Why Do Mass Killings Occur?
Karen: As an owner of several guns I still believe that the threat of mass killings could be reduced if we outlawed assault weapons of any kind as well as clips over 5. Just maybe this might reduce the next mass shooting to something less than 26. The only way an average gun owner can compete with others who have assault weapons is to get one themselves. Probably not a good solution. I realize that outlawing these weapons would not eliminate them completely but fewer of them would make it harder for the average mental case to obtain one. What do you think?
Why Do Mass Killings Occur? Karen De Coster lewrockwell.com January 3, 2013 A reader writes me this today: Karen: As an owner of several guns I still believe that the threat of mass killings could be reduced if we outlawed assault weapons of any kind as well as clips over 5. Just maybe this might reduce the next mass shooting to something less than 26. The only way an average gun owner can compete with others who have assault weapons is to get one themselves. Probably not a good solution. I realize that outlawing these weapons would not eliminate them completely but fewer of them would make it harder for the average mental case to obtain one. What do you think? I can’t believe the propaganda is penetrating supposed gun owners, but the powers of indoctrination will lead the majority of the masses toward servitude. As Aldous Huxley said in Brave New World: A really efficient totalitarian state would be one in which the all-powerful executive of political bosses and their army of managers control a population of slaves who do not have to be coerced, because they love their servitude. My response was that I think we could ban one highly-profitable root cause of these mass killings: psychiatric drugs. Or we could ban another influence for these killings: be reminded of all of the Hollywood celebrities who clamor for the outlawing of guns and/or “assault” weapons, and then note the homicidal movies they have made for the masses. Is there a slight disconnect here? Why are people still walking around in the fog of the unknown? Follow me on Twitter @karendecoster. Demand A Plan? Demand Celebrities Go F*ck Themselves [Extended Cut] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1SZurGArxE&feature=player_embedded Gun Purchases Set New Record for December David Ingram Reuters January 3, 2013 The number of FBI background checks required for Americans buying guns set a record in December, indicating that more people may purchase one after the Connecticut school massacre stirred interest in self-defense and prompted renewed talk of limits on firearms, according to FBI data. The FBI said it recorded 2.78 million background checks during the month, surpassing the mark set in November of 2.01 million checks - about a 39 percent rise. The latest monthly figure was up 49 percent over December 2011, when the FBI performed a then-record 1.86 million checks. Consumer demand for guns appears to have accounted for the uptick in activity. There were no changes in FBI background check procedures that would have affected the December numbers, FBI spokesman Stephen Fischer said. December is typically the busiest month of the year for checks, however, due in part to Christmas gift sales. The figures do not represent the number of firearms sold, a statistic the government does not track. They also do not reflect activity between private parties, such as family members or collectors, because federal law requires background checks only for sales from commercial vendors with a federal license. Someone who passes a background check is eligible to buy multiple firearms. FBI checks for all of 2012 totaled 19.6 million, an annual record and an increase of 19 percent over 2011. The FBI system - known as the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) - "processed transactions following normal established protocols," Fischer said in an email. The national debate on guns has grown more intense since December 14, when Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and killed 20 children and six adults before committing suicide in one of the deadliest school shootings in U.S. history. Lanza also killed his mother, the registered owner of the guns used in the killings, before going to the school. SHOOTINGS LEAD TO SALES Interest in guns tends to increase after a mass shooting, as customers fear for personal safety or worry that lawmakers might ban certain firearms. President Barack Obama has committed to pushing new legislation, possibly including a ban on some semi-automatic weapons, this year. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association for firearms-makers, estimates the size of the industry at $4 billion a year. A spokesman for the association did not respond to a request for comment on Wednesday. Shares of gun maker Smith & Wesson Holding Corp were up 1.2 percent at $8.54 at Wednesday's close, while those of Sturm Ruger & Co Inc were up 1.1 percent at $45.88, during a broad rally in which the Standard & Poor's 500 Index was up 2.5 percent. Neither company responded to requests for comment. "The last eight years (have) been very good to be a handgun company. The market has expanded significantly, and long guns having done pretty good, as well," said Smith & Wesson Chief Executive James Debney at a December 12 conference for investors. The pattern of gun sales rising after a mass shooting is disturbing, said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a Washington group that favors gun control. "While the majority of Americans look for solutions to stop the next attack, a minority of gun owners runs to hoard the very guns used in the most recent" incidents, Sugarmann said in an email. Even as gun purchases rise, the share of U.S. households with a gun has been falling for decades, from 54 percent in 1977 to 32 percent in 2010, according to the University of Chicago's General Social Survey. Senate Democrats Plan “Nuclear Option” to Enact Anti-Second Amendment Legislation Kurt Nimmo Infowars.com January 3, 2013 Soon after the 113th Congress convenes today, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid of Nevada will move to destroy the filibuster and put the “nuclear option” in place. Democrats want a simple majority vote rather than a two-thirds majority or a supermajority required to put down a filibuster. The two-thirds vote, known as cloture, allows a single Senator to hold up Senate business. “This is a trick which anti-gun Democrats intend to use the first day of the Senate session in order to obliterate the Senate rules and clear the way for 50-vote passage of gun control,” warns Gun Owners of America. “Your senator’s vote on the ‘nuclear option’ may be the most important gun-related vote he casts during the 113th Congress. It may be the difference between whether Obama can secure Senate passage of gun bans, magazine bans, gun show bans, and bans on private gun sales.” “Gun grabbers are not going to be able to get 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster of gun control. But, with the help of fake ‘pro-gun’ Senate Democrats, they may be able to get 50,” GOA notes. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California and other Democrats in Congress are working on legislation to ban all semiautomatic firearms and magazines, enforce an effective ban on gun shows, and outlaw private gun sales between citizens. Feinstein’s 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. “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,” Feinstein told 60 Minutes, thus revealing the radical and anti-constitutional scope of her agenda to disarm America. Feinstein and her co-conspirators in the Senate want to limit and if possible remove any significant resistance to enacting legislation destroying the Second Amendment. That’s why Reid is going for the nuclear option. “Our Founders intended the Senate to be a body where legislation was slowed down and subject to improvement through extended debate and amendment,” Kentucky Senator Rand Paul said in response to efforts to cut the legs out from under the filibuster. “Reid’s proposed ‘reforms’ would remove two of the most fundamental rights traditionally reserved to all Senators — to freely debate and amend legislation. I shall not stand for that.” Illinois lawmakers commit open treason midwestoppression.blogspot.com January 3, 2012 An Illinois Senate committee passes through strict gun restrictions, that go against the constitutional grain of all federal rulings on the topic. The public health committee voted to go ahead with legislation that is intended to ban all semi-automatic rifles, AND pistols. This committee is made up of the following individuals: Chairperson : William Delgado D Vice-Chairperson : Mattie Hunter D Member: Susan Garrett D Member: Michael Noland D Member: Jeffrey M. Schoenberg D Member: Heather A. Steans D Minority Spokesperson : Dave Syverson R Member: Shane Cultra R Member: Christine J. Johnson R Member: Carole Pankau R The news article quotes them as voting across party lines, so assume anyone with a D after their name, to have committed perjury of their oath of office. The treason portion comes from Governor Quinn when he made this statement: “There is no place in Illinois for weapons designed to rapidly fire at human targets at close range,” However, author of the bill, Anthony Munoz, who is a member of the Police Union, supports the carrying of semi-automatic handguns, and M4 rifles by police. This is an admission that the authoritarian powers of Illinois have declared open war on the citizens. If what Quinn said was true, and semi-automatic weapons have no defensive purpose, and are only a close range rapid human killers… then why do they want the Police to have them? If what Quinn said is true… the ONLY reason Police have them, is to rapidly kill citizens of the State of Illinois. If Quinn admits they have a defensive purpose for citizens and Police, then he’s committed perjury by violating his Oath of Office, by violating the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment, and attempting to nullify the 2nd amendment. Remember his Oath, in which he swore to defend the constitution of the United States of America, even the parts of it he doesn’t like. “I do solemnly swear (affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Illinois, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of …. to the best of my ability.” Perjury: In Illinois Law: (720 ILCS 5/32-2) (from Ch. 38, par. 32-2) Sec. 32-2. Perjury. (a) A person commits perjury when, under oath or affirmation, in a proceeding or in any other matter where by law the oath or affirmation is required, he or she makes a false statement, material to the issue or point in question, knowing the statement is false. In Federal Law: -CITE- 18 USC Sec. 1621 01/03/2012 (112-90) Whoever - (1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States. It’s time to hold these Lawbreaker-makers accountable… New York Times Op Ed: “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution” Michael Krieger Liberty Blitzkrieg Jan 3, 2012 This New York Times Op Ed by Louis Michael Seidman, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown University, is one of the most absurd and dangerous articles I have read in a very long time. This guy’s incredible conclusion is that it is the Constitution of the United States itself that is causing all that ails the nation at this time. Not once did I read about the Federal Reserve, or the “war on terror,” or the banker bailouts, or the complete destruction of the rule of law in recent years. Nope, none of that. Instead, this scholar’s conclusion is that the founding document, which created the fertile breeding ground for freedom and free markets and led to tens of millions of people to flee to from all corners of the globe, is the problem. I suppose someone failed to remind Mr. Seidman that the oath of office for the military and those that hold political office continues to be: I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. As I have said for years, a key part of the macro agenda of the corrupt elite has been and continues to be the destruction of the U.S. Constitution. While the Bill of Rights is already being dismantled behind the scenes, Mr. Seidman is part of the effort to “sell” this concept to the sheeple as I noted in my article: Here We Go…Slate Magazine Bashes the First Amendment. I expect more of this type of propaganda going forward. From the New York Times: As the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions. This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation. The above paragraph is important for two reasons. First, he picks and chooses what part of the Constitution he agrees with and then says those things are good and should remain. More disturbingly, he then says we should defend freedom based on “respect not obligation.” This is insane. The reason the Bill of Rights exists is to enshrine the protection of civil rights under the law so that an authoritarian government cannot trample them. Do you really expect government to protect civil rights out of “respect” if they are not obligated to by law? Not a chance. Then he concludes with: But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance. Full Op Ed here. Please pass this on to every freedom loving American you know. In Liberty, Mike http://www.infowars.com/