Mark Twain was right. The current gun control push is fueled by conducting a false flag operation (which Fast and Furious was and the school shootings may be), then quickly making many false claims about guns, medical privacy, freedom of speech and seeing which of the claims stick.
Experts can and do refute the claims made, but not everyone sees the rebuttals. By the time scientists and civil rights advocates can clear up the confusion deliberately caused by gun control lies, laws may already be in effect. Our enemies are counting on speed to overwhelm the American people. That’s why they are considering executive orders as an option and that’s why gun control hearings have been conducted in illegal secrecy.
If they succeed in implementing the desired level of gun control, we’ll have to fight. Surrendering arms isn’t a safe option. Stephen Halbrook explains why:
In 1938, when Jews were barred from owning guns in Germany, some came to police stations to surrender their weapons. Many of them were detained immediately and sent to concentration camps. Alfred Flatow, a former Olympic athlete, suffered that exact fate — arrested for possession of arms while trying to turn them in, then sent to a concentration camp where he died of starvation four years later.
On the surface, Obama gun control appears to be more total, affecting everyone equally. Based on our experience with the medical laws, it’s safe to assume that the laws would be applied more to his opponents than to his political friends. You and I would be disarmed, Obama’s partisans would still be armed. That’s exactly how it played out in Venezuela. A huge increase in violence against everyone not supporting dictator Chavez followed.
What evidence do you have to suggest that the Sandy Hook shooting was staged?
I have no evidence one way or another. I merely would not be surprised if it was because I view the current administration as that grade of evil.
There is no point in staging such events – enough of them happen randomly to suit any agenda.
Yes — and a staged event would be more visible, under more controllable circumstances, and the perpetrator would not be someone known to have mental issues.
The last few weeks I have seen what appears to be a change in your outlook on this current crisis. Seems that previously you were much more of a voice against those who advocated more aggressive defense of our rights but in the last week or so it seems that has changed. I am not criticizing either way.
Has there been something that has fundamentally changed in your mind or is either of these a misperception on my part? Just curious.
-CrankyBuddha
My view hasn’t changed. I am still expecting them to fail.
If they do succeed, they might get to meet Bobrikoff and Allende sooner rather than later.
I am advocating using up all non-force measures first because civil wars are uncomfortable affairs with unpredictable results. On the other hand, living disarmed is even more uncomfortable and results are sadly rather predictable.
With the increasing rhetoric and lack of clam we are seeing from parts of the gun community, that’s comforting in an odd sort of way.
Thanks for the site and the incredible photos.
-CrankyBuddha
Well said Oleg, and thanks for the time and effort!
It is an incredibly coordinated messaging campaign featuring federal and state officials as well as highly visible media figures. Very clearly coordinated talking points include:
-Phrases such as ‘assault weapons’. We all know this one, but how about the new ‘high capacity assault magazines’ meme coming into popularity?
-The common conflation between fully automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons, which in a period of just weeks has made it possible for individuals to make the previously unheard of proposal in the public arena to ban all semi-automatic firearms.
-The phrase ‘Common sense solutions’ and interations therof, as though the term ‘common sense’ represents some universal concensus. This one is repeated over and over and over again to degrade the opposition as fools.
-Near universal mention of words such as ‘surging’ in reference to US gun violence, even while gun violence in the states continues along its significant downward trend/s.
-The redefinition of the Second Amendment as some thing referring to the right to hunt. This is certainly used in preparation for the later attack upon hunters, which as we all know is a somewhat antiquated activity that serves no real purpose for most besides a nostalgic one. Also, there’s a clear lexiconic association between hunters and the value system of segments of the population being demonized.
There are many more thought ideas, memes, and talking points being distributed, but what is most interesting to me is the deceptive, coercive, and manipulative quality of the discourse. It’s truly malevolent in nature, and driven by incredibly noxious features of hate and resentment. These features of the gun-c0ntrol proponent arguments, and the degree to which they’re embraced by the lemmings should give us all pause.
This is a precurser for true class, race, and demographic warfare. We’re treading into truly dangerous waters, and the trends are advancing along a very obvious continuum.
I was a very radical liberal working on Capitol Hill before the 2008 elections, and I heard from the horses mouth just how very radical and transformative the agenda was. I was under no illusions that it was all a secret, as well. At the time, I was just out of college, angry as hell at my parents, and ready to burn the ship down, too. How wrong I was, and how glad I am I’m now on the other side.
Brandon – Very clearly coordinated talking points include:
Good list. What we’re seeing is propaganda in action.
The common talking points are because the politicians are being fed pre-written legislation by groups funded by the same sources. It’s astroturf, all the way down.
Re right to hunt: this is a good spot to refer to the Supreme Court “Miller” decision, which is usually quoted by gun haters because it upheld the NFA ban o short barrel shotguns.
But in fact (as was pointed out eloquently, I believe by J. Neil Schulman) the court in that case held that (a) the 2nd amendment protects weapons that have militia use, i.e., military-type weapons, and (b) because the defendant’s attorney didn’t bother to show up, the court wasn’t given any evidence that short barrel shotguns have military value therefore they would not protect those. (In fact, they do and have been used militarily, so but for a case of gross malpractice this case could have come out right.)
My point here is that, when people argue against “assault rifles” on the grounds that they are “military style” (not even true, the more accurate description is “scary looking if you’re a left wing politician”) they are, in effect, saying that they are the kind of weapons that the Supreme Court has said are specifically protected by the 2nd Amendment.
Subtle distinction here: U.S. v. Miller did not uphold the NFA ban of short-barrelled shotguns, it found that insufficient evidence was provided to make a decision whether they were protected and thus it did notstrike down that portion of the ban.
On the upside, the Court’s opinion can be fairly clearly interpreted as stating that military-grade arms are protected by the 2nd. On this the gun haters are conspicuously silent.
Good point, you expressed the essence of the Miller case more accurately.
Before everyone gets their panties in a wad, why not wait to see what the administration has in mind. BTW, I am an avid shooter, hunter, and reloader and I am liberal. If you think all liberals are pro gun control I invite you to visit the Liberal Gun Club on the web.
Yes, there are liberals who favor gun ownership; I remember a particularly nice article by one of them in Tonso’s “The gun culture and its enemies”, written by a civil rights activist working in the South in the 1960s. He realized very clearly the necessity to be armed.
On the other hand, the victim disarmament goals of the current administration are very visible and indisputable. So if you argue that not every liberal wants that, I’ll agree to the possibility. But this particular collection of extreme leftists do have that goal, and for that matter it’s clear that the majority of liberals do.
I think the use of executive order may be a way to shield congress from blame for the next mid term elections. “If they don’t vote for gun control you can’t blame them”. I wouldn’t but much past this administration.
Matthew Bracken, former Navy SEAL, libertarian and author of libertarian novels (especially the “Enemies Trilogy”) published on the 7th of January an awesome essay primarily directed to Law Enforcement officers and has the title “Dear Mr. Security Agent”.
http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/bracken-dear-mr-security-agent/
He depicts very well all the events which separately seem meaningless but put together, they should be a warning alarm light to every people who love the Liberty….
This essay starts with the mention “For widespread distribution”…. and I belong to those who think that there is an emergency for the citizens of the USA to know about it.
Another article here:
DHS Insider Report: Coming This Spring: “Life for the Average American is Going to Change Significantly”.
http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/insider-report-dhs-was-created-to-to-fight-americans-not-protect-them_12282012
Not to go down the rabbit hole, but does anyone remember the very cryptic statement in the 2008 campaign where somebody who shall remain here unnamed said something to the effect of, “We need a civilian army that can rival in force the U.S. military.”
No, that wasn’t such a weird thing to say. Glad I paid it no mind.
Thanks for the links.
Yes — he mentioned a “civilian force” as well-equipped and well-funded as the military.
No mention of WHY we needed it, AFAICR.
It’s happened in Argentina with the current socialist government. They have de-funded the national defense and fully funded a civilian army. Just like the brown shirts in Germany. In order to prevent another military coup, a civilian army loyal to the current commie leaders is required.
Pingback: False Claims About Guns - People Places & Pastimes
One of the proposals that keeps coming back is the “universal background check”. It’s always described as a minor change, “closing a loophole”.
It is in fact not minor at all. Here is why — an argument I haven’t seen before.
Right now, there is no national registry of gun owners. If someone comes to your door saying “hand over your guns” you can with a straight face say “I have no guns”. When told you bought one a year ago at Joe Blow’s gun store, you can answer “sure, but I sold that one last month. I checked the guy’s ID, he was a state resident. I don’t remember his name.”
Now put in place the universal background check. All of a sudden the bad guys have the gun owner registry they always wanted. For any gun transferred after the new rule went in effect they know who owns it.
We all know we have to stop an owner registry because that’s the final step before confiscation, and we know that confiscation is the actual goal. The bad guys even admit it is. So we have to stop the universal background check because it is actually the owner registry in sheep’s clothing.