Outrage Over Children Killed in Cold Blood

**AirborneSapper7** · 12-16-2012, 10:41 PM

Arm Teachers To Save Our Children, Now

Submitted by Econophile on 12/16/2012 18:42 -0500

I am sure that all of you are as shocked and saddened as I am by the mass murders of little children and their teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School. It is very difficult to read about this tragedy and the precious young lives that were lost. It is one of those events that stops the whole nation and causes them to mourn the dead yet appreciate the beauty and fragility of life at the same instant.

It is difficult to accept that this is the reality of America. Mass murders are becoming a way of our life. Seemingly one event inspires others to commit further brutal acts. We think that violence on this scale is something that happens elsewhere, yet it happens here with regularity.

We need to protect our children.

Already there are calls for gun control, more intervention with the mentally ill, and greater safety at our schools.

Gun control or gun prohibition will not happen in America. Guns are too prevalent and there is the Second Amendment right to bear arms. (You can argue against the purpose of the Second Amendment, but the Courts have upheld citizens' right to own guns: accept this fact.) Americans won't stand for prohibition anyway. It's a part of our national fabric. And we all know, despite the trite saying, and despite bans on firearms (see New York City), criminals will get guns. It is impossible to keep guns out of the hands of someone who wants one. Thus, bans on assault rifles, for example, won't put a dent in the problem (the shooter at Sandy Hook also has two handguns.

Accept the fact that there are guns out there and they are here to stay.

Intervention with mentally disturbed people is an even more difficult task. Would Americans allow a law that permits the detention and treatment of people who haven't committed crimes? There are too many stories of Soviet and Chinese tyrants using such a law to arrest enemies of the state. I was listening to a criminologist who has studied the common factors that these disturbed mass killers have and he said it's easy to add up the symptoms after the fact, but there could be a million people who have similar symptoms who don't go on killing sprees. Accept the fact that functional but mentally disturbed people will get guns and we have no power to stop them. I am not advocating that dangerous maniacs have guns; I am simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

School safety? The killer in the Sandy Hook event broke the door open to get in. It was admirable to hear how the teachers handled this crisis. They were scared but calm and did everything right, carrying out well rehearsed safety plans. Yet 2o children and 6 adults were killed. Would a guard at the door have prevented this? Is one guard enough? My thinking is that this guy would have shot the guard at the beginning of his spree. Forget about metal detectors; he wasn't asking to be let in. And what about safety in other public places, such as the Clackamas shopping center in Oregon, or the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, or a large campus like Virginia Tech. Can you have enough guards? Is total protection feasible much less affordable?

There is no easy answer to this problem. But I suggest two things.

1. All schools should have a video monitoring system with a designated person on campus to monitor it. Can all schools afford this? To protect our children, I would pay whatever it cost for my district. I know that some schools already have such a system installed. But do they have a designated monitor? With well placed video monitors at least staff would have an idea what was happening in such an event and could respond better. The principal of Sandy Hook, Dawn Hochsprun, and the school psychologist, Mary Joy Sherlach, bravely ran toward the shooter when they heard shots and sadly they were killed. Perhaps a control center and a defensive plan would have helped save their lives.

2. Arm some teachers and staff members so they can protect themselves and our children. I know this will get a big reaction from those against firearms, but think it through in light of the reality of the issues that I have outlined. It is not possible to prevent these tragic shootings before they happen, so sh0uld we leave our children unprotected while some maniac walks around and shoots them at will?

I am not talking about handing out pistols at random. Teachers and staff members must volunteer to be in such a program. They must be trained extensively in the use of handguns and be given instructions on how to handle panic situations. This type of training is given to police officers. Police departments could give such instruction and certify that those who pass the course are capable of defending themselves and our children. Annual certification should be required. Weapons should be kept in a gun safe in classrooms with the key in the teacher's physical possession. Supervisory staff would keep them in their offices and some would carry them at all times. Skeptics will say that poor little Miss Smith is not capable of such responsibility, but I disagree after hearing interviews of the brave teachers who protected their students at Sandy Hook: they were willing to risk their lives to save their children. Some gave their lives in doing so.

So what would happen in such an event where teachers and staff are armed? If they act according to their training they will kill or subdue the gunman. They could also be killed or injured, but is their slaughter and the slaughter of children more preferable? I am not suggesting that teachers go Rambo, but with proper training they should act according to a defensive plan that will protect their students. They should fire their weapon as a last resort. If they act with a calm head they will save lives. I am not saying this is a panacea for such a complex problem, but until someone figures out something better we need to protect our children, now.

NB. I am not a member of the NRA. I am not a gun enthusiast. I don't hunt or spend my spare time cleaning my arsenal.

Arm Teachers To Save Our Children, Now | ZeroHedge

**AirborneSapper7** · 12-18-2012, 12:05 AM

Three armed women teachers shot Adam Lanza in a classroom

Three Women Teachers with Guns Shot Adam Lanza in a Classroom

by Jon Rappoport
December 17, 2012
www.nomorefakenews.com

When everybody is diagnosed with a mental disorder, gun permits will be a thing of the past.

Take that seriously.

At a presidential debate, Obama was asked about achieving gun control. He said, “Enforce the laws we’ve already got. Make sure we are keeping the guns out of the hands of criminals…[and] those who are mentally ill.”

Keeping Guns Out of the Hands of the Mentally Ill | World of Psychology

In case you’ve 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 doesn’t 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 back-door 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, America’s 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 choices…accept mass murder as part of the American way of life, or…get 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 don’t 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 doesn’t 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.

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, it’s a matter of what the media cover and how they cover it, and what they ignore. That’s all it is. It isn’t anything else. In other words, they’re running a psyop.

Point two: the government doesn’t 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. It’s insulting. It’s people saying to the government, “We don’t need you.” It’s 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. He’s 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, I’m sorry we’re late, and I’m sorry your husband was beaten to a pulp by that intruder, but we have other crimes to process. We have to man speed-traps. It’s better that your husband didn’t 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.

We’re talking about government jobs here. Jobs and money and pensions.

Private citizens must not do what the government does.

In case you hadn’t 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, that’s 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, that’s another sore point. That’s 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.

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. Can’t 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. That’s really all they know how to do. This goes far beyond any understandable humane impulse.

This is meddling. It’s moving in on other people’s 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: “I’m the hero. I protect you. I…you what? You protected yourself? No, you’re not allowed to do that, because then I can’t be a hero. You’re 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. That’s 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 wouldn’t 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 won’t 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 don’t have to own property, but they have to know that such a thing as private property exists. Why? Because property is one of the things an armed citizen has a right to defend.

Unfortunately, we’re losing the concept of private property like water leaking out of battered rowboat. It’s part of government’s plan, because government wants to own everything that isn’t already nailed down by its partner mega-corporations.

And government’s 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 isn’t 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. I’m 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 29^th 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

Three armed women teachers shot Adam Lanza in a classroom « Jon Rappoport's Blog

**AirborneSapper7** · 12-18-2012, 12:55 AM

Society Is Crumbling Right In Front Of Our Eyes And Banning Guns Won't Help

By Michael, on December 16th, 2012

What in the world is happening to America? I have written many articles about how society is crumbling right in front of our eyes, but now it is getting to the point where people are going to be afraid to go to school or go shopping at the mall.

Just consider what has happened over the past week. Adam Lanza savagely murdered 20 children and 6 adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

42-year-old Marcus Gurrola threatened to shoot innocent shoppers and fired off more than 50 rounds in the parking lot of Fashion Island Mall in Newport Beach, California. After police apprehended him, he told them that he "was unhappy with life".

Earlier in the week, a crazy man wearing a hockey mask and armed with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire on the second floor of a mall in Happy Valley, Oregon. He killed two people and injured a third.

On Saturday morning, a lone gunman walked into a hospital in Alabama and opened fire. He killed one police officer and two hospital employees before being gunned down by another police officer.

So have we now reached the point where every school, every mall and every hospital is going to need armed security? How will society function efficiently if everyone is constantly worried about mass murderers?

In response to the horrible tragedy in Connecticut, many in the mainstream media are suggesting that much stricter gun laws are the obvious solution.

After all, if we get rid of all the guns these crazy people won't be able to commit these kinds of crimes, right?

Unfortunately, that is not how it works. The criminals don't obey gun control laws. Banning guns will just take them out of the hands of law-abiding American citizens that just want to protect their own families.

Adam Lanza didn't let the strict gun control laws up in Connecticut stop him from what he wanted to do. Connecticut already has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, and Adam Lanza broke at least three of them.

However, if there had been some armed security officers or some armed teachers at that school, they may have had a chance to protect those dear little children from being brutally gunned down.

If gun control was really the solution to our problems, then cities that have implemented strict gun control laws should be some of the safest in the entire country.

But sadly, just the opposite is true.

For example, Chicago has very strict gun laws. But 10 people were shot in the city of Chicago on Friday alone. Chicago is now considered to be "the deadliest global city", and the murder rate in Chicago is about 25 percent higher than it was last year.

So has gun control turned Chicago into a utopia?

Of course not.

And it won't solve our problems on a national level either.

You can find more statistics about the futility of gun control right here.

Well, how would things be if we did just the opposite and everyone had a gun?

Would gun crime go through the roof?

That is what liberals were warning of when the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun.

But instead of disaster, the results turned out to be very impressive...

In March 1982, 25 years ago, the small town of Kennesaw – responding to a handgun ban in Morton Grove, Ill. – unanimously passed an ordinance requiring each head of household to own and maintain a gun. Since then, despite dire predictions of “Wild West” showdowns and increased violence and accidents, not a single resident has been involved in a fatal shooting – as a victim, attacker or defender.

The crime rate initially plummeted for several years after the passage of the ordinance, with the 2005 per capita crime rate actually significantly lower than it was in 1981, the year before passage of the law.

Prior to enactment of the law, Kennesaw had a population of just 5,242 but a crime rate significantly higher (4,332 per 100,000) than the national average (3,899 per 100,000). The latest statistics available – for the year 2005 – show the rate at 2,027 per 100,000. Meanwhile, the population has skyrocketed to 28,189.

When criminals know that everyone has guns, they are much less likely to try something.

And often armed citizens are able to prevent potential mass murderers from doing more damage. You can find several examples of this right here.

But of course most of our politicians are not interested in common sense. Instead, they are obsessed with the idea that gun control will make our country "safe" again.

Senator Diane Feinstein says that she is ready to introduce a strict gun control bill in January that will "ban the sale, the transfer, the importation and the possession" of many types of firearms.

Will such a law keep the criminals from getting guns?

No way. Just look at what is happening with the cartels down in Mexico. The criminals are always able to get guns.

If our "leaders" were really interested in stopping these mass murders, they would take a look at the role that mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs play in these incidents. If you look at the mass murders that have occurred over the past several decades, in the vast majority of them the murderer had been using mind-altering pharmaceutical drugs...

The Institute for Safe Medication Practices (ISMP) has raised concerns about severe acts of violence as side effects of anti-psychotic and antidepressant drugs not only on individuals but on society as well.

Just a month ago PRWeb described drug induced violence as "medicine's best kept secret."

And the Citizens Commission on Human Rights International (CCHRI) is calling for a federal investigation on its web page which links no less than 14 mass killings to the use of psychiatric drugs such as Prozac and Paxil.

And guess what?

According to the Washington Post, one neighbor says that Adam Lanza was "on medication".

But will our politicians ever consider a law against such drugs?

Of course not. The big corporations that produce those drugs give mountains of money to the campaign funds of our politicians.

So the focus of the debate will remain on guns.

And a lot of liberals would have us believe that our society could be transformed into some type of "utopia" if we could just get rid of all the guns.

Unfortunately, that is simply not true. Our society is in an advanced state of moral decay, and this moral decay is manifesting in our society in thousands of different ways. The corruption runs from the highest levels of society all the way down to the lowest.

For those that believe that gun control would somehow "fix America", I have some questions for you...

Down in Texas, one set of parents kept their 10-year-old son locked in a bedroom and only fed him bread and water for months. Eventually he died of starvation and they dumped his body in a creek.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A pastor in north Texas was recently assaulted by an enraged man who beat him to death with an electric guitar.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Police up in New Jersey say that a man kept his girlfriend padlocked in a bedroom for most of the last 10 years.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A 31-year-old man up in Canada was found guilty of raping an 8-year-old girl, breaking 16 of her bones and smashing her in the face with a hammer.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

According to the FBI, a New York City police officer is being accused of “planning the kidnap, rape, torture and cannibilization of a number of women”.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

A Secret Service officer that had been assigned to protect Joe Biden’s residence has been charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Texas, a very sick 29-year-old man stabbed his girlfriend to death and then burned his one-year-old baby alive because she had gone to court and filed for child support.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

Over in Utah, a 21-year-old man is accused of stabbing his grandmother 111 times and then removing her organs with a knife.

Would banning guns have kept that from happening?

There are more than 3 million reports of child abuse in the United States every single year.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

An average of five children die as a result of child abuse in the United States every single day.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

The United States has the highest child abuse death rate on the entire globe.
Would banning guns keep that from happening?

It is estimated that 500,000 Americans that will be born this year will be sexually abused before they turn 18.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

In the United States today, it is estimated that one out of every four girls is sexually abused before they become adults.

Would banning guns keep that from happening?

If there was a way to take all of the guns away from all of the criminals, I would be all in favor of it. Unfortunately, no government on the planet has been able to do that.
Instead, we have seen that criminals thrive whenever gun bans are instituted and the guns are taken away from law-abiding citizens.

But the bottom line is that our social decay will not be solved either by more guns or less guns.

Our social decay is the result of decades of bad decisions. We have pushed morality out of our schools, out of government and out of almost every aspect of public life. Now we are experiencing the bitter fruit of those decisions.

And this is not a problem that our government is going to be able to fix. Violent crime increased by 18 percent in 2011, and this is just the beginning.

As our economy gets even worse, the rot and decay that have been eating away the foundations of America are going to become even more evident. The number of Americans living in poverty grows with each passing day, and millions upon millions of people are becoming very desperate.

Desperate people do desperate things, and crime, rioting and looting are going to become commonplace in the United States in the years ahead.

So you can pretend that the government is going to be able to keep our society from crumbling all you want, but that is not going to help you when a gang of desperate criminals has invaded your home and is attacking your family.

We definitely should mourn for the victims in Connecticut. It was a horrible national tragedy.

But this is just the beginning. The fabric of our society is coming apart at the seams.

The feeling of safety and security that we all used to take for granted has been shattered, and the streets of America are going to steadily become much more dangerous.

I hope that you are ready.

http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/a...guns-wont-help

**AirborneSapper7** · 12-18-2012, 01:30 AM

Guest Post: Gun Control? No, Drone Control.

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/16/2012 22:34 -0500

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics blog,

The terrible massacre committed by a mentally-disturbed man in Newtown, Connecticut last Friday has prompted lots and lots of calls for gun control in the United States, as well as some calls for more help for the mentally ill.

There are some problems with both suggestions. First of all, the evidence shows that certain “treatments” for the mentally ill — specifically, SSRI antidepressants — are associated with shooting sprees. A 2006 study in the UK showed that antidepressants can cause severe violence in a small number of individuals.

It is possible that increasing the screening and “treatment” for mental illness may result in more incidences of severe violence. (On the other hand some therapies like psychotherapy, music therapy, and art therapy might help certain individuals, but these are almost certainly less profitable for big pharma…)

But what about gun control? There is little doubt that in the coming years the gun-show loophole will be closed and Canadian-style longer waiting periods will be introduced.

Semi-automatic weapons may well be banned. Buyback programs may be attempted. The Supreme Court might well even be stacked to achieve a majority that interprets away individual gun rights.

But America already has huge quantities of guns, far more than anywhere in the world:

The vast majority of America’s 285 million guns are in Republican states, which are unlikely to be disarmed easily, even with an overwhelming Federal consensus.

Some might even try to secede from the Union.

And as the experience of many other countries including Britain and Australia shows, criminals and those with violent intent will still be able to get guns (the only people who will be disarmed are the law-abiding majority).

This trend is only likely to grow in coming years as technologies such as 3D printing make it possible for anyone with a 3D printer and an internet connection to potentially print a gun (and eventually, bullets):

Imagine an America in which anyone can download and print a gun in their own home. They wouldn’t need a license, a background check, or much technical knowledge, just a 3D printer. That’s the vision a cadre of industrious libertarians are determined to turn into reality.

Last week, Wiki Weapon, a project to create the first fully printable plastic gun received the $20,000 in funding it needed to get off the ground. The project’s goal is not to develop and sell a working gun, but rather to create an open-source schematic (or blueprint) that individuals could download and use to print their own weapons at home.

The technology that makes this possible is 3D printing, a process during which plastic resin is deposited layer by layer to create a three dimensional object. In the past few years 3D printers have become increasingly affordable, and just last week the first two retail stores selling 3D printers opened in the United States with models ranging from $600 to $2,199.

How is it possible to regulate that away? Ban 3D printing? Ban the distribution of gun schematics? Costly, damaging to liberty, and ineffective. The failed war on drugs makes this very clear — prohibition doesn’t work.

Guns — like drugs — are a reality that society cannot just eradicate by passing laws.

The mood has changed — America will try gun control.

It won’t work — and may just make things worse.

I wish we lived in a world without guns, but we don’t.

But there is a way forward. Very many of the mass shooters in the last two decades have a history of antidepressant use.

If we want to stop mass shootings, maybe we should look at that.

And if we value life and are opposed to violence against innocents, why do we demand action when 27 innocent Americans die, but not when larger numbers of innocent Pakistanis, or Afghanis or Yemenis die?

One drone strike in Pakistan killed 69 children, dwarfing the impact of the Newtown Massacre. With predator drones now in American skies, how long until the “collateral damage” (remember — the NDAA declared the entirety of America as a battlefield) eclipses the Newtown massacre?

Or how long until a foreign power or terrorist group hacks into a predator drone (technically feasible) over America and uses it as a flying bomb?

And how many more terrorist attacks against America will be fuelled by anger derived from the civilian casualties of the drone wars?

Obama might cry for Americans in Newtown, but where are his tears for the Pakistani and Yemeni children he has slaughtered?

And what about for the many victims who died as a result of thousands guns shipped by the US government to the Mexican drug cartels via Fast and Furious?

America might be ready to implement gun control.

I wish America was ready to implement drone control.

Guest Post: Gun Control? No, Drone Control. | ZeroHedge