Why Do Mass Killings Occur?

							           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/