enter through the back, and Adam is going to be there to assist them with the entire realistic simulation. Adam being given an assistant role in the drill is told he will be wearing regular everyday clothing (whatever he was wearing when they picked him up) to simulate the drill scenario of 2 brothers waking up one day and snapping, killing their mother, and doing a mass casualty shooting spree (involving children) at a school using the stolen weapons. The 2 officers on the other hand (being the actual shooters) say they have to put on specific outfits as part of the drill which at this point they casually put on again up to this point everything is being done very casually Adam has no idea So to give some specifics on the clothing at this point: Op 1 = Mask (Puts on later once in Adams moms car), Dark Jacket (with Dark Shirt), Camo/Dark Pants, Dark Gloves (with his police uniform on under) and has 2 of the 4 patsy guns in the trunk. Op 2 = Mask (not wearing yet), Dark Jacket (with Dark Shirt), Camo/Dark Pants, Dark Gloves (also with his police uniform on under). Op 2 also has the duffel bag that was brought to him by op 2 which contains the other 2 patsy guns Note that without the mask on these outfits would not draw a lot of suspicious attention (dark jacket/pants) and in fact is you could blend in fairly well with it (until shots are fired that is). Adam = whatever he was wearing when they picked him up Cleaner = irrelevant Also a few more clarifications before going into the op itself thats 4 cars total, 4 people total, 4 weapons total. Op 1 Police Cruiser = op 1 (for now he will move to Adams moms car once Adam is out of sight) with no weapons. Adams Moms car = op 1 moves to this car 1 pistol + 1 shotgun Op 2 Police Cruiser = op 2 + patsy Adam 1 pistol + 1 AR (in a duffel bag) Cleaners Car = no weapons Layer 1B: The Actual Black-Op 277

Op 2 wearing his dark uniform puts the mask in his pocket and grabs the duffel bag he has in the trunk (containing 1 pistol & 1 AR). Op 2 (with Adam) would be subtle about their approach to the school as they are going to be entering the school through an unofficial entry point (the back door). Once op 2 and Adam are behind the school without issue, op 1 gets out of his cruiser and goes to Adams moms trunk and grabs the 2 weapons he will be using (1 pistol, 1 shotgun) puts on his mask (again remember is also now wearing his dark uniform) and heads to the entrance of the school he doesnt need to be subtle about it at all people are going to think hes Adam in a few minutes OK so quick update: Operative 1 going towards front entrance, mask and all, holding an exposed shotgun Operative 2 going towards the back entrance, mask hidden, 2 guns in duffel bag, with the Patsy Adam (trying not to draw any attention to themselves) Cleaner inside the school waiting for his signal to cut the schools power (his signal being front entrance breach). Op 1 then uses the shotgun (first shots fired) to breach the security glass at the front entrance door making his way into the school through the opening. The Cleaner hearing his signal (entrance breach) cuts the schools power from the inside (which by default unlocks all locked doors, including the back door and doesnt allow any doors to re-lock until power is returned which is a safety fail safe) and then makes his way back to meet with the others shortly in the hall. All video surveillance, and power locks at this point stopped working (go figure). After the power goes out op 2 and patsy Adam (again being called Ryan) enter through the now unlocked backdoor and op 2 gets into position outside the first target classroom just now putting on his mask and waiting for his signal (his signal being operative 1s pistol fire to finish). Op 2 takes the pistol out of the duffel bag and gives it to Adam (who is not wearing gloves) and op 2 grabs the AR for himself. Op 2 tells Adam his role will be more of a backup/helper role, such as you cover our backs and just reload anything we hand to you again at this point Adam is 100% convinced everything up till now and everything to follow is just a realistic drill (the real drill again is 50 miles away). Op 1 just entering the school through the hole he breached, uses the pistol to shoot at the administrative office near the front of the school (where the principle was or the people most likely to cause trouble from a black-op perspective) killing 4 adults and wounding 2 in this front area. He then starts making his way towards Operative 2 through the interior of the school. Op 2 at this time hearing his signal (pistol fire ending) waits 5 seconds and then opens the first target classroom door and using the AR shoots as many people as he can, goes into the hall and has Adam reload the AR for him, then moves on to the 2nd classroom and does the same thing (again with the AR) and once done goes outside in the hall to meet up with the others. So just as an update to this point both operatives, the cleaner and the patsy are now all together in the hallway outside of the 2 target classrooms. The front office is shot up (op 1, pistol), and the 2 classrooms have been shot up (op 2, AR). They give Adam their main weapons used for the REAL murders (op 1s pistol & op 2s AR) and tell him to reload for them (as part of the drill mind you all the while he doesnt have gloves on yet the 2 ops do (go figure) while the 2 ops do another sweep (not to kill this time but more to make sure no one 278

witnesses the gathering of the 4 people. Their goal is to convince eyewitnesses that in the end this was all done by a lone gunman. Up to this point the surviving eye witnesses of this event never saw both ops at the same place at the same time, both ops also never shot at the same time from different locations, they were also dressed identical, and there is no video footage of the event so based on eye witness accounts so far, they will be expecting a single suspect. Layer 1C: Evidence Cleanup, Patsy Setup & Official Police Arrival Op 2 does a quick sweep while shooting off the pistol which is not currently being reloaded by Adam (to make sure no one was coming out of hiding in the general area, and to stall till the AR is reloaded again). He then makes his way back over to Adam and grabs the now reloaded AR and heads back towards the front office, and again shoots at the administrative staff and general entrance area (they want everyone to stay hidden). While this is happening op 1 takes off his outfit (mask, gloves, dark shirt, dark jacket, camo pants with his police uniform on under it) and gives it to the cleaner to wear which puts it on over his current clothing. Op 2 circling back from the front office also takes off his outfit (mask, gloves, dark shirt, dark jacket, camo pants) but this time gives it to Adam and tells him to put it on over his current clothing (so far Adam has not seen any actual deaths first hand, he has not shot a single weapon but has touch them to reload however, the cleaner just put on op 1s outfit so putting on op 2s outfit wouldnt seem weird to him since someone else just did the same (this is a drill right?) and he is still 100% convinced this is all fake and why wouldnt he, so far from his vantage point it would just seem like a very realistic DHS/FEMA drill which is exactly what he thought he was signing up for (and did sign up for). Basically now the cleaner looks like op 1, Adam now looks like op 2 as seen by witnesses in the school up to this point they would assume its the same 1 person that committed all the murders and the 2 operatives are now dressed in their local police uniforms. The 2 operatives tell Adam to stay where he is while they make 1 final sweep (now in their police uniforms) again making sure no one is in the general area to witness the soon to be patsy death. Now still at this point NO OFFICIAL POLICE PRESENCE IS ON SCENE. The majority of police took 15-20 minutes after reports of shots being fired to arrive (mass police), BUT 1 car of legit good police got there 3 AFTER shots ended (shots havent ended yet). The 2 ops now in their police uniforms (they hadnt changed to their on radio police personas quite yet and they were dressed as police at this point but not communicating officially on the police radios yet as the patsy was still alive and no other police are on scene yet). The 2 ops then check the immediate area is clear by going around making sure that no one is going to witness the patsy suicide that they are about to do seconds later. After running around the immediate area making sure the coast is clear they signal to the cleaner (now in op 1s outfit) to shoot Adam the patsy in the head using one of the pistols. Keep in mind Adam at this point has his brother Ryans old ID in his pocket as he was told to get a piece of his brothers ID as part of the drill (I will get to the importance of this soon). The cleaner then also takes off his dark uniform and puts it in the duffel bag with any other inconsistent evidence from the scene and puts in his own car (which he arrived in well before the event), but by accident grabs the shotgun (puts in Adams moms trunk) and heads back to the back door let me explain, I think the cleaner fucked up here (minor). The shotgun was used to blow open the front door, but never to actually kill anyone. 279

The cleaner when removing inconsistent evidence assumed the shotgun wasnt used (since he was at the back at the time and never first hand saw it used) and thought he was doing the right thing when removing it to match what would be expected at the scene and the operatives that would of told him no wait leave it, I used that was too busy running around the halls making sure nothing was being seen (until they killed Adam). This would normally not be an issue but one of the police on scene 5 minutes later (which is operative 2) accidentally announces it on scene (because he remembers op 1 having it, and didnt see the cleaner take it) when by this time the shotgun had actually been put in Adams moms trunk by the cleaner. Well that brings you to about here:

Sandy Hook Elementary School Shooting Police Scanner Audio part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S59IXI9g6VE&feature=player_embedded Police Scanners after shots are first reportedwhich start as police are just first getting any reports of a shooting/issue at the school, and it takes 2-3 minutes for a small number of (2) good police to arrive yet 2 bad police (the 2 ops) are magically inside before all this happens and just randomly pop up in the conversation already inside the school. The 2 operatives now in their full police persona first start using their police radios when other police arrive on scene (2-3 minutes after all shooting stops). They tell the just arriving police to cover the entrance (and dont explain how they just out of nowhere appear on the radio inside the school) no we are arriving on the scene no we are making our way into the school and no we are looking for injuries/deaths or a suspect nothing just out of nowhere when more police arrive they start communicating on the radio, and are already inside the school and keep in mind this recording is from before shots were ever reported being fired so there is no reason it would not have any mention of the FIRST 2 police arriving at the scene. It has a lot of audio proof of the 2nd squad car pulling in, them getting out, and every detail about what they do after that point but not the 2 bad cops they just appear out of nowhere inside. One of the ops (op 2) is also very involved in a lot of the important on record events of the day which are caught in that police scanner recording such as. Op 2 chases down 2 shadows that were seen running to the back of the school (which was actually him and the other op scoping out the current police situation). Op 2 over the radio pretends to see them (2) coming at him and pretends to chase them (its really them thats running) he then 1 minute later says hes detained A (1) suspect (2 people become 1) and then seconds later is back in the school (he didnt detain anyone so 1 becomes 0 he said what he did just so more cops (2 waiting at the front entrance) didnt come to the back door/school interior yet AKA I got the situation handled). Op 2 also announces finding the first bodies. At this point the police dont think anything major at all has happened other than shots fired and the front door is blown out repeatedly in the early part of that recording the police dispatch tells some of the ambulances they havent been told to come yet so dont because they thought it was a small scale thing not a bloodbath no matter where op 2 was if he saw a hurt/dead body based on the official line (front office, classroom 1, classroom 2) at least 3 other dead bodies would have to also be with that injured/dead person why no mention we got a mass slaughter here much worse when we originally thought send massive emergency response NOW). Instead he just brushes it off as something like yeah I found some bodies, send ambulance (which is whispered and half the message gets muffled out and is basically ignored by dispatch which I doubt even heard him say what he said). 280

Op 2 also finds the suspects (Adam) body busy day for a single cop wouldnt you say all the while op 1 is on the radio basically drawing attention to the front of the school, and the roof over and over anything to draw attention away from where all the action is (the back) for as long as possible. The 2 ops want to stall police from entering until there are 10+ police on scene (so they can blend in easier trying to blend in with 2 other cops is a lot more risky) so once the mass police presence arrives they surround the building and rush in all the entrances, and which point the 2 ops move around the school to act like they are just rushing in with the rest of them (instead of being inside the school this whole time as they were) and start blending into the other police presence that is just recently arrived. The cleaner waits near the back of the school 15 minutes) until he is finally detained (once the mass police presence is able to get there and they finally have the manpower on scene to actually do something). Him getting detained away from his car was crucial since it has the inconsistent evidence in it (if he was detained in his car they would search it but there is a way around that). The cleaner having a valid story (I was here making gingerbread houses with my daughters class) and being let into the school willing (buzzed in legit), and no sign of being part of a crime (no blood on clothing, no evidence of shooting a gun, having a daughter in the school they clear him to leave (with his car which would of never been searched as of yet). As hes leaving he would be stopped again in his car by roadblocks, but he could simply say I was already cleared, the officer would confirm this over the radio, and once confirmed let him on his way (again not searching the car see why getting detained outside of his car becomes so crucial?). Side Note: If anything went wrong in the black op (especially mass eyewitnesses seeing both ops at the same time) the cleaner was to be patsy #2 (he didnt know this) which would fix the possible inconsistencies they could of experienced (and still matched the DHS/FEMA drills plot which would have been slightly tweaked) since they pulled the operation off as planned the 2nd patsy (the cleaner) was allowed to live. Layer 2: The FAKE Event DHS/FEMA Exercise/Drill/Simulation (Simulating Sandy Hook Elementary) Location: 2800 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT Date/Time: Dec 14, 2012 | 9:00 am 4:00 pm EST Involved: 2 fake killers (Brothers Adam & Ryan) Deaths: 28 fake deaths (20 children, 7 adults, 1 suspect (the other suspect Ryan escapes due to the real event being able to be pinned on a single shooter)) Weapons: 4 pistols (1 AR in trunk) At the same time of the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings (Layer 1 | Dec 14, 2012 | 9:35 am 9:49 am EST), The Department of Homeland Security & FEMA are conducting a drill/exercise nearby in Connecticut involving emergency response involving children (Layer 2 | Dec 14, 2012 | 9:00 am 4:00 pm EST). DHS/FEMA Drill/Exercise The goal of the course is to enable participants to improve their communitys mitigation and emergency operations plan specifically regarding the needs of children. The course will provide them with the information needed to address the unique needs of children prior to, during and following disasters. It will also provide them guidance and direction on how to 281

form coalitions and how to become advocates for the unique needs of children in all aspects of emergency management. Explain the planning components necessary to address the unique needs of children prior to, during and following disasters The target audience for this course is local and state emergency managers and planners, Child Services Agencies, NGOs, Child Care Providers, Schools, and Faith-based Organizations. Class size is limited to 30. Location: 2800 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT 9 AM 4 PM (Dec 14, 2012) [Link to www.ct.gov] Involved in all DHS drills/exercises is a procedure called HSEEP. About HSEEP: The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) is a capabilities and performance-based exercise program which provides a standardized policy, methodology, and terminology for exercise design, development, conduct, evaluation, and improvement planning. HSEEP Policy and Guidance is presented in detail in HSEEP Volumes I-III. Adherence to the policy and guidance presented in the HSEEP Volumes ensures that exercise programs conform to established best practices and helps provide unity and consistency of effort for exercises at all levels of government. Exercise Documentation: The Master Scenario Events List (MSEL) is a chronological timeline of expected actions and scripted events (i.e., injects) to be inserted into operations-based exercise play by controllers in order to generate or prompt player activity. It ensures necessary events happen so that all exercise objectives are met. [Link to www.hseep.dhs.gov ] So picture it like this 29 regular people show up (including Ryan Lanza) 50 miles away from Sandy Hook Elementary to participate in a DHS/FEMA drill/exercise involving child response to disaster (Adam being the missing 1 person, whos role would be given to another person since he was a no show for the drill) the general plot of this drill is given to people as they arrive at the drill (A mass casualty school shooting involving 2 brothers (Adam & Ryan)) the exact specifics about the drill/event however, have not given to the 29 people when they arrive (9:00am), and is not given to them until AFTER the real event takes place (10:00am). The drills exact plot (Layer 2) is then written on the fly directly following the completion of the real event (Layer 1) to match it in almost every detail but with some minor tweaks (2 brothers kill their mom, steal her car/guns, drive to the school she works at dressed in plain clothing, one goes in the front door (buzzed in) one goes in the back door (let in by other shooter later), 28 casualties total, 4 pistols used total (AR in trunk), shooter Adam (alias Ryan) escapes after the fact, while shooter Ryan (alias Adam) is shot by police). Keep in mind the drill was held in a firehouse not an actual school (but the firehouse drill was to simulate a school shooting even though they werent in a school for the drill specifically simulating SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY). Also Keep in mind Adam Lanza was set to play alias Ryan, while his brother Ryan was set to play the other shooter alias Adam). The 30 participants (as someone would fill alias Ryans role since Adam didnt make it for the drill) now having their aliases, each being given only their characters first name which would match the actual dead at the real event (so there would be a character named Dawn Hochsprung, 282

Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza, Nancy Lanza, Victoria Soto for example) never actually being told the alias last name) are given their specific roles to play (knowing very little about other characters aliases or roles), and a general timeline of events to follow, create a near exact ECHO of the entire real event at a location 50 miles shortly after the real event takes place (less then an hour). Both events (real & fake) would directly include a character named Adam Lanza and both (real & fake) would also include a character named Ryan Lanza as well due to Adam being found with Ryans ID (which is what caused all the initial stories about multiple shooters, one escaping, and the surviving killer being Ryan (and Adam being dead in BOTH the real and fake event)). The drill participants are then told good job guys, we will assess the data and learn a lot from this. The 30 people would leave the drill location knowing nothing of a real event taking place which they will likely learn about shortly after getting home (except Ryan who wont make it home see later). But the drill participants would never tie the 2 events together and would just pass it off as a coincidence and nothing more a lot of the details are the same but enough are different that the drill participants would see them as 2 separate things such as we didnt do a school shooting drill we did a firehouse shooting drill (the participant not knowing the drill was actually simulating a school just not using a school). Or our drill had 2 shooters, this one has one or our drill used pistols, this event used mostly ARs enough differences that they would see the 2 events (drill vs. event) as quite similar but still different. Also as part of the drill they are told there will have multiple phases (including a fake event, fake media reports, fake interviews, fake official stories all of which would be presented on the news as if real the drill participants would be told to expect to hear the details about the drill go national as wider reaching parts of the same drill are to test citizens response of the drills official reports). So now you have 2 near exact events (1 real, 1 fake), both in the same state (CN) at around the same time (morning), matching in most details including the shooters name & his brothers name (as well as victims names), overall theme (large scale school shooting involving mass casualty of children specifically at SANDY HOOK ELEMENTARY in BOTH cases), and have a timeline consistency of each other (order of events & outcome). Shortly after the drill a whole bunch of similar and slightly different versions of the real and fake event start surfacing at the same time (which is why there is multiple versions of every part of this story 2 shooters no wait 1 shooter killer suicide himself no wait cops shot him Hes Ryan no waits he Adam his mom works at the school no wait she doesnt and so on) the fake and real info mix in such as way that you cant differentiate it in most cases and the average sheeple will 100% assume all the info is referring to the real event as they would have 0 information about a drill ever taking place (5% of the actual news about CN shootings is about the real event and 95% is about the fake event) presented in a way to seem like its referring to the real event, knowing that most people know nothing of the drill ever existing. At this point (11am noon) a duplicate FAKE media frenzy / police presence (using only actors) would be created at the drill location as an echo to the same which is happening at the real event ~50 miles away. This totally staged duplicate would include fake reporters, fake by standards, fake family members (being interviewed), fake official reports, and fake everything talking specifically about the drill (not the real event). 283

DENVER, CO(Marketwire Oct 31, 2012) A new group of actors is now available nationwide for active shooter drills and mall shooting full-scale exercises, announced Visionbox, Denvers leading professional actors studio. Visionbox Crisis Actors are trained in criminal and victim behavior, and bring intense realism to simulated mass casualty incidents in public places. The actors stage acting experience, ranging from Shakespeare to contemporary American theater, enables them to stay in character throughout an exercise, and improvise scenes of extreme stress while strictly following official exercise scenarios. The producers then work with the trainers to create a prompt book for the actors so that key scenario developments can be triggered throughout the mall shooting simulation, and caught on tape. The actors can play the part of the shooters, mall employees, shoppers in the mall, shoppers who continue to arrive at the mall, media reporters and others rushing to the mall, and persons in motor vehicles around the mall. Visionbox Crisis Actors can also play the role of citizens calling 911 or mall management or posting comments on social media websites. [Link to www.marketwire.com] [Link to www.ca.finance.yahoo.com] [Link to www.crisisactors.org] So basically now you have 2 separate but similar events involving a school shooting (one real, one fake) AND also now have 2 separate but again similar media/official gatherings (again 1 real, 1 fake). At the real event media/official gathering a very small amount of data is given, very few eyewitnesses are interviewed and no parents are interviewed overall very few questions are answers about the real event. Meanwhile at the fake media/official gathering (which involved a large # of actors hired to play a role as part of the aftermath phase at a DHS drill 50 miles away) ask detailed questions and get detailed (fake) answers, interview multiple (fake) eyewitnesses/victims parents, and in the end get (fake) official stories from (fake) federal/state/local officials. The majority of news coverage, images, interviews, eyewitness testimonies to do with these events were not taken at the Elementary school at all but instead were the fake drill media reports (being presented as the real thing using some sneaky little tricks which I mention in Layer 3). Added: DHS/FEMA Drills General Plot Drill = 4 pistols (AR in trunk) Real Event = 2 pistols, 1 AR, 1 shotgun (Shotgun moved to trunk) Note: In the drill/simulation, the shooters names/aliases are reversed, so Adam Lanza becomes alias Ryan Lanza & Ryan Lanza becomes alias Adam Lanza this is done on purpose. It is also why it was important Adam was found dead with Ryans ID in his pocket and also why Adam had the ID in his pocket to begin with because he was playing a character named Ryan Lanza and was told to bring his brothers ID to make the simulation that much more real) Basically for the drill they were told they were going to be switching roles/names. 284

Drill Plot: Ryan (alias Adam) who has access to guns, wakes up one day and snaps, grabs an Assault Rifle and kill his mother in her bed while she still sleeping. He then goes back down to the basement and also grabs 4 pistols, gets his brother Adam (alias Ryan) to come help (both in plain clothing), they steal the moms car (putting the AR in the trunk), and drive to the elementary school she works at (Sandy Hook Elementary) which Ryan (alias Adam) had an argument with days earlier to perform a revenge shooting spree. Once at the school Adam (alias Ryan) goes to the back door and waits, while Ryan (alias Adam) goes to the front door. Ryan (alias Adam) is IDed and buzzed in willingly and once inside the school pulls out a pistol. The principle (alias Dawn) sees the weapon and tries to stop him, and is shot in the process (and survives, later giving an interview). He does more shooting at the general administrative area killing/wounding a few more people, before making his way through the schools interior to the back door to let his brother Adam (alias Ryan) in. Once inside they go on a pistol killing spree, each taking a single room (~20 children get killed). In the drill police then arrive while the shooting is still taking place, make their way into the school and upon seeing a suspect shoot Adam (alias Ryan) dead in the hallway. Ryan (alias Adam) then flees the scene and is able to escape. The VERY similar but different drill was then used to alter news about the real event after the fact by tricking people into thinking ALL details being reported about (school shootings, child massacres, Connecticut shootings) were referring to the Elementary School when in fact they werent (since almost no one knows about the drill at all they are falling for it. As I said before 95% of all news you are hearing is speaking specifically about the drill but making it seem like it is referring to the real event including eyewitnesses testimonies, victims families interviews, and federal/state official statements (almost all of which are actually referring to the drill). Side Note: To come up with the drill plot I dissected a large amount of news reports (all of which contradict themselves) which in the end give 2 similar and fairly clear stories (one being the real event, the other by default being the drill which could be used to summarize a general likely plot used). Added: Ryan Lanza Likely Participates in DHS/FEMA Simulation I also believe Ryan Lanza (alias Adam) was also set to participate in the voluntary DHS/FEMA drill, and likely did participate in it (they would have told him that the real Adam wasnt feeling very well and wasnt able to make it for the drill, since Ryan would have expected him to also be there). They would then have someone else fill in for Adams role (alias Ryan). Ryan (alias Adam) and Adam (alias Ryan which is filled in by someone else at this point) would then do the entire drill scenario as planned, alias Adam (the real Ryan) is shot/killed by police, the drill ends and he leaves the drill only to hear that he is through to be dead on the news. Ryan then gets home and is taken into protective custody for his own protection (you will never see that kid again. I can guarantee it) after death threats are made due to people thinking he was the shooter (or at least involved) due to early reports. The only people that would of been able to piece this story together 100% to the point of criminal charges was Adam Lanza (dead), Nancy Lanza (death) and Ryan Lanza (protective custody AKA dead). Other then that there was just Adams computer which he used to sign up for the voluntary DHS/FEMA drill which was smashed to pieces. And Ryans computer, which would of also 285

been used to sign up for the voluntary DHS/FEMA drill. Ryans computer would be taken by police after the fact as part of the protective custody (wink wink) protocols (AKA its gone). Added: The 2 Operatives Plan to Cover ALL Bases (be at both event) As another side note I also believe the 2 police after the real event (Layer 1), drive to the DHS/FEMA drill (Layer 2) and also play as the 2 police in the simulation. This would be done to add further confusion, and to cover their asses that much more in case incriminating details start coming out. That way if they got IDed after the fact tied to the real event (by face or voice) they could simply say no that was us at the drill, not the real event. They did everything they could to cover all their bases (I will give them credit for that). Added: Another (small scale) Active Shooter Drill Also Takes Place Nearby Another Active-shooter drill (not the DHS/FEMA one above) involving a school also took place (100 miles away) during the real event). By grim coincidence, even as the terrible events were unfolding in Newtown on Friday morning, the Putnam County Emergency Response Team (ERT) happened to be assembled for regular training in Carmel, and team members were at that very moment engaged in a mock scenario of an active-shooter in a school. The ERT is comprised of specially trained and heavily armed officers from the Sheriffs Office and the Carmel and Kent Police Departments. When news broke of the Newtown shooting, the Putnam County ERT commander called Newtown Police and offered to have the ERT respond to the Sandy Hook school, but that response was not needed because Connecticut police had already secured the scene. [link to www.southeast.patch.com] I feel this smaller scale drill was likely used specifically to delay first responders to the real event. Layer 3: Systematic Media Confusion Real vs. Fake Event Coverage After both the real event (Layer 1) & the fake drill (Layer 2) are complete comes the systematic media confusion (Layer 3). The goal of this is to mix the 2 stories together in such as way that barely anyone can decipher if the media report is referring to the real event (5% of the info), or the fake drill (95% of the info). The primary way they do this is. Report about the DRILL in a way that misleads you into believing they were talking about the very similar real event which is not the case. How can you tell if a specific media report falls into this pile? If the media report speaks about the shooting without using the school name itself (Sandy Hook Elementary) then it is likely referring to the drill not the real event. Dont let them simply use words like school shooting, school massacre, Connecticut shooting, Adam Lanza, Ryan Lanza, Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting to convince you about which event they are referring to (as all those details are true of both the real and FAKE events). This is also true for most the eyewitness accounts you have seen (which are actually referring to the drill). Also be careful because TV reports are using a VERY sneaky trick with this to further mislead people. What they will do is have a news reporter speaking about a story (about the fake 286

event) while having news tickers up (about the real event). That way you tie what is actually being spoken (100% fake, such as Only pistols were found inside the school) to the news ticker below (possibly real (50/50)?, NBC Special Report: CT Officials Briefing At Sandy Hook Elementary) which could actually be talking about 2 separate but similar events. Look at what the speaker is saying and what is being displayed at the same time as being 2 separate pieces of news (they understand most people will automatically link both stories together which is not necessarily true which is why it is such a sneaky technique). Example of this misdirection technique being used:

No AR-15 Found at Sandy Hook Massacre

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=1CDHLBfKusU Notice how he is speaking about the drill (only pistols, no mention of the school name or anything that can differentiate which event the spoken news is referring to), yet the well timed news ticker would make you believe he was talking about Sandy Hook Elementary. At the same time is showing a picture of Adam Lanza (which is also used in the fake event. Just mentioning his name or even the schools name doesnt automatically mean the news is referring to the real event). This type of stuff is not done by accident in the least and its timing is VERY intentionally. Due to methods like this, and the fact they have 2 almost identical events (echo), with 2 almost identical press gatherings (echo), the media is able to too give you a near unlimited number of variations to the story (all of which seem to be referring to the real event which is not the case). Making a very complex web of events that many people will get lost in. I really hope this helps wake up the masses to what actually happened that day. As a side note I also now believe the drill which took place in a firehouse (which was to simulate a school) was actually specifically simulating Sandy Hook Elementary. By doing this it would further connect the real & fake events and allow the MSM Media to present the FAKE simulation using headlines such as Shooter Adam Lanza Found Dead at Sandy Hook Elementary as all those facts are true about both the real event & the fake simulation. Since hardly anyone knows about the drill they will assume based on headlines like that, that it is obviously referring to the real event (when in fact they arent). Added: A few people have said they wished I went more into the fake reporters, fake eyewitnesses, fake victims families, fake officials (which are all tied to the drill, not the real event), but I feel others have already done a good job giving the basics of this which is why I left (Layer 3) as a shorter piece. I used Layer 3 more to point out how the media is getting away with this (by speaking about 2 almost identical events, and giving no real clarification of which they are speaking about at that exact time). View the non crying parents that really seem happy over what happened and NOT one tear shed over losing their young child that was murdered by a cold blooded killer!!! This people are actors.

Victim's mom: We'll 'live through Grace'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fDa8LS98xkg

The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed

287

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx9GxXYKx_8&feature=player_embedded

Sandy Hook Fully Exposed - Official Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nUOBSN03TU&bpctr=1360523238 Published on Jan 19, 2013 This is the sequel to the viral monster "Sandy Hook - Fully Exposed". We will admit it was not as polished as we would have liked. We never thought it would go viral and since the time it was made, some points have been debunked. That does not mean there is not still a ton of evidence and information not only in this video, but in future videos. Try to put a negative spin on this media!

SANDY HOOK - The Documentary (FULL VIDEO) 2013 Official

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkZ9HnMLKXg Published on Jan 26, 2013 Mark Howitt takes an investigative look into the events and controversy surrounding the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting which happened on December 14th 2012 in Newtown Connecticut. This documentary explores several aspects and claims of details surrounding the event and is an attempt to shed some light and provide logical answers to the many questions that remain as to what happened in Newtown. Using rare news and article clips, testimonies, police audio analysis and several perspectives, it is quite clear that we are not being told the truth about what really happened. Was there others involved in the crime? Why have authorities and media provided abundant amounts of misleading information, changing the official narrative on countless occasions? These questions are being asked by a large amount of people in the public and the case is looked at in great detail to try and make sense of things and bring closure to much of the controversy in what is perhaps the biggest conspiracy since JFK. Topics discussed include identities of multiple suspects, police audio analysis, witness testimonies, media coverage, the Lanza family, gun ban issue, intelligence agencies, examples of covert operations, project longevity, project mockingbird, fast and furious, crisis actor claims, prior drills, living victims, FEMA, advanced knowledge of attack, motive of crime, and several other aspects and anomalies.

Sandy Hook Conspiracy Video Going Viral:

Following comment by Jack Graff:

288

I personally do not subscribe to this theory. I think it's much simpler than this video makes it out to be. They've wanted to disarm us for a long time and it was only a matter of time before something like this happened. I believe TPTB swooped in and changed some of the facts, such the gun that was used. They've definitely used this to their advantage but I don't believe they hired actors. It would have been easier to hire a shooter and actually have the victims killed. I'm not saying that's what happened but something this elaborate would not have been necessary.

College Professor Says Crisis Actors May Have Played Part If Sandy Hook Was Indeed a Hoax!
January 8th 2013 Infowars.com Florida Atlantic University (FAU) Communication professor James Tracy postulated that crisis actors may have acted out roles simulating distraught parents, murdered teachers, and children portrayed to be dead in the Sandy Hook shooting, according to the Sun Sentinel. As documents relating to the Sandy Hook shooting continue to be assessed and interpreted by independent researchers, there is a growing awareness that the media coverage of the massacre of 26 children and adults was intended primarily for public consumption to further larger political ends, Tracy wrote on his blog site memoryholeblog.com where he lists a timeline of the events of the Sandy Hook tragedy as they played out in real time. If youve never heard of crisis actors youre not alone, but a quick visit to CrisisActors.org should fill you in. Google lists a summary of the site as follows: Helping schools and first responders create realistic drills, full-scale exercises, high-fidelity simulations, and interactive 3D films. Tracys blog further notes, The entourages personnel are available nationwide for active shooter drills and mall shooting full-scale exercises. Before you can create an account on CrisisActors.org, the site also asks if youve undergone any Homeland Security training: Do you have a certificate for any course completed at http://training.fema.gov?

289

After such a harrowing event why are select would-be family members and students lingering in the area and repeatedly offering themselves for interviews? Tracy curiously asks. A possible reason is that they are trained actors working under the direction of state and federal authorities and in coordination with cable and broadcast network talent to provide tailor-made crisis acting that realistically drives home the events tragic features. What would it take to convince Tracy otherwise? Show the footage, he says. No photographic or video footage of the crime scene have been made publicly available and major media have to a large degree based their conclusions on Connecticut Medical Examiner H. Wayne Carvers verbal account of the postmortem which is at best ambiguous, Tracy stated on his blog. Is it possible that such actors were utilized in Newtown to control the events depiction and magnify its effect on public opinion? With the exception of police and government officials, the shocked and grief-stricken students, family members and pedestrians captured in photos from the shootings aftermath are almost entirely anonymous. Further, the suggestion of collaborative efforts between journalists and families is evident in many of the interviews with family members Tracy lists the following video as an example of one such exchange:

Sandy Hook Mass Media PsyOps: Outtakes and Bloopers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qhLe2i8uFwc

To stop school shootings, we should let criminals have all the guns, argue gun control advocates
January 9th 2013 By Mike Adams If youre shaking your head after reading the headline for this article, youre not alone. The idea of taking away guns from all the law abiding citizens while concentrating them in the hands of deranged, psychopathic criminals isnt my idea, however. Its Obamas. And Bloombergs. And Nancy Pelosi and everybody else who is now pushing for gun control legislation in the wake of the Newtown, Conn. elementary school shooting. The problem with gun control laws is that only law-abiding citizens follow laws. This should be self-evident. So while a gun ban law would see law-abiding citizens turning their guns in, law-abiding citizens are not the source of violent shootings. Its the psychopathic criminals who are committing the violence. And because they are criminals, they will by definition ignore gun ban laws. Want proof? Well, for starters, its already against the law to shoot children and kill them. Yet Adam Lanza did exactly that in Newtown, Conn., oblivious to what the law says. All by itself, this is proof that laws do not stop criminal-minded psychopaths from committing acts of violence.

Strictest gun control areas have the most violent crime

290

Remember all this when you hear all the usual political suspects call for gun control legislation. This legislation will, by definition, only hurt law-abiding citizens who would never even think of harming innocent children. At the same time, gun control laws will do absolutely nothing to stop psychopathic criminals from using guns, knives or other weapons to commit mass violence. Proof of this is readily apparent. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are already banned: malls, schools, etc, writes Professor Glenn Harlan Reynolds in a USA Today opinion piece. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well. Renolds goes on to expose the big lie of gun control: the idea that criminals will abide by gun-free zones or laws of any kind. The very premise of being a criminal is that they ignore laws. If anything, gun-free zones are a magnet for mass shooters, explains Reynolds. And hes right: Aurora, Colorado had some of the most stringent gun control laws in America. But instead of reducing gun crime, all it did was ensure that victims were completely disarmed and unable to shoot back.

None of this logic and reason, of course, will stop people like President Obama from trying to punish law-abiding citizens across America by taking from them their right to armed self defense. Then again, gun control advocates never claimed to have any basis in logic or reason. They have habitually resorted to fear and contrived emotions to try to push their disarmament agenda, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that gun control causes MORE crime, not less. As history has shown, mass disarmament leads to even more deaths via government violence against unarmed citizens. I explain this in the following video:

Gun Control is Genocide - Documentary by Mike Adams

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=m9LWioXYaic Published on Aug 18, 2012 Gun Control is Genocide. Why? Because throughout history, citizen disarmament has always been a precursor of mass genocide carried out by government gone bad. The term for it is "democide." In the last century, governments have murdered 262 million people far more than have died on the battlefield in all the wars combined. Government becomes extremely dangerous when it controls all the firepower while the citizenry controls none. This imbalance of power leads to genocide. It is only the presence of citizen firepower that prevents government which is inherently evil and destructive from enslaving the population. The Second Amendment is the one right that defends all other rights. 291

See PART ONE of this video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCk90Xvv3EI

Photo of Obama Reacting to Sandy Hook News More State Propaganda

January 9th 2013 By Aaron Dykes Infowars.com The narrative surrounding this official image is simply NOT credible

(COMMENTARY) The official photo released by the White House showing President Obama with his head hung low, sunken after receiving news of the terrible Sandy Hook shooting massacre is undoubtedly a powerful image.

292

It has been rightfully criticized by many for its blatant hypocrisies releasing it weeks after the event for the sheer purpose of exploiting tragedy to push for gun control, all while ignoring the collateral damage deaths of children, women and other non-combatant innocents in the War on Terror and on-going drone strikes. But further, the narrative surrounding this official image is simply NOT credible. Weve been lied to and manipulated too much before. The timing of its release, weeks after the tragedy, is purely calculated to play heartstrings in attempt to convince the country to accept gun control (which would not have prevented this tragedy or future tragedies).

Photo of Obama Reacting to Sandy Hook News More State Propaganda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jjgObMiCQMQ Published on Jan 4, 2013 Infowars Nightly News host Aaron Dykes breaks down how the claim this official White House photo was taken at the time President Obama received news about the Sandy Hook massacre is NOT credible, especially when you factor in the phony tears he shed over the matter in a televised press conference and the admitted lie about the White House photo moment in reaction to the Bin Laden raid.

Paul Joseph Watson wrote: The release of the photo three weeks after the shooting seems to have no other purpose than to act as a poster child for the White Houses ongoing gun grabbing agenda, set to begin in earnest with California Senator Dianne Feinsteins draconian gun control bill. After all, we have just witnessed the president shedding crocodile tears during a televised press conference where he read the childrens names and pretended to weep over their loss. The much discussed official White House photo of the Obama Administration reacting live to a feed of the Bin Laden raid was an admitted staged hoax. Despite a quickly circulated narrative portraying the president and his team as decisive and in the loop, that tense cabinet moment, including Hillary Clintons dramatic hand-over-the-mouth gasp, was not captured while watching SEAL Team 6 in action. The CIA admitted it plainly, while a photo analysis strongly suggests that airbrushing was used to enhance Hillarys presence in the photo. Nevertheless, the corporate-owned collaborative media went out of its way to dramatize and lionize the moment. Consider USA Todays impacting headline: White House held breath during bin Laden raid. Dont believe known liars. Just stop it. The establishment over the course of many presidents has deliberately told lie after lie to sell the public on wars, false flag attacks, new policies and the power of the system itself. Is our system so different from the classical Communist regimes that employed state-owned media 293

and put out crafted images, statues and larger-than-life legends to propagandize its populations into loving their Dear Leader? Was it genuine when a captive inner party shed tears over the death of Kim Jong Il in North Korea? Western media didnt buy it. Why would we now buy another narrative from a twoparty dictatorship with no credibility, a sagging public image and fresh intents to scale back and weaken the Bill of Rights and Constitution? (See Salon: Repeal the Second Amendment). Stop believing it, and never forget that even an outright repeal of the Second Amendment CANNOT abolish the right of free people to keep and bear arms. Firstly, the Second Amendment states that the right shall not be infringed. But moreover, that right is God-given and merely recognized and enumerated in the Bill of Rights and Constitution it was never granted by men, and cannot be taken away by men except through illegitimate force or the psychological domination of a dumbed-down people.

Crass Obama Photo-Op Exploits Sandy Hook Massacre

January 9th 2012 Paul Joseph Watson Infowars.com

Obama not so upset about dozens of children killed in drone strikes he personally ordered! Despite the fact that drone strikes personally approved by Barack Obama have killed dozens of children around the world, the White House has pulled another crass PR stunt by releasing 294

a photograph of Obama looking upset at the moment he was told the news about the Sandy Hook school massacre. The President, who has described the day of the shootings as the worst day of my presidency, is seen bowing his head and closing his eyes as John Brennan, his deputy national security adviser, informs him about the tragic events unfolding in Newtown, Connecticut, reports the Daily Mail. The release of the photo three weeks after the shooting seems to have no other purpose than to act as a poster child for the White Houses ongoing gun grabbing agenda, set to begin in earnest with California Senator Dianne Feinsteins draconian gun control bill. The release of the image follows Obamas speech shortly after the tragedy when he began shedding tears as he talked about how the children killed in the shooting, Had their entire lives ahead of them. Birthdays, graduations, weddings. Kids of their own. Critics immediately seized upon the hypocrisy of the sight of Obama crying over dead kids, noting that the innumerable drone strikes he personally ordered have killed at least 168 children in Pakistan alone over eight times the number killed by gunman Adam Lanza. Indeed, a staggering 98% of the victims of Obamas drone strike policy have been innocent civilians, with just one alleged terrorist killed per 50 fatalities. In another twist of hypocrisy, the man delivering the news in the photograph, John Brennan, actually helps Obama decide who to target with the very drone strikes that have killed so many children. The Obama administration has not been shy in using staged photo-ops to push its political agenda. Shortly after the announcement that Osama Bin Laden had been killed in Pakistan, the White House released a series of situation room photos alleging to show Obama, Hillary Clinton and members of the White House security team watching the assassination of Bin Laden on a live video feed. In one particularly dramatic photo, Hillary Clinton is seen with her hand anxiously clasped over her mouth as if reacting to a crucial event. Other photos show Obama and his staff with stern faces as they discuss the operation while it unfolds. The photos were described by many as having historical significance, forming a captivating record of Obamas greatest success and being the defining moment of his Presidency. We were also told by the media that, The leader of the free world saw the terror chief shot in the left eye. However, it subsequently emerged that Obama, Clinton and the rest of the officials in the photos could not possibly have seen the execution of Bin Laden because according to CIA director Leon Panetta, there was a 25 minute blackout of the live feed which was cut off before the US Navy SEALS even entered the building. The notion that Obama saw the terror chief shot in the left eye live on video was a total fabrication. At best, the photos were cynically misrepresented by the White House and the 295

mainstream media, at worst, they were completely staged to add a contrived dramatic spin to the unfolding wall-to-wall press coverage of the Bin Laden assassination. A technical analysis of the photos also brought up numerous anomalies that suggested the entire scene could have been a cynical cut and paste concoction. Reuters and AP photojournalists also described how they witnessed Obama stage photos that were purportedly taken during a White House speech in which Obama discussed the death of Bin Laden and yet were carefully set-up after the speech was had finished, including Obamas 30 second walk to the podium.

Obama Orders Children Murdered

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mvOU-czQnl8 Published on Dec 19, 2012 As Obama grandstands and uses the Sandy Hook crisis to, in the words of Eric Holder "brainwash the public" that guns are bad and the cause of violent crime and misery, We decided to show just a few of the documented cases of drone attacks that he personally ordered where children were killed. Drone attack after drone attack you will see the real face of the Globalists. This man does not care about children he cares about disarming the American people to bring in a totalitarian government.

Another impossible long shot connects Sandy Hook and Dark Knight Rises
January 11th 2013 By: Jon Rappoport The murders at the premier of the The Dark Night Rises, in Colorado, and the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, have yet another bizarre connection. First of all, in the film, The Dark Knight Rises, which premiered last summer in Aurora, where a killer(s) took the lives of 12 theater goers, wounding 58 others, there is a moment at one-hour, fifty-eight minutes. A startling moment in the Batman movie. Commissioner Gordon is talking about thwarting an imminent attack on "Strike Zone One." At that moment, he points to the only legible words on a map lying on a table in front of him. The words are: SANDY HOOK. The scene of the massacre last month at a Connecticut elementary school. The other recent massacre. And now, by way of an article at Before It's News, we have a new tie-in. The unlisted author of that article cites a story from a newspaper in Connecticut, The Stamford Advocate. Dated April 7, 2012, it has so far flown under the radar. It reports a death in an automobile accident, on the Merritt Parkway. The victim was Scott Getzinger. 296

Mr. Getzinger was the property master on The Dark Knight Rises. As such, there is a chance he, in fact, selected that map with the words SANDY HOOK printed on it. The property master is responsible for all props used in a film. The Stamford Advocate story mentions that Getzinger's injuries were, at first, called non-life threatening by the police. But then he died. The last fact of the story is stunning, to say the least. Mr. Getzinger was a resident of...Newtown, Connecticut. As I and others have pointed out previously, the production designer of The Dark Knight Rises, Nathan Crowley is related to the infamous black-magic British legend, Aleister Crowley, sometimes called The Great Beast 666. Aleister was Nathan's grandfather's cousin. Then we have the fact that Suzanne Collins, author of The Hunger Games, a novel in which 23 children are ritually sacrificed in combat by the dystopian state, also lives in Sandy Hook/Newtown. Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Sandy Hook fundraising relief page created 3 days before shooting, Google search results confirm!
January 11th 2013

As of the time of this writing, if you search on Google for the URL of the United Way Sandy Hook fundraising page (see instructions, below), you will get a Google search result saying the page was created on December 11, 2012. What's so odd about that? The Sandy Hook shooting took place three days later, on December 14, 2012. If your head is suddenly ringing with shouts of "conspiracy theory!" you're not alone. This kind of news immediately sets off red flags with most people, including myself. "Is this for 297

REAL?" I found myself asking when I first saw this. So I grabbed a screen shot from Google search results, and you can see that below. Yep, it shows December 11, 2012, clear as day. In fact, it has consistently shown this for the past four days. Click here to see these search results yourself. (If you get results showing any date other than December 11, then Google has changed them.) The parameter on the end of the search URL, by the way, is "as_qdr=y15" which tells Google to display the date the page was created. Here's the screen shot of the results I have been consistently getting over the past several days:

As you can see, it clearly shows "December 11, 2012" as the date the page was created. The page reads: United Way extends our most sincere condolences and prayers to all those families affected 298

by the devastating events in Newtown / Sandy Hook... For a full screen shot of the United Way page, click the following link: www.naturalnews.com/images/Screenshot-Newtown.Uwwesternct.org.jpg It's clear that this page was created to raise funds for Sandy Hook victims. Yet the Sandy Hook massacre did not occur until three days AFTER this page was created, according to Google. I did some checking around and found that one Google engineer says the date is a "glitch." That seems odd, since Google's date property seems to be accurate for everything else I can find. For example, I wrote a story about the mysterious death of John Noveske yesterday. If you run a Google search for it, using the date parameter, it correctly lists the exact HOUR of my publication of that page. Click here to see the search results yourself. So I'm not sure why Google search results would be correct about seemingly all the others pages it indexes, but somehow wrong by three days on the United Way Sandy Hook fundraising page. The "glitch" explanation seems suspect to me. It sounds like a quick answer to try to downplay something that could be the biggest story of the year. Because if the United Way knew about the Sandy Hook massacre three days before it actually happened, then the entire thing had to have been scripted. WTC 7 building was announced "destroyed" while it was still standing! Historically speaking, this is all very relevant because we've seen this before with 9/11. As the following video shows, in 2001 a BBC news reporter stood on camera and announced that the World Trade Center 7 building had collapsed even while it was still standing directly behind her! That video, which was censored by Google Video (surprised?), can be viewed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltP2t9nq9fI Why did the BBC make this mistake? Because just like CNN, which has a long and hilarious history of releasing totally fake news broadcasts (like THIS one from the Gulf War), the BBC was leaked the information about the WTC 7 building collapse before it happened. The news was embargoed to a specific hour, but the BBC calculated the time zone incorrectly and accidentally ran the news an hour early. (By the way, that fake CNN Gulf War video linked above was so incredibly, laughably stupid that one of the guests being interviewed hears a biological attack siren and grabs a HELMET! Keep all this fakery in mind when you consider the credibility of people like Piers Morgan) This broadcast time-shift mistake sounds exactly like what happened with the United Way Sandy Hook fundraising page. Three days too early. Somebody didn't follow the embargo, it seems, and they hoped no one would notice. They didn't realize Google was spidering everything before the massacre took place. 299

For the record, the collapse of WTC 7 was, without question, caused by planned demolition explosives. After reviewing the actual facts of what happened, only a completely insane (or irrational) person could conclude anything other than that. No wonder more than 1,700 professional architects and engineers have gone on the record questioning the ridiculously laughable official explanation of 9/11. See their website here: http://www.ae911truth.org 9/11 was clearly staged for the purpose of passing the Patriot Act and justifying the so-called "War on Terror" that continues to this day. See where it took us? Now Obama uses the same excuse to pass the NDAA. That's what happens when all the Republicans hoo-rah their guy in the White House while not thinking ahead far enough to realize a Democrat would some day use the same false terror excuse to take away everybody's guns. Increasingly, Sandy Hook looks like it might have been staged as well. What do you think?

Sandy Hook AR-15 Hoax? Still NO school Sur veillance Footage Released!
January 15th 2013

Here at Natural News, we have a reputation for asking intelligent questions about things that don't add up. There are a lot of mysteries out there, and they deserve to be explored and questioned: Why is there still mercury in vaccines? Why did the WTC 7 building implode and fall when no airplane hit it? If the government can create money from nothing, why are we still paying taxes? And today, I'm adding to that list this commonsense question: Why has no surveillance footage been released from the Sandy Hook shooting, showing Adam Lanza blasting away with an AR-15? Here's why the non-release of this video footage is so interesting: Every time a school shooting takes place, one of the very first things that gets released to the media is the school surveillance footage depicting the gun and the shooter. The purpose of this is to associate the pain and anguish of the massacre to the image of a scary-looking rifle. In mere days after the Columbine shooting in 1998, for example, the media received footage from the massacre and began playing it over and over again, hammering home the images of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold with their guns. The same is true with numerous other school shootings as you'll see below. 300

But with the Sandy Hook school shooting, no video footage has been released. A reasonable person has to ask the question: WHY? You see, the release of footage of Adam Lanza murdering children with an AR-15 if such a thing even happened would strongly support the mainstream media's call for banning socalled "assault rifles." It would also: Amp up the emotional impact of the fear mongering being carried out by the media. Provide visual support for the gun-grabber's plea to ban all rifles. Provide a wealth of images to be used by newspapers and magazines to further demonize the image of rifles. And yet, for some reason, we see no surveillance footage from Sandy Hook. Why is that? Answer: The AR-15 appears to have been left in his car and never even used in the shooting The real answer to all this and this reveals the "Big Lie" of the mainstream media is that the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle was left in Lanza's car. It was never brought into the school in the first place. As a result, it was not used in the shooting. This was openly admitted in an NBC news report that has since been scrubbed and marginalized. But NaturalNews captured the video and posted it on our own private video network which is immune from censorship: Click here to watch the NBC News video yourself. Here's a partial transcript of the video: Matt Lauer: Pete Williams, our chief justice correspondent, has got some new information as well, good morning. Pete Williams: Matt, good morning to you. This continues to be a very complex investigation, and there is a lot of contradictory information out there, but there is some new information this morning from a couple of federal officials and state officials. They say now that there were actually four handguns recovered inside the school. Not just two as we were initially told. Four handguns and apparently only handguns that were taken into the school. We knew that Adam Lanza... also had an assault-style, AR-15 style rifle that he had taken to the school that was in the car he drove there, his mother's car. But we've been told by several officials that he left that in the car.

Adam Lanza left the AR-15 in the car

This simple fact, which was confirmed by "federal officials and state officials" has been completely scrubbed out of the mainstream media, and replaced with the "assault weapon lone gunman" theory that just happens to fit nicely with the citizen disarmament agenda being 301

pushed by anti-American traitors like Dianne Feinstein and Joe Biden. This is why no video footage has been released. Because the real video footage almost certainly shows HANDGUNS used in the massacre, not a rifle. There may even be other elements in the video footage that they don't want the public to see, including the possibility of multiple shooters.

But take a look at the images and video footage we normally see from other shootings:

Columbine massacre. These images were repeatedly splattered all across the mainstream media as part of the push for gun control.

302

Panama City school board shooting. Once again, lots of publicity about these images.

Perry Castaneda shooting at the University of Texas, Austin

School shooting in Rio de Janero

Zero Day shooting on May 1, 2001 In all those shootings (and many more), video footage and still images are quickly released to the media for the purpose of blasting these images into the minds of viewers everywhere. Video is played over and over again in the media with the hopes that people will be driven into a state of total irrational fear. It's also, of course, a good way to cause copycat massacres which result in even more news ratings. And yet with Sandy Hook, we see no video footage at all. Why is that? 303

Three possible explanations Explanation 1) They are busy doctoring the video footage to insert an AR-15 into the video frame by frame. The technology to do this has existed for many years as we all saw with the movie Forrest Gump, where actor Tom Hanks was shown shaking the hand of JFK. You can see that at the: 48 mark of this YouTube video. Explanation 2) No video footage was ever taken by the school. This is absurd, as it's already on the record that the Sandy Hook school had installed a video security system to monitor anyone entering or leaving the school. In fact, it's even more interesting than that: this school security policy letter was sent to parents at the beginning of the 2012-2013 school year, and it clearly states: The office staff will use a visual monitoring system to allow entry. Doors will be locked at approximately 9:30 a.m. Any student arriving after that time must be walked into the building and signed in at the office... It's quite clear that if a student approached the school carrying an AR-15 rifle, he would not have been allowed entry! The only way he could have entered the school with the security system in place was to hide handguns under his clothes. You cannot hide an AR-15 rifle in a pocket, obviously. Explanation 3) The video footage has been seized by the government and "archived" along with the footage of the missile that struck the Pentagon during the 9/11 attacks. Where is all that video footage? It was all seized and completely hidden from public view. Petition created to demand release of the video footage Click here to read the White House petition demanding the release of the Sandy Hook video footage. Watch the announcement of this here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG_dqmfXsZM

304

Facebook now threatening to shut down accounts of users who question official narrative on Sandy Hook shooting!
December 19th 2012 By J. D. Heyes

Social media site Facebook has decided to turn the First Amendment on its head, which is remarkable for no less a reason than because its creator has made a fortune on the concept of free, open and unedited speech. 305

According to reports, Facebook has begun suspending the accounts of users who throw into question the official narrative behind the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, after a warning by Connecticut State Police spokesman Lt. J. Paul Vance that said posting "misinformation" on the site could be result in criminal prosecution. In one instance of outright censorship, an image that was posted in the shooting's aftermath and which questioned whether Adam Lanza, "a clumsy 20-year-old autistic kid," could have possibly been responsible for killing 26 people, was deleted, with the user handed a warning. 'We will punish you'

"It seems that Facebook is now in the business of shutting down the accounts of journalists who question the mainstream Medias reporting of the news. Saturday night I was alerted by Facebook that I would have to wait three days until I was able to log onto my personal Facebook account again," writes the editor of SecretsOfTheFed.com. "I was informed the reason for this punishment was the result of meme I had shared," the editor continued. "Facebook told me it 'violates Facebook's Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.' I was further warned that, 'If you continue to abuse Facebook's features, your account could be permanently disabled.'" On the Saturday following the shooting, Connecticut State Police officials warned that posting "misinformation" on social media sites would be "investigated and prosecuted." "There has been misinformation coming from people posing as the shooter in this case, using other IDs, mimicking this crime and crime scene," Vance said, adding that some posts were made in a "threatening manner." 306

"It's important to note that we have discussed this with federal authorities. These things are crimes. They will be investigated and prosecuted," he said. Consistent 'misinformation' The SecretsOfTheFed.com site's graphic did not appear to fit the description of "threatening." Moreover, the Connecticut State Police warning which is apparently backed up by the Feds is not being applied to the mainstream media. Reporters and news networks got a shocking amount of information surrounding the shootings completely wrong in their haste to be the first with the story. For example: It was first reported that Lanza's mother, the very first victim of the massacre, was a teacher at the Sandy Hook school - false. It was first reported that Lanza also gunned down his father - false. It was first reported that the shooter was Ryan Lanza, the older brother of Adam - false. First reports of the shootings said a second gunman was arrested in the woods behind the school, but those reports were subsequently dropped without explanation. 'Be careful and cognizant' This is what makes the Facebook action so troubling; given that most of the "misinformation" that has been published regarding the shootings came from the corporate-owned media, it is rather hypocritical to punish individuals who are merely posting their own thoughts about what they believe happened. Earlier reports have documented that Facebook has a habit of deleting images and posts that the social site deems are in violation of its "Statement of Rights and Responsibilities," but which actually don't amount to much more than political satire, conjecture or a reasonable suspicion of official narratives on current events.

In September 2011, Infowars reporter Darrin McBreen was told by Facebook staff not to voice his political opinion on the social networking website. Responding to comments McBreen had made about off-grid preppers being treated as criminals, the "Facebook Team" wrote, "Be careful about making political statements on Facebook," adding, "Facebook is about building relationships not a platform for your political viewpoint. Don't antagonize your base. Be careful and cognizant (sic) of what you are preaching." Sources: http://www.infowars.com http://www.secretsofthefed.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/photo-2.jpg http://www.nydailynews.com http://www.facebook.com/legal/terms http://www.secretsofthefed.com 307

Texas Tan Line

I love my country, Its the Government I'm afraid of...

Facebook Becomes Big Brother: Purges Pro-Gun & Pro Liberty Accounts
December 27th 2012 By Paul Joseph Watson prisonplanet.com

Massive act of censorship sees alternative media pages disappeared!

308

Facebook is purging accounts that carry pro-second amendment and pro-liberty information in a censorship purge that has accelerated over the past few hours, with innumerable pages being disappeared merely for posting legitimate political content. NaturalNews.coms Mike Adams contacted us to alert us to the fact that Facebook banned our account for posting this, with an attached image of a Gandhi quote about how the British disarmed the citizenry during their rule in India.

The following is a list of Facebook accounts operated by individuals in the alternative media that have been shut down by Facebook staff over the past 24 hours. Infowars writer Aaron Dykes and political dissident Brandon J. Raub have also had their accounts deleted. Raub was snatched by police and forcibly imprisoned in a psychiatric ward earlier this year for posting political content on Facebook. Infowars editor Kurt Nimmo also had his account suspended this morning. Kurt Nimmo (account suspended) Aaron Dykes (account inactive) Amber Lyon (account suspended) Brandon J. Raub (account inactive) Michael F Rivero (account inactive) Anthony J Hilder (account inactive) William Lewis (account inactive) Richard Gage (account inactive) William Rodriguez (account inactive) Infowar Artist (account inactive) We are Change (account inactive) 309

Wacboston At Twitter (account inactive) Michael Murphy Tmp (account inactive) Robert M Bowman (account inactive) Peter Dale Scott (account inactive) Jason Infowars (account inactive) Mike Skuthan (account inactive) Packy Savvenas (account inactive) Sean Wright (account inactive) Katherine Albrect (account inactive)

It is important to stress that most of these accounts have not simply been temporarily suspended, they have been shut down completely. Some are now being reinstated after complaints. Accounts that have been suspended can still be seen but posting rights have been revoked. A 24 hour suspension was also placed on the Alex Jones Facebook account due to an image that another user had posted in which Alex Jones was tagged. One of the messages being received by users having their accounts suspended is displayed below. In most cases, users are not even being informed of why their page was suspended or deleted, with Facebook merely referring them to the companys guidelines.

Last week, we reported on how Facebook was suspending user accounts that questioned the official narrative behind the Sandy Hook school massacre. As we have previously highlighted, Facebook occasionally deletes images and posts that it claims violate Facebooks Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, yet constitute little more than political conjecture or a healthy skepticism of official narratives on current events. In September 2011, Infowars reporter Darrin McBreen was told by Facebook staff not to voice his political opinion on the social networking website. Responding to comments McBreen had made about off-grid preppers being treated as criminals, the Facebook Team wrote, Be careful making about making political statements on Facebook, adding, Facebook is about building relationships not a platform for your political viewpoint. Dont antagonize your base. Be careful and cognizant of what you are preaching.

310

Spree shooters: Predictable, preventable behavior

December 28th 2012 By Mike Keleher

Adam Lanza In the horrific aftermath of the shootings at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn, the mall shooting in Oregon, and the Batman movie shooting in Colorado 2012 has been a tragic year marked by outrageous violence. Many media commentators and elected officials have made comments about the inevitability of additional attacks and how we are defenseless to prevent other similar murders unless we 311

make other gun restrictions above and beyond current laws which make all of these behaviors illegal. The public also appears to have an insatiable appetite for information about the causes of these spree killers who theoretically just snapped and went on their homicidal path. Both concepts of inevitability and the idea people just snapped are flawed. The purported inevitability of attacks, coupled with the concept these killers suddenly became homicidal with no known motivation, is certainly sensational, but unsupported by research into this type of attack. Knee jerk concepts of gun control is also a flawed concept since criminals dont abide by gun laws or cease their behavior due to additional taxes or amount of available ammunition. The law abiding public is affected, but murderers and criminals do not suddenly throw up their arms in surrender over a new law.

They did not just snap

This type of terrible homicidal violence is not conducted in the spur of the moment. Review of the American and foreign school shootings have always found elaborate planning by the shooters. The study of attack locations, identification of unsuspecting soft targets in gun free zones and elaborate attack plans are often combined with computer research about suicide, homicide and weapons.

These heinous felons seem to be very fond of assembling all of their elaborate gear over a period of time like camouflage or tactical clothing, knives, weapons and ammunition. This is very organized behavior by individuals who are often labeled as having mental health issues or believed to be insane or they just snapped. Clearly, anyone who engages in this terrible criminal behavior is making a large number of decisions over an extended time which can be identified as heading towards lethal behavior and 30 second news sound bytes looking for the cause or the final straw that made this shooter go berserk is not going to see the actual picture. The truth is the actual motivation for the shooter may be unfathomable to the public at large. This behavior is so unreasonable to us it appears alien. Interestingly enough, the term alienist was applied to psychologists and psychiatrists in the early 1900s when they studied murderers who were alienated from normal human emotions and connections, or whose acts were so outside the realm of normal they were deemed to be alien to human nature. There is obviously no excuse for killing defenseless groups of people, and this insane behavior makes no sense. From the shooters side, they dont worry about making sense, they are making decisions based upon their own thoughts, advancing violent plans and showing clear intent to harm all in furtherance of their own perceived grievances or issues. In the American society, violence is often inflicted in the heat of passion, or under the influence of drugs and alcohol. Spree killers are not acting out in the moment, they dont snap-they are long term planners who may have a passion, but the execution is in cold blood. They may extend their anger or passion over extended time periods, building plans based on old events or even an emerging situation that dove tails into their old programming and 312

grudges. It makes sense to them, not necessarily to anyone else. How could rational people make such plans even to the point that they may include committing suicide after they have executed their big plan or statement to the world?

These attacks are not inevitable

This long planned violence is not inevitable, and does not exist in a cloak of unidentifiable secrecy. Much like sharks or other dangerous animals who exhibit exaggerated attack behaviors prior to attack; these deadly shooters show their behaviors long before they appear to just snap. They may have exhibited years of anti-social behavior or mental illness. All of the planning and gathering of necessary items for the big attack may also be conducted in plain view of friends, family and the public along with verbal and written statements of hate and threats of violence. Spree shooters, troubled young adults and mentally unbalanced people show visible and reoccurring aspects of their problems to friends and family who may fail to recognize it as criminal in nature or take action. They may live in denial or they just hope it is not a precursor to violence-but do not intercede. Most parents would never believe their offspring could be capable of murdering multiples of human beings in cold blood. But there are parents who have observed bad or psychotic behaviors for years prior to the big event right along with other precursor events in school or at work.

How many Sunday evening late night TV news interviews of have we all seen following a murder which include neighbors who describe the killer , He was a quiet man. They may not have seen the many problems suffered by the shooter or were witness to degrading behaviors, but many people may have witnessed individual pieces which should have been cause for alarm. For the American public, there is an unfortunate trend to shun or avoid angry and troubled people and hope nothing bad happens. We just dont get involved. If violence does spring forth, there is a common belief only the police can deal with it after the fact. There is little communal emphasis to be pro-active with problems evidenced by people outside their comfort zones. They are shunted off to being someone elses problem or problems for the police to deal with. The policeman who takes a report about verbal threats or odd behavior rarely gets information about the persons life behaviors which are endured by family, friends and teachers. Instead of prevention, one of the most obvious danger issues we seize upon is of course the use of firearms obtained by spree killers. Media outlets broadcast the brand and type of weapons used, get commentators to speak about them, and politicians call for restrictions and bans-all without embracing the notion that firearms are inanimate objects which are misused by these murderers. It is already illegal to use firearms in the commission of felonies. It is already illegal for citizens under the age of 21 to possess or own pistols and pistol ammunition. Laws which prevent non-criminals from committing statutory bad acts do not stop criminals from engaging in crime. You dont have to look much beyond the history of anti-gun possession laws in Chicago and Washington DC two of the most restrictive cities in 313

the nation and their high murder rates. Those laws prevented law abiding citizens from possessing firearms, but did not prevent homicidal criminals from doing so. Criminals are not entitled to have guns. There are also people who are entitled to purchase firearms and ammunition that have mental health problems or personality problems who should not have guns, and in fact it may be illegal for them to purchase or possess firearms. If they self-report, or have notices provided by mental health professionals it is illegal to sell them firearms. In this age of law suits and HIPPA protection, fewer mental health professionals are willing to make treatment or warning notifications to the police. Each firearm which is legally purchased from a licensed gun dealer in America is regulated by federal and state laws and requires the purchaser under oath to fill out a series of questions to include convictions, domestic violence and mental health treatments. Several of the American spree killers purchased weapons legally, filled out the forms, underwent the mandatory law enforcement background checks, and waiting periods required by state laws. The type of gun is irrelevant they complied with all of the laws required of every citizen. Rather than relying on purchasers to self report, it may be more important that people with intimate knowledge of subjects who are unsuitable, or who have lied to purchase guns come forward and report the person who has just committed a federal crime. This is an uncomfortable position to be in, but hopefully we as a society can be more proactive reporting these types of issues even though they are outside of our comfort zone. We may never know how many illegal acts will be prevented, and it is not possible to estimate how many injuries or deaths were prevented, but we still need to do the right thing and report illegal behaviors even by friends and family. In the Sandy Hook massacre, news reports are relating the shooters mother purchased the guns legally. The shooter stole and misused them, not his law abiding mother, and now many politicians want to prevent or further restrict guns for everyone who follows the law? How do they miss the felonious acts of the murderer? The purchase of guns by people with histories of violence, mental health issues, or who are not old enough to legally own firearms, should draw immediate attention from those around them. Despite media claims or public perceptions that illegal guns are available on any American street corner, it is just not true, and illegal guns have not been the heart of a major shooting spree. American spree shooters have obtained legally purchased weapons themselves or have stolen legally purchased weapons and misused them. Obviously the theft of legally purchased guns shows proof of felony intent. The shooters also practice and train with guns, and may exhibit unusual behaviors at public shooting ranges or gun stores. Gun dealers and gun ranges have reported people with erratic behaviors and have prevented sales and use, to include the recent Colorado shooter.

Spree shooters always leave clear signs of planned violence

In addition to obtaining firearms, school shooters have also had conversations, emails and written plans viewed by peers, family or friends as wrong or scary but were discounted or dismissed by people who did not wish to believe clear intent was being shown of future violence. They always leave clues with those around them. Those clues are not always correctly dealt with or interpreted and are merely suffered and rarely reported at home. School teachers and administrators operate with more defined lines of reportable behavior, and are 314

more likely to report violence indicators or behavior. More families need to correct, deal with, or seek outside resources and report bad behavior. One day after the recent Connecticut shootings, school kids in Laurel, Maryland reported a teen that had made comments about committing school violence. The information was provided to a school liaison officer, the school administrators, parents and local prosecutors office. Investigation found elaborate plans and research being made by the youth. They were placed in a mental health facility for an emergency evaluation. This is a text book example of people observing the precursor behaviors and acting upon it. This type of scenario occurs frequently in schools across America and exemplifies the phrase first coined by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security in their Counter Terrorism campaign If you see something, say something. It may come as a surprise to be told shooting sprees are practiced by young adults daily around the nation and around the world in popular video games. Even if the academic studies of TV violence are not embraced, even the most skeptical among us must acknowledge the intensive repetition of digital killing can desensitize normal players to the suffering of real human beings. It has even gone a step further with the popular use of Zombies as targets in the games instead of live people. With a potential spree shooter, who already has violent or mental issues, they can submerse themselves in this video based behavior without negative consequences and feed their violent fantasies by the hour. Lieutenant Colonel David Grossman (US Army Retired) first referred to these first person shooting games as murder simulators many years ago, and they seem to be very real parts of spree killers observable pre-cursor activities leading up to their shootings. Other myths exist which obscure objective evaluation of projected violence. Some beliefs are held that family members are good people deep down and they would never harm someone. They may be perceived to be not dangerous. This is a very dangerous proposition in and of itself. Law enforcement and mental health professionals can readily attest to the fact that under the right circumstances and with the right motivators, anyone can become violent. The observable pieces by spree killers on the other hand, have shown a long continuum of simmering violence and bad behavior. Verbal signals of potential violence go far beyond direct threats and may include indirect or passive/aggressive claims, harassing phone calls and emails, reoccurring suicide threats and belligerence. The line between evidencing willingness to harm ones self versus harming others is very thin. Physical violence is much easier to appreciate, but may also be surrounded by other physically indicative behaviors like stalking, intimidation, lack of emotional control, deteriorating appearance, isolation and withdrawing behavior exhibited or aggravated by increased use of drugs and/or alcohol.

If you see something, say something

The concept that spree violence is inevitable cited earlier, is another of the damaging myths about stopping this violence. Early identification and intervention is necessary along with commitment to prevention. Safety plans can be formulated and executed as opposed to just hoping bad or violent behavior disappears on its own.

315

Dedication to doing the right thing is a necessary element to interrupt these pathways of violence, and numerous agencies or people can be engaged to help. There is no need to allow bad behavior to continue unchecked, and once it is addressed, multiple parties need to continue to monitor and interact with problem subjects. Recognizing threat behaviors is of course the first step toward managing those threats. Use of outside organizations like counselors, psychologists, psychiatrists and teachers to intercede and support persons in crisis brings much more attention to bear, and puts attention and a spotlight on problem behaviors. Friends and family may be engaged to assist and in more serious situations legal options may include the police, local prosecutors and involuntary commitments for mental health evaluations. Widening the circle of people around a crisis subject reduces risk to all. Intervention can help change the subjects viewpoints on violence. This horrific practice of shooting sprees is not inevitable, and the subjects leave oh so visible traces which need to be engaged/reported. Personal involvement can redirect these persons at risk in positive activities instead of allowing them to sink further into their own withdrawn fantasies where they have less and less in common with ordinary human beings.

We must all be vigilant, recognize aberrant behavior, and If you see something, say something.

Why Is Adam Lanzas Documentar y History Missing?

January 18th 2013 By Mark Horne

Ever since the horrible shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School Ive been waiting for the autopsy report and any other information of the killer. There has been information from day to day, but the claims are usually dismantled the next day. Like many others, Ive wondered about the possible influence of, or of withdrawal from, psychotropic drugs. But we know basically nothing about Adam Lanza. It is as if the Left has been handed a gift, a gun that seems to have killed with no person behind it. We can speculate about his mental health or his medications or his video games or his mother, but we have no solid evidence of 316

anything; just changing stories from people who have not seen him recently. Adam Lanza is the perfect propaganda tool for demonizing guns. But it is not just the toxicology screen that we are still waiting for. It recently occurred to me that all the noise about gun control is distracting us, the populace, from some basic questions any news organization worthy of the name should be investigating. For example, this editorial points out something so obvious that Im embarrassed I havent thought of it before now: When Adam Lanza moved on to middle school and then to high school, his cumulative folder (a students records) should have followed him. And so should have information about any special accommodations to which he would have had a legal right under IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act). If Adam Lanza was a gifted student, it would also have been noted in his cumulative folder and he would have also had the right for special accommodations throughout his school career. So where is it? Why has no one asked for it, mentioned it, or published it? Public school officials can do more than provide an opinion. Public schools should be able to provide records. I searched Google news for school records in association with Adam Lanza. The only mainstream US news source I could find, was this Huffington Post article, which was quoting a conspiracy theorist. No one in the mainstream media cares about basic documentation? For example, this claims Adam Lanza got his drivers license in 2010. But there are only a few pictures of Adam. They were boring within the first week. Why has no reporter gotten hold of Adam Lanzas drivers license photo? Presumably newspapers and websites want to attract attention. So why hasnt any one of them tracked down an extra picture they can use to get more readers? Adam Lanza is said to have attended Western Connecticut State University as a sixteen-yearold. So where is the picture from his student ID? Dont colleges keep such digitalized records? Has anyone tried to find out? I thought I had seen a news report that indicated someone had found Adams transcripts. But right now I can only find stories like this, which seem to be base on testimony. I have no reason to doubt the testimony, but back up documentation is usually how you confirm a story.

To sum it up:
Right now, people are completely mystified by Adam Lanzas motives and are finding it difficult to get information. There are also very few pictures of Lanza. Yet we see no effort in the media to either get his records or basic public photographs of the shooter. This adds to the effect that Adam Lanza is a motiveless anomaly, leaving only the guns to take the blame. In the story we have right now, the firearms have more personality and history than Adam does.

Sandy Hook Hoax is Falling Apart

January 18th 2013 By Jeffrey Phelps

317

A sign hanging near a Newtown, CT cemetery asks why the needless killing of so many innocent people at Sandy Hook elementary school. Unfortunately, it seems the only real answers are going to come from the "alternative" media. The InfoWar has begun. The dam finally burst this week as the mainstream media was forced to begin addressing the many very serious unanswered questions regarding the alleged Sandy Hook elementary school massacre. Despite the fact that people questioning the official narrative has become one of the hottest media topics of the week, there's a very real possibility the right questions may never get asked in any meaningful way, at least not publicly. But with so many openly obvious anomalies, ridiculous coincidences and projected media falsehoods surrounding the event, people are figuring out what's actually happening on their own and hundreds of the largest media outlets around the country have had no choice but to talk about or, depending on who you talk to, attempt avoiding those circumstances to mostly avoid being seen as complicit. The Sandy Hook Cover Up Full Movie: A well documented breakdown of the timeline surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy. News, images, audio, commentary. The Sandy Hook Cover Up Full Movie: A well documented breakdown of the timeline surrounding the Sandy Hook shooting tragedy. News, images, audio, commentary. That's because a massive outpouring of concern over why the media has refused to report the situation accurately has caused a tidal wave of indignation around the country. Those who have actually dared to look into what others are pointing out, regarding just how much has been left out or skewed by the media, are literally waking millions to a reality they thought they'd never have to contemplate. At least, not in the US. But years of Internet erosion and the endless open-flow of unabated information has allowed the dots to be eventually connected and money trails to be followed and enough puzzle pieces have been aligned allowing the tallest of the politically savvy to start seeing over the formerly insurmountable mountain of public persuasion known as the establishment-controlled, mainstream media. Once people actually go take a look, their initial feelings of anger toward anyone who would dare disrespect the victims and their families, by simply pointing out the obvious, quickly begins to turn into feelings of confusion and concern over such egregious misrepresentations of the facts. People can see it with their own eyes and, as a result, the Western establishment's media, on many levels, has been forced to address the growing reality that not everybody is buying into establishment propaganda any longer. As to be expected, what the media has done instead is go into damage control. Just as they've done in countless other similar situations, while treating its followers like children, they first attack outside messengers with derogatory terminology, calling those attempting to point anything out that doesn't jive with the official narrative conspiracy theorists and racists, etc., just before twisting and misrepresenting what's being pointed 318

out and totally avoiding that which cannot be easily misconstrued or hidden. It's actually quite transparent and easy to see the pattern. In spite of what the media insinuates, rest assured very few ever want to believe the US government, or rogue entities within, would do such horrible things, not even so-called conspiracy theorists. No one wants to be forced to come to terms with their country not being what they thought it was. But when all the facts point to an alternate reality existing, as opposed to the one the media is forcing down everyone's throats, there's no choice but to start having second thoughts, regardless of how unwanted or stomach-wrenching those thoughts may be. Quite possibly the most obvious example would be to point out that the entire gun control debate hinges on the fact that assault weapons were used to kill children and staff at the school. Even though it was reported, complete with video evidence the day after the shootings, the only so-called assault weapon at the scene, which actually looks more like a shotgun, had been left in the trunk of the car, and was never used. (A car that ended up not belonging to the alleged shooter, Adam Lanza, or his mother after all). In spite of this bombshell information, the media as a whole (scriptwriters and teleprompter programmers) ran with the false assertion an assault rifle was used nonetheless and are still largely going with that fake reality today, especially on TV... Fully knowing that's not the case. Unless you just crawled out of bin Laden's cave for the first time, everyone's heard the constant drumbeat for gun control on almost every radio and TV station in the country, especially the argument that so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines should be banned, despite not being used at the shooting. (Therefore, an assault weapons or large magazine ban would NOT have prevented the school shootings, regardless).

Worse, many politicians in Washington, including Obama, also ran with it like solid gold, even going as far as producing a string of over 20 executive orders Wednesday to attempt banning American's right to own the type of weapons used at the school. Openly lying, misrepresenting the circumstances and using it all, including innocent, (naturally-gun-hating) children on the signing stage with him, to garner emotional support for the lie. Any takers on the chances Obama ever fesses-up to there never having been a so-called assault rifle inside Sandy Hook elementary school or why his administration sent literally 10s of thousands of the guns he now demonizes to Mexican drug cartels, south of the border? Every American in the country should be absolutely outraged beyond belief over just this one aspect of the tragedy's aftermath, even if an opponent to so-called assault weapons ownership (if anyone can honestly define the meaning of an assault weapon and what that looks like). If nothing else, simply for being manipulated into going along with a controversial political agenda. Especially one that more (adult) Americans statistically disagree with than those who support it. Unfortunately, that's only the beginning of America's tyranny problem. In addition to every post-Wild West statistic showing violent crime rates dropping in areas where gun ownership grew, one of the big secrets is that many alternative journalists are getting very good at knowing what to look for, recognizing patterns and seeing the signs that criminals leave behind. Just like old-school journalists used to do, prior to the age of massinformation manipulation. Back when they actually investigated and publicly analyzed every last piece of available evidence, instead of merely reading from, officially admitted, pre319

scripted teleprompter copy, or a list of talking points given by officials on the scene, for a paycheck. When so many people see the easy-to-find evidence for themselves, by merely going online, typing in the appropriate search term and taking an honest and objective look at all the evidence, the ability for the media to merely say whatever they want and have control over the court of public opinion, is slowly turning into an open info-war over the psychological acceptance of what is seen as perceived reality. More examples show those who the media brands conspiracy theorists have pointed out the fact that a crisis actor seems to have been used for an alleged post-funeral interview and was caught laughing and joking before getting into character for the camera while live footage was rolling. But instead of addressing the more obvious example, the media created a diversion for those who refuse to go look it up for themselves, and instead focused on and made a big deal out of an entirely different individual that also seems, to those who have looked into the situation on their own, like just another crisis actor, just not quite as obvious and much easier for the media to attempt denouncing. Anderson Cooper's recent tirade is the example everyone is talking about and using as (laughably un-) credible material. The more startling examples, however, are the ones the media isn't really discussing very much, for obvious reasons. The arrest of a camouflaged individual running into the woods, away from the school, as officers arrived and the fact that the crisis actors and officers on display, for public consumption, seem to have been pulled from an active (school shooter) drill that was ironically being held right down the road at the exact same time, are themselves cause enough to be red flag worthy. They want you to buy the excuse this was all presumably innocent oversight, however. Simply another extraordinary coincidence, where a pre-planned government exercise turns into a conveniently live event, just like 9/11 on multiple levels, just like the 7/7 London bombings and just like Sandy Hook elementary school and others. Even though the likelihood even one of those situations going live in the exact same manner, at the same time and at the exact same location as a pre-set training drill covering the exact same scenario, much less all three, is so ridiculously miniscule you'd have a better opportunity of winning the Powerball three times. Nonetheless, if you happen to be aware of these circumstances, the establishment and its media push the idea it's all one giant coincidence and you're a conspiracy theorist a racist or a right-wing nut-job if you'd dare think otherwise. Never mind the instances websites and Facebook pages, blog postings, tribute videos and victims compensations sites were officially set up or mistakenly posted days and weeks in advance of the shootings. They also want you to believe it was just a coincidence that a massive medical drill was also being held at a local Denver-area medical school, at the exact same time the Aurora Theater shooting happened. The victims of which just so happen to have been watching a movie that referenced Sandy Hook on a map as a potential terror-target-area, who also happened to have just watched the world-premiere of a music video, moments before the movie and shootings began, showing a bunch of skeletons sitting in a movie theater. But that's all just coincidence too, officially. Officials in Giles County, VA know better than to believe it was mere coincidence however when they were made aware their name also appeared on the same Dark Knight Rises terrorist-target-area map and subsequently shut down the entire school district recently. I guess that means all the public and school officials in Giles County would have to be 320

considered conspiracy theorists as well then. Even though it's ridiculous to assume even one of these situations, much less all of them can be mere coincidence. The real problem is, an ugly, rabid cat is slowly ripping it's way out of a very tough bag and the only reason it's taken even this long to get out is because, deep down, no one really wants to see it (Stockholm Syndrome) and the establishment knows it and uses it to their advantage. What's worse is when people finally start seeing the animal that emerges, it's going to be more like a Mogwai (Gremlins) that Americans were fooled into giving a bath and feeding after midnight.

Still No Police Report, or Toxicology Results, on Sandy Hook Killer

January 18th 2013 By Elizabeth Harrington

Adam Lanza photo provided by police to AP (CNSNews.com) While President Barack Obama is moving ahead with executive orders and legislation to further tighten gun control in response to the mass murder committed by Adam 321

Lanza at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., neither the toxicology report on Lanza's corpse nor the police report on his crime have been completed. Lanza attacked the school on Dec. 14, killing 26 people, including 20 children. Before going to the school, he killed his mother at the home where he lived with her. When police arrived at the school during his murder spree, Lanza shot and killed himself. A spokesperson for the Connecticut State Police told CNSNews.com on Friday that the investigation of Lanza's mass murder is ongoing and that the police report on it is still "several months away." They could not comment further because the investigation is still open. Also, the office of the state's chief medical examiner told CNSNews.com that the results of a toxicology test on Lanza will not be available for "quite some time." Once it is completed, the office said, the cause and manner of death will be made public but not the actual toxicology report. Despite no police report or toxicology test results, lawmakers and the president are calling for stricter gun control and mental health reforms. Obama and others have called for reinstating the 1994 assault weapons ban; and on Jan. 16 Obama issued 23 executive orders to further address gun violence. Among the executive orders is one clarifying the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) so that it does not prohibit doctors from asking their patients about guns in their homes, and launching a national dialogue led by Health and Human Services and Education Secretaries Kathleen Sebelius and Arne Duncan on mental health. At present, however, it is not documented that Adam Lanza suffered from a mental illness or that he was taking any medication at the time of the shooting. In fact, according to news reports, an autopsy showed that there was nothing unusual with Lanzas brain, and the toxicology report is not completed. What we do know is that Adam Lanza stole guns legally purchased by his mother, Nancy Lanza, which he used to kill her and 26 people at Sandy Hook; these firearms included two handguns and a Bushmaster .223 AR-15 rifle. That weapon is not restricted under Connecticuts assault weapons ban unless it has added features, such as a bayonet mount or a grenade launcher, according to the Hartford Courant newspaper. Investigators said Lanza was wearing ear plugs when he fired approximately 150 rounds using a method called jungle taping, in which two magazines are taped together so he could reload faster. He also switched magazines before they were empty, sometimes only shooting 15 of the 30 rounds. Lanza reportedly destroyed the hard drive to his computer, further complicating the investigation. A plumber who worked at the Lanza home said Adam spent hours in his basement playing violent video games, such as Call of Duty. Britains Daily Mail newspaper reported that a former classmate said Lanza worshipped the devil and had an online page dedicated to Satan.

322

The FBI are trying to piece together his smashed up hard drive to see if his online footprint will reveal any motive for the killing, but they strongly believe he made use of devil-worshiping and suicide sites and boasted of his murder plans on message forums, according to the Daily Mail. Lanza was from an affluent family in Newtown, Conn., where he lived with his mother, Nancy, 52, in a $1.4 million home. His father, Peter Lanza, is an executive for General Electric, and lives in Stamford, Conn. His parents divorced in 2009 and public divorce records made no mention of Lanza suffering from mental illness.

Intelligent Questions Not Allowed on Sandy Hook

January 23rd 2013 By Jon Rappoport First, I need to comment on a rumor that George Soros has been a key player in buying up gun manufacturers, with the intent of exercising "corporate gun control." Cerberus Capital Management, based in New York, owns a company called The Freedom Group. Freedom Group bought up Bushmaster Firearms, Remington Arms, and several other gun manufacturers. So far, attempts to connect Soros to Cerberus or Freedom Group have fallen short. The NRA and factcheck.org state that Soros isn't connected. If I find out otherwise, I will report it. Right now, though, Freedom Group states it is getting out of the gun business. It is putting its stake up for sale. That is highly significant. We are seeing disinvestment as an emerging strategy in the effort to reduce gun ownership. The plan is to convince more and more shareholders to walk away from their stake in gun and ammunition manufacturers, with the goal of starving these companies, destroying their stock-trading price on exchanges, and turning them into pariahs. 323

Disinvestment is a powerful approach. It applied huge pressure, for example, against apartheid, as private investors and funds disengaged themselves from any corporations doing business with South Africa. Okay. On to the main subject of this article. Online investigations of what really happened at Sandy Hook easily number in the thousands by now. Among other reporters, I have listed and described many contradictions and lies in the official scenario, and I've offered alternative explanations. People have concluded: no one was really killed in Sandy Hook, it was all faked; the killings were real, but Adam Lanza wasn't the shooter, he was the patsy; Lanza was the killer, compelled by psychiatric drugs; a Satanic group was behind the killings; the federal government secretly contracted the killings in order to take guns away. No matter what the conclusion, many of the investigations and analyses have turned up startling and useful information. On YouTube, clips of Sandy Hook parents and teachers being interviewed reveal astonishing reactions and non-reactions that are light years away from what you would expect to see in the immediate wake of such a tragedy. You can hear an important conversation between Jay Weidner and Jeff Rense on this subject. Some of the key interviews are referred to. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJj_wZtQb_k&feature=youtu.be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T76WAh9zVAY You can also look for YouTube interview clips featuring "the people of Sandy Hook": Robbie Parker, the Sotos family, Sally Cox, H Wayne Carver, Gene Rosen, Kaitlin Roig, etc. These are all people who were intimately involved and affected. Their reactions, non-reactions, strange behavior, inexplicable attitudes are stunning. This is what I want to comment on. First of all, you have to realize that only certain people get on television. That's fact #1, and it's a major key. Only certain people are interviewed. Television is the filter through which we see. Parents who are completely grief-stricken, who have fallen apart and are incoherent (which is what you would expect): not interviewed. Parents who are very angry and outraged: not interviewed. 324

Parents who demand answers from a full investigation, who aren't satisfied with the emerging media-controlled story line: not interviewed. Then we have parents who are in a close-to catatonic state, or parents who refuse to be engaged by any media person, who feel any media contact is insane and invasive and massively insensitive: obviously not approached for an interview. The same exclusionary "rules for appearing on television" can be applied to neighbors, teachers, other school personnel, and friends of families who had children at the Sandy Hook School. We don't see these people, because they aren't on television. So making some vast generalization about all of Sandy Hook is sketchy at best. Then, on top of that, television news people are creating a story line about what happened at the school and in the town, and they are finding people who will corroborate that plot line, or can be convinced by news producers to corroborate it. This further narrows the field of acceptable interviews. The third important fact about how television shapes the event is provided by the interviewees who have never been on television before, but have watched thousands of television interviews. These people have a strong tendency to "act like people are supposed to act" when they are put on camera which is to say, artificial. That is generally what television does to the whole society. It presents artificial sequences of emotions and responses, phony from the ground up. It presents them on the news, in sitcoms, in dramas, in magazine shows, in cartoons, in ads, in sports programming. Television creates a model of behavior that is androidal: flattened and cooked and bent and short-circuited and averaged out. This is what television gives us, and this is what many viewers accept. Not only accept, but IMITATE in their lives: They speak like television, they act like television, and they think like television, they admire what television admires. They learn how to behave from television. They learn what is appropriate from television. In this sense, television is the Stepford Village. It invades a town during a tragedy, it sets up, it rolls out a story line that is independent from reality, and it cues selected people to be the robots who confirm that story line, no matter how grotesque the distortion. Television invents its shoddy, mindless, false, lying, reduced, "normalized," hyped version of life, and then people who watch television accept and imitate it. "I know you've just lost your daughter, and I can't imagine how you feel at this moment, but you see when we interview you, we want to honor her life. This is your chance to let people all over the world know what and who she was. Her spirit, her interests, her hobbies, what her friends felt about her. You can show the world how alive she was and how happy she was, and you can remember that and you can even smile..." And the mother of that daughter hesitates, pauses, thinks about what she really feels, and then decides the television producer is right and she'll go along with it. 325

Nevertheless, in the interviews with those people (and others) whom I've mentioned above, something else is also happening. Something beyond the pale. Something that includes the power and force and influence of television, but something that goes past that. Disconnection from reality? Denial of reality? Yes. Something more? Yes. Something inhuman. Something mechanical. As if, on some interior level, these people are programmed. Programmed to do what? To respond not as an individual, but as a "type of person." It's as if these people have been manufactured, and the roles they've been outfitted with are grotesque cartoons. As if they are machine-made cartoons. Something leaps out of them when they appear on television. They laugh, they smile, they act casual, they act "efficient" and stone-faced, they act placid and calm, they act polite, they act happy, they act as if they've been cast for a stage play that has nothing to do with the horrific events of the past hours and days in Sandy Hook. They act as if they have no resource or experience that allows them to contact what they actually are. As if a wall has been built between what they are and how they are behaving. In my opinion, this is a lot worse than if they had been (badly) trained at an actor's school to intentionally provide material for an all-out hoax. It's a lot worse, because the manufactured front is their only reference point. They're functioning robots. As such, it takes only minimal direction to move them to any chosen square on the media-controlled checkerboard.

"How do I need to behave to fit myself into the situation as an acceptable person?" This is the guiding question they ask themselves. The answer plugs in immediately. It is always going to be wrong, because every situation is, to some degree, alive, and the answer dictates dead behavior. Machine behavior. We need to understand that these extraordinary and stunning and bizarre interviews from Sandy Hook are mirrored in other places. For example, what are we to say about thousands of soldiers who are duped into a war that had no sane reason to exist in the first place? But there the soldiers are, on the battlefield. They are living and breathing and mouthing sentiments that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation in which they have been placed. The war has nothing to do with defense of the nation. It is cast in that false light. It is promoted as necessary. It is heralded as an opportunity to do service, to protect freedom, but those are gross lies. Is a typical soldier in such a war going to look any less grotesque than one of those parents interviewed at Sandy Hook? Here's another situation. A news anchor is covering a major tragedy, like the murder of JFK or 9/11, and it dawns on him that there are gaping holes in the story, contradictions, lies. As the hours and the reports pile up, he becomes more sure that what actually took place was a 326

conspiracy. But he continues to sit at the news table and impart the official line. He keeps on going. In his case, he's able to affect what everyone accepts as the "authoritative news voice," but does that make his broadcasts any less grotesque, for those who can see, than the interviews at Sandy Hook? I'm not saying that all the factors I've described in this article explain the actions of every person interviewed on television at Sandy Hook. In particular, two of the most egregious interviews, with Robbie Parker, father of a six-year-old girl who was killed in the school, and with H Wayne Carver, the Connecticut medical examiner, are mind-boggling. First of all, you can confirm that Parker is a real person with a real background by searching Utah newspapers; e.g., The Deseret News. Parker is seen, in his now-famous interview, smiling broadly and chuckling and having a good time just prior to stepping in front of the microphone to make a public statement, at which point he huffs and puffs and tries to get into the character of a grieving father. It's hideous. Carver, in response to press questions, not only gives absurd and completely inappropriate answers, he guffaws once or twice, as if he's out of control. In Carver's case, I would say he's covering up some gigantic medical lies about the case. He's trying to dissemble and, underneath his shaky exterior, he's very nervous and scared that something is going to jump out of the hopper and bite him hard. He's at sea. He doesn't know what to do. At moments, it looks as if he's going to come apart at the seams. In Robbie Parker's case, the man is certainly acting when he tries to pass off his grief as real. But why and on what level? I can only guess and speculate and ask questions. Was he a plant? For reasons unknown, was he inserted into the situation? Or was he programmed from an early age to believe implicitly in the religious notion that he and his family would always and forever be united, here and in the afterlife? Was that programming so deep that his attitude could never accept and countenance grief, even when his own child is killed? But then I have to ask this. If by some miracle, we had been able to see interviews with ALL the parents who lost children at Sandy Hook, and with all the brothers and sisters; if we could see all the very human feelings and emotions that television takes away from us and hides, because their story line is geared to condition the public to the inhuman; if we could see, unvarnished and uncensored, everything the people of Sandy Hook felt and experienced; would we still think the whole town was demented and phony and nothing but a twisted act? I don't think so. Whatever the truth is about the actual crimes and murders committed in that town, whatever the cover-ups, whatever the true operation that was mounted and carried out there, the role of television is central. It is the prime programmer. It tells the false story. It obscures the truth. It hijacks the truth. Television reduces the potential of life. It is the calculated average on display for the average viewer. It is the hyper-normal maniac at loose in society. 327

The people who own and run television for the masses are bringers of emotional disaster. They make a wasteland out of the hypnotic screen of reality. Why are they successful? They plug into a deep cynicism that underlies the robotic behavior and thought of millions of people. This inner cynicism comes about because people already feel cut off from their own wide emotional range. Television magnifies and exacerbates that disconnectedness. People feel cut off from their own deeper currents because they are living lives and feeling emotions that go around and around in circles. They see nowhere else to go. This sets the stage for dehumanization. What's missing in all this is the human faculty that can vault life up on to another level of brilliant success. I'm talking about the creative faculty and force, the soul of imagination, from which people can invent realities that make television look like a discarded tissue in an old railroad station. Because it comes down to this. If you don't have the wherewithal to invent the realities you most deeply desire, someone else will do it for you. On their terms. They will do it for you every time.

Some high priest, some dictator, generalissimo, president, elite news anchor, some numbers cruncher who sees this modern world as a playground in which to forward market research, will find the golden average, the emotional sweet spot on which the gobbling maggots can prey. And when the individual creative force is tamped down, dampened, squeezed, and sat on, people will take what they can get. I have no ax to grind here. The people who honestly conclude that Sandy Hook was one great hoax from the beginning and no one died; the people who conclude that Lanza was the patsy for professionals who did the killing at Sandy Hook Elementary School; the people who believe Lanza was the killer driven over the edge by psychiatric drugs: the people who believe the Sandy Hook killings were a secret-society operation or a black-ops horror designed to grab the guns of Americans; all these people will continue to explore their paths and they will unearth important information. What I'm offering here is a perspective on how much of what we see is delivered to us through the twisted dehumanized lens of television, presented as if it is the whole picture and the whole story. In Sandy Hook, what still remains off-camera, never seen, never mentioned, never named, never broadcast, never permitted to find the light of day? The answer is: whatever is spontaneously alive, whatever exceeds a simple series of machined reflexes. 328

The great goal of media and its controllers is mechanical reduction, so populations will accept whatever seems "more efficient," more ordered, more systematic, more bureaucratic, more automatic, more predictable, and more repetitive. With that as the merciless foundation, the population will accept whatever comes down from the top as a command. The actual content of the command is unimportant. The machine accepts instructions. Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

10 things the media don't want to discover about Sandy Hook

February 9th 2013 By Jon Rappoport Slashing through the bland authoritative front the media have presented, people want to know more about the Sandy Hook massacre. But the elite networks have no intention of answering the most obvious questions. Why? Because the follow-up agenda of gun control is all important, and the official Sandy Hook scenario must stand, in order to forward that agenda. Any return to the scene of the crime will: Divert media coverage from its all-out push to make guns into taboo objects of scorn, ridicule, fear, and hatred; Focus attention on reasons for the massacre that have nothing to do with guns; Engender deep distrust of the Sandy Hook police investigation and therefore, by association, throw into doubt the notion that law-enforcement personnel should be the only people carrying guns in America. 329

Here are 10 things the media doesn't want to know about and has no intention of investigating. These are only the basics, amid a wider sea of unanswered questions: 1) Where is the video footage from inside the Sandy Hook Elementary School, footage that surely exists and shows some part of the massacre? Who has that video record? What does the video reveal? Where is the video (or photo) evidence that Adam Lanza was the shooter? 2) How did the accused killer, Lanza, gain entrance to the school? Having just installed a new security system that required outside (and presumably heavy) doors to be locked, and with a procedure for entry that demanded two-way video communication with the principal's office--what exactly happened? 3) From available information, it seems almost certain Lanza was seeing a doctor and was on medication. Who was the doctor and what drugs did he prescribe? Did they include SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil, or Ritalin and Adderall drugs known to cause violent behavior, including suicide and homicide. If so, then all the focus would shift to excoriating the drugs and eliminating them from our society. 4) What was the exact story on the two or three other suspects captured and detained by the police? Who are they? Why were they pursued? What did their questioning reveal? Why were they released? No vague generalities. Instead, all the details. And let's have in-depth television interviews with these suspects. 5) Once and for all, let's have a definitive statement on what guns were used in the killings and what guns were found in the trunk of the car. So many lies and contradictions were floated, it's a sea of confusion. So let's have the facts and evidence to back them up. For starters, let's see photos of the killer and his weapons taken inside the school. Undoctored photos. 6) What is the detailed explanation for the massive shift from Lanza's father being killed in New Jersey to Lanza's mother being killed in Connecticut? No vague generalities. No nonsense about "typical early confusion" in reporting. Let's see the whole chain of information and the people who forwarded it. Similarly, if the early conclusion pointed to Adam's brother Ryan as the killer, a conclusion which was withdrawn because Adam was carrying his brother's ID, explain that. According to reports, Adam hadn't seen his brother in more than two years. Offer hard evidence that Adam was, in fact, carrying his brother's ID. 7) Where are complete statements and interviews with witnesses who were in the school at the time of the shooting? We have seen a few short interviews. There must be more. Let's have them or get them. Are we to believe (as independent investigator Mike Powell has rightly doubted) that one teacher stuffed all her children into classroom cabinets, which ordinarily are filled with school supplies? 8) In the television interviews with parents of children murdered in the Sandy Hook School, not one parent was angry, not one parent demanded a deeper investigation. Obviously, this screening of interviewees was purposeful. Where are the outraged parents? What do they have to say? Do they know anything we don't know? Have they been told (as people were at Columbine) to keep quiet? 9) And now, as the gun-control agenda is being pursued, precisely how will new laws curb the majority of gun violence in America, violence which is taking place in cities much of it gang related. Explain why President Obama doesn't vigorously and publicly target these high-crime areas, if his objective is to reduce the gun violence, rather than gun ownership. 330

The pending and often postponed Chicago trial of Jesus Niebla, high-ranking member of the Mexican Sinaloa drug cartel, experiences delay after delay. What vital facts are being kept from the public? There are serious defense charges here; namely, that Niebla and other Sinaloa members have received permanent immunity from prosecution in a prior deal with the DEA and FBI, in return for supplying information on rival cartels. In fact, the US federal government has obtained a suppression of defense-attorney documents in the trial, claiming their exposure would violate National Security. Does Sinaloa have explicit US government permission to deliver tons of cocaine and heroin into Chicago, and then to cities all over America? This enterprise would certainly, as a side effect, produce a significant amount of gun violence. Does the federal government really want to curb this violence, or is its arrangement with Sinaloa taking precedence? 10) Finally, in the wake of Sandy Hook, how does President Obama's declaration that mentalhealth services will be expanded across America add up to reduction of gun violence? In fact, this will lead to higher levels of prescribed dangerous psychiatric drugs, which in turn will cause a serious escalation in gun violence and mass shootings. Major media don't want to know anything about these points. And yet they're betting they will retain the public trust. But the fact that their ratings are sinking, month after month, year after year, is a message from the public. The media refuse to hear it, though. They glide through their rehearsed paces and pretend they are captains of information. Their elite owners would prefer to let the media ship go down, rather than tell the truth. That's understandable. After all, these owners, and the owners who own them, are guilty of all sorts of crimes, the reporting of which would make ratings soar but destroy their own empires, reputations, and lives. Jon Rappoport The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com

Anti-Gun Media Ignores Sandy Hook Potential Suspects

February 16th 2013 By Mark Horne

331

If you put Sandy Hook and conspiracy into the Google News search, you will see that the media is spending a lot of time condemning people who dont believe the lone gunman story. Some of the speculative theories are really bizarre and unrealistic, but the bottom line is that anyone who doubts any aspect of the lone mad gunman story is outside the realm of rational discussion. According to this Huffington Post story, the only reason anyone doubts the story is because they oppose gun control. Supposedly, such stubborn refusal to take law enforcement authorities or the media at their word will likely persist as long as there is gun control legislation in Washington. I doubt many people believe the highly contrived staged hoax theories. For those who have more doubts that Adam could have succeeded at such a deed alone, I can now confidently say that it is the medias motives that should be questioned. Whether or not the lone gunman theory gets confirmed, the way the media is fixated on that claim is not because of the facts, but because they want to promote gun control. Here is the document (please download your copy before it disappears) which contains the Danbury State Attorneys official argument why the search warrants in the Sandy Hook investigation should remain sealed. The DA states, The investigation, which was a basis for the issuing of the search warrant, is still continuing and no arrests have been made and none are currently anticipated, but have not been ruled out. Then he adds some amazing claims: There is information contained in the search warrant affidavit that is not known to the general public and any potential suspect(s), the disclosure of which would jeopardize the investigation and chances of successfully solving any crime(s) involved. What is a potential suspect? The DA is telling us that he has one or more persons of interest he is still investigating! Then he adds another consideration in the next paragraph. Releasing 332

the information would identify persons cooperating with the investigation thus possibly jeopardizing their personal safety and well-being. So, since December 28 it has been a matter of public record that the DA has persons of interest who might possibly harm or kill people who are cooperating with the investigation. Thats not news? Yet no one broke the story until the Digital Journal got hold of it and published on February 5. Jon Stewart didnt find anything of use for scathing sarcasm. MSNBC and CNN both never mentioned this, as far as I can tell. No public official has talked about it in all the debates and speeches made about gun control. Whatever happened in Sandy Hook, I dont have to guess about a conspiracy anymore. When every mainstream news source pretends that we have certainty about a lone gunman that justifies an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment that is the definition of a conspiracy. It doesnt matter what the final investigation reveals. I cant say I know for absolute certainty that Lanza didnt act alone. The point is that while we have information direct from the Connecticut state authorities indicating there are other people of interest who could possibly intimidate or harm witnesses, the media refuses to even report it, but instead keeps making a case on the basis of a mad gunman story. We are being rushed into a legal revolution on the basis of an unsubstantiated story.

333