Sandy Hook Tragedy and Gun Control

For those who think that if guns are banned or further regulated these tragedies will end, consider this: 1) Prior to the 1980’s, in spite of the fact that most people had guns and there were very few gun laws, events such as Sandy Creek almost never occurred.

From the Wikipedia reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States, “There are very seldom reports of mass or multiple school shootings during the first three decades of the 20th Century, with the three most violent attacks on schools involving either arson or explosions.”

The first mass school shooting occurred in 1966 at the University of Texas. The next one was at the end of 1974. Between 1974 and the early 1990s, more incidents began to occur but were still quite rare.

Beginning in 1995 multiple-victim school shootings began to become more frequent, and the introduction of gun control laws increased. But the shootings continued. The main question should be “why?”

2) In spite of gun control laws and “gun-free zones” such as schools, these events happen today with distressing regularity. If 1 and 2 are demonstrably true, we need to ask another question: What is different? What has changed in the last 20-30 years that has caused this violence to increase?

One thing that is different is that with news being instantly available, more people are aware of the media attention that such events get, similar to the increase in airplane hijackings in the 1970s. Desensitization via graphic violence in movies and video games may also play a role.  These could be contributing elements to the increase, but I firmly believe this is what is really different (please watch it all):



The vast majority of Americans who own guns would never use them in violence except in self-defense of themselves and their families. The guns themselves pose no danger. No gun ever woke up one morning and decided to kill someone. It may sound trite by now, but it’s true: guns don’t kill people. People kill people.

The second amendment to the U.S. constitution is not only about sportsmen or well-regulated state militia. The amendment refers to the individual. The individual’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If it was only about militia, the amendment would have clearly been a group, militia right. It is not, and the Supreme court has clearly said so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570.

The court was affirming what was not even questioned by the founding fathers.

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334

The founders also were not only concerned about self-defense. They also insisted on the individual right to keep and bear arms to ward off tyranny. An armed citizenry is not easily subdued by despotism. An armed country is a free country:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)

"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)

It can convincingly be argued that the second amendment is necessary to uphold all the others. A stable, non-medicated person who owns a gun is a citizen. A stable, non-medicated person who has his gun taken away is a subject. Or worse, a potential victim, of both the criminal and the state.

Keeping a level head in discussing gun control is a difficult thing to do. Emotion jumps in quickly, especially in the aftermath of incidents such as Sandy Hook. But we would be much better off going after the real problem rather than going after an inanimate object that if taken away, everything else remaining the same would be replaced with something else, and our self-defense and the defense of our liberties would be irretrievably gone.

Keeping America Safe (Kinda Brings a Tear to Your Eye)

.
My wife left to visit her sister in Missouri this morning. On her way through Homeland Stupidity, she was told she could not carry her toothpaste on the plane. The toothpaste was in a 4.6 oz container, but was more than half EMPTY, leaving her with about 2 oz. of toothpaste. The container was clear and this was obvious. Since the limit is 3 oz, I told her she should be able to take it, since any idiot could see it wasn’t 3 oz. But the brave, non-producing tax-eater would have none of that.

My wife, a 53 year-old grandmother of nine, asked, “it’s half empty, why are you taking it?” Answer: “We don’t know what’s in it.” My wife: “Um… toothpaste?”

I know the people in the TSA needed jobs after they got fired from McDonald’s. Our compassionate government made sure that they were employed and secured the money (from actual productive people) to make it happen. Now we can all be proud that they are keeping America safe from toothpaste. And grandmothers.
.

Unfortunately, We Still Have A Long Way To Go

.
Seems like the majority of the so-called "Tea Party" is populated with confused or ignorant "conservatives", still drinking the mainstream GOP Kool-Aid:

POLL SHOWS TEA PARTY WOULD RUN BIG BUDGET DEFICITS AND INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT

A post about the real Tea Party (of 1773) is coming up. Maybe LiberTea is a better name for the real movement.
.

Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) Part 5

.
It is time we began raising our voices in a new way.  In the last three years or so, the freedom movement has risen as a Phoenix from the ashes.  Millions now believe that their governments, and their political parties, have long ceased looking out for their best interests, and are now riddled straight through with corruption, blood-thirst, and lust for power.  But our efforts to date have been mostly defensive--we have rallied against things--new taxes, encroachments on our privacy and property, gun control, socialist health care, etc.  We have stood against establishment and neo-con candidates, and have filled our representatives inboxes with our protests.

Meanwhile the runaway train of tyranny continues to careen towards the missing bridge over the chasm.  The conductors, the Republican and Democrat puppets of our overlords, although somewhat irritated, are not overly concerned.  Sure, they may lose a small battle here and there, but they are confident they are winning the war.  Give a little lipservice to these insolent pests.  Even back off on one or two of their newest schemes--like cap and trade or goverment health care--for a little while.  No worries, they think, we'll slip it in under their noses later.

So far, our cries for justice have been faint and half-hearted.  Like the young Oliver Twist, we want what we want, but our courage and our hearts have not yet caught up with the hunger in our bellies:



It isn't good enough. It's too little.  Too late.  As one, we need to rise up, and proclaim boldly:

WE.  WANT.  OUR.  FREEDOM.

We need to tell our "leaders" that the status quo is not acceptable under any circumstances.  We refuse to be polite.  No more, "Please sir," as if these criminals were our masters.  We want our freedom, and we want it now.  We will be heard.  We demand the original promise of America. We will prevail.  We are prepared to do what it takes.

He that dasheth in pieces is come up against thee: keep the fortress, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily.  Nahum 2:1 American Standard Version

We will no longer be Oliver Twists, but rather William Wallaces:



Lest anyone misunderstand, we are not calling for violence.  We do not believe in instigating violence.  To become violent is to become THEM.  Them, who have perverted liberty for 250 years, leaving trails of blood all along the way.  We do not wish to be painted with a brush dipped in blood.  We can reclaim our freedom through peaceful means.  It starts with putting our foot down.  NO MORE.

We should immediately begin demanding the entire geographic area of the United States become, for the first time, the land of the free.  The entire United States is of course, our first choice.  But if we cannot have it all, if there are too many of those who wish to remain in chains, then we cannot compel them to be free.  But we must demand for ourselves a place beyond the control of the present oppresors, a place to be free.

It seems unlikely that the dark ones would willingly cede land to people who will not bow to their authority.  So how are we to get our place?  Note:  I will talk about some criteria and possible places in Part 6.

One option is secession.  If enough of us in one geographical area demand our freedom, we could draw our like-minded bretheren from other regions to ours.  Through strength in numbers, we could, like the Declaration of Independence proclaims,

"dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"

They would be powerless to stop us.

Of course, they might be foolish and try.  They could attack, for force is all they know--in which case we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and our loved ones.  When, not if, we prevailed, we could negotiate to draw borders for both camps.  Our new, armed-to-the-teeth territory would never again face threat of invasion.  Switzerland with an American attitude. 

So first, peaceful separation.  All would be welcome.  All races, creeds, colors, and religions.  The only requirement is that the rights and property of others are inviolable.  Any designs on the liberty or property of others earns a one-way exile back to the "old" country.

However, I do not think secession or self-defense will be necessary.  I think the US will collapse upon itself, and in the not-too-distant future.  To me, it looks inevitable.  What is not inevitable is what happens next.  It is up to us. 

At that point, and before a military or foreign power can seek to replace the present regime with a new one, we can claim the territory of the free.  And it will be as large as the people support, even from sea to shining sea.
.

Tell-Tale Signs

.
Well, I was supposed to be in Israel by now.  Instead, I've been stranded in Minneapolis for two days by two feet of global warming in New York City.

So what do you do when there's three feet of snow on the ground on a winter's day in Minneapolis?  All the hotels near the airport have hourly shuttles to the Mall of America.  I went over there tonight to grab a bite, and while waiting for the shuttle to return I saw this sign:

So nice to know that you are forbidden by law to defend yourself in the Mall of America.  This iconic building, filled with thousands of people, some unarmed security guards and perhaps some police (I didn't see any, but they must be there somewhere) is one of those famous "soft targets" for terrorists and crazies.

But it's OK, because guns are forbidden.  Bad guys would certainly read the sign and leave their weapons in the car.  Right?
.

This Is What I Believe

.
There's a great article on Lew Rockwell today about Jim Rogers predicting the imminent collapse of the British Pound, creating a global chain reaction, pulling down fiat currencies and creating a crisis that makes the last one look tame.

Here's an excerpt, which is actually what I believe, and is what actually gives me hope.  By hope, of course, I mean the regional breakup of the Empire and free zones created on American soil.  Yes, I know, Part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) is coming soon (emphasis mine):

Now some of the savvier cynics among us will claim that this is just what has been "planned." That those who are driving the world toward an ever-more perfect union, want to create this sort of crisis, with an eye toward implementing an ever-more centralized solution. We can believe this may have been the plan, but if so, we also believe it's spinning out of control. We don't believe, for instance, the elite wants to lose the European Union or the euro anymore than it wants its painstakingly created global warming promotion to go belly up. We think events are driving the elite for once, rather than the other way round. The combination of bad economic times and the socio-political education available on the Internet itself is proving lethal to many elite promotions, including central banking and fiat money.


It all comes down to what you believe, dear reader. If you believe that the EU and global warming were just way-stations on the road to world government, then you will likely believe that the current chaotic climate is purposeful and that what emerges hews to a long-term plan. If you believe as the Bell does, then you will likely take the position that what is occurring today is out of anyone's control, and that it is a kind of perfect storm, or as Anthony Wile wrote in High Alert in 2003, a financial hurricane – one the power elite never expected. It is, in fact, a confluence of a ruinous global economy and the educative effects of the Internet. The former the elite may have foreseen and advanced. The latter, we believe, was something the elite never imagined.

See you all soon in Montana/Wyoming/Idaho, etc.?
.

Mission Accomplished!

.

The Bush/Obama war machine has nearly wiped out Christianity in Iraq:

http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35553
.