Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 75

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #11
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Sen. Feinstein: Ban Assault Weapons

    Added by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on December 17, 2012 at 3:02pm

    Feinstein Wants to Ban Assault Weapons - 12/16/12 - YouTube

    MSNBC is calling for the “confiscation” of all guns. Senator Feinstein is not so harsh—she just wants to ban assault weapons. Perhaps the Left could come to a happy medium and just send all conservatives to “re-education” camps in order to make everyone think “correctly.” If only they could flush that little document called the Constitution down the drain, then they wouldn’t have to dance around the fact that they want to disarm America!

    Sen. Feinstein: Ban Assault Weapons - Patriot Action Network
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #12
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Kincaid: CNN's O'Brien Urges Obama to 'Track' People and Firearms

    By GOPUSA Staff December 17, 2012 12:56 pm

    The Washington Post story, “Media figures on left and right call for new gun-control laws,” hailed Soledad O’Brien of CNN for taking a stand in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings. Pretending to be an intellectual heavyweight on the subject, she declared on the channel that the problem in society is “access to semiautomatic weapons.”

    O’Brien’s embarrassing outburst, which continued for several minutes during an interview with Rep. Mary Bono Mack (R-Calif.), is another indication of why CNN fails to attract many viewers. I turned on CNN the morning after the tragedy occurred to get some basic facts and instead was forced to endure a liberal rant from Soledad O’Brien about what she thought should be done in light of what happened in Newtown, Connecticut.

    In its story about the influence of these “prominent media figures,” the Post failed to note there is nothing sinister about “semiautomatic weapons.” These are weapons protected under the Second Amendment which a person fires one shot at a time. They are used for various purposes, including self-defense.

    It appears that O’Brien may have been confusing “semiautomatic weapons” with automatic weapons.

    If she did make this mistake, it would not be unusual for media coverage of a tragedy like this. The liberal media frequently jump to conclusions. In this case, they got basic facts wrong early in the story, including the name of the shooter.

    We have learned over the period of many years that the media don’t care about the facts because they are pushing a liberal agenda of “gun control.” O’Brien has an agenda and doesn’t want to hear anything to the contrary. It is a mental state that does not serve the public interest and should not be featured on a channel that claims to provide news to its audience.

    It is important for people to actually watch or read the exchange O’Brien had with Rep. Mack to understand the liberal fixation on guns rather than on other problems, such as mental illness, or other possible solutions, such as additional security for those at risk of being shot or killed.

    O’Brien quickly labeled Mack a Republican and tried to put her on the defensive: “You support gun rights in this country. You’re a Republican, and I think that’s a position very consistent with most Republicans. What does meaningful action, that actually stops these kinds of shootings, look like to you?”

    With this kind of introduction, O’Brien was making it clear that, in her view, Republicans were partly responsible for the tragedy. She was exploiting the tragedy for political gain, in order to bolster President Obama’s call for “meaningful action,” whatever that means.

    Mack, a rather moderate Republican, replied, in part, that “the question for me is not just gun rights but mental health…And I think if we’re going to debate as a country, gun control, we need to debate what we can do better on mental, the mental health system.”

    That the shooter was mentally deranged seems fairly obvious. Mack’s point was that society should address these mental problems. It was not something O’Brien wanted to dwell on. She granted the point but then quickly said, “But let’s go back to gun control. What do you think could be done to make people safe? I mean, there are people who have said, and I think honestly horribly have said that if people were armed inside the school, they would have been able to shoot the shooter. Do you agree with that?”

    Notice the reference to self-defense being something “horrible.” Why was it horrible to consider arming people in the school who could have stopped the carnage? Why would it have been horrible to save some of those young lives?

    Mack replied, “Well, yes. I mean, that is one portion of it I guess. You know, I think those of us who fly often know that we feel some sort of consolation or safety knowing that there might be air marshals on board. You want to know sometimes if there’s somebody there who can defend you in a situation.”

    It was a perfectly reasonable point. The fact is that airplane hijackings and terrorism have been met with more, not less, arms. Additional firearms in the hands of the right people constitute a deterrent.

    For example, what about armed security guards in schools?

    O’Brien quickly moved on, saying, “But isn’t part of the issue…easy access? We do know that his mother had five legally obtained guns. She was licensed for five guns. At least one of them is this Bush .223—Bushmaster rifle, right? A semiautomatic weapon. He had easy access to that. So I find it hard when people say, well, you know, if you didn’t have a gun, you could do something else. Is the answer then arming more people? That doesn’t make any sense to me honestly.”

    It didn’t make sense to O’Brien because she refuses to consider anything other than liberal legislation to control access to weapons by the law-abiding public. Her fumbling over the name of the weapon probably reflects ignorance about firearms. Perhaps she doesn’t like guns. Perhaps she has never fired them. Perhaps she has never been to a shooting range. Whatever the case, she has no sympathy for those who possess guns for these purposes, or for self-defense.

    Eventually, O’Brien came out with her own dubious “solution.” She said, “…I think this conversation at some point has to go to what is the normal amount of guns that people can own and how they’re registered and tracked.”
    What is “normal?” O’Brien didn’t say. Who would register and track people with guns? By chance, would it be the Obama Administration?

    This is obviously a poorly thought-out “solution” to the violence, but it is typical of a liberal in the media who doesn’t think straight and prefers emotionally-charged rants to a rational treatment of a serious matter.

    CNN suffers in the ratings and doesn’t serve the interests of an informed public when it puts a blockhead like Soledad O’Brien on the air to spout nonsense.
    Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism, and can be contacted at

    » Kincaid: CNN's O'Brien Urges Obama to 'Track' People and Firearms » Commentary -- GOPUSA

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  3. #13
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Faria: Mass Shootings and Mental Health - At What Cost?

    By Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. December 17, 2012 6:50 am

    The latest shooting rampage of 26 people, including six adults and 20 children in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, on December 14, 2012, is a senseless tragedy, and words cannot convey the horror and the magnitude of the loss of innocent life. The second deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history was carried out by 20-year-old Adam Lanza, a loner with a personality disorder — and in critical need of psychiatric evaluation and treatment. Once again, these deadly rampages are the result of failure of the mental health system.

    Consider the case of Jared Loughner, a 22-year-old disturbed individual who shot and attempted the assassination of former U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona. He also killed five others, including an innocent 9-year-old student and a judge, and wounded fourteen other people in 2011. There were signs of psychiatric illness and social pathology, that should have alerted those around him and called for mental evaluation and psychiatric treatment. But Loughner, like Lanza, fell through the obvious cracks.

    The case of Loughner in Arizona is particularly revealing because a consensus has been reached that the mentally deranged individual should have received psychiatric evaluation and treatment, which were not administered.(1) The same conclusion is being reached as more information is rapidly coming to light in the latest rampage by Adam Lanza in Connecticut.

    "Convicted felons and mentally unstable people," as I stated in a previous article, "forfeit the right to possess arms by virtue of the fact they are a potential danger to their fellow citizens. This has been recently demonstrated by the tragedies that took place in Arizona and in Aurora, Colorado; and not only in the United States, but also in Oslo, Norway."(2)
    In the recent case in Norway, after bombing a government building in Oslo and then taking over an island, a homicidal killer perpetrated a horrible massacre. Anders Behring Breivik massacred 69 of his fellow citizens, systematically hunting down unarmed youths at a camp, methodically killing mostly defenseless teenagers. Imagine if just one person had carried a gun and knew how to use it to defend his or her life and the lives of others! But Norway, for all practical purposes, like most of Europe, is like the schools in the U.S., a "gun-free zone," where guns are not allowed and a deranged individual can enter and kill with impunity.

    These three specific incidents represent cases of criminal insanity associated with regrettable and overt failures in the mental health system, rather than the easy cliché of “too many guns” in the hands of people. In my article, "America, Guns and Freedom" I also cite other recent cases, including the two reciprocal incidents in Aurora, Colorado, earlier in the spring and summer of this year. One incident was widely reported; the other, where a citizen stopped a rampage and saved the lives of others, was not. The vast majority of citizens use firearms responsibly.(2)
    Incidentally, the United States is a Federal Republic, and the fifty states of the Union have some leeway in passing and enforcing gun laws. We already have 20,000 gun laws on the books. We don't need more statues. The failure lies elsewhere. The killer in Connecticut operated with impunity in a state that does not easily allow persons to carry guns for self protection, and most states in the U.S. already have a "zero tolerance" for guns in schools, which are in turn "gun-free zones," where firearms are strictly prohibited. Perhaps it is time that we consider allowing teachers to have special concealed carry firearm licenses to protect students in this mad, dystopic world we are creating in which we are permissive to criminals and deranged individuals, while we easily blame and propose more laws and controls to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens in society at large.

    Guns are inanimate objects. The responsibility for crimes rest on the criminals and those who facilitate their crimes! Elsewhere, I have discussed failures in the criminal justice system, leniency and use of revolving prison doors that allow many of the same criminals to commit the vast majority of serious crimes.(3) I have discussed the aforementioned failures in the mental health system. There is a sinister contributing factor, and an even more serious problem — namely, the problem of media reporting and sensationalization of violence that in association with the "fifteen minutes worth of fame" and the pursuit of celebrity status in vogue today are all pervasive.(4) What more evidence is needed than the immense popularity of vulgar "reality" television shows? It is not a big step to link extensive coverage of shooting rampages in both the press and the colorful electronic media as a major contributing factor in the pathologic and even morbid attainment of celebrity status even in death.

    While the media has sensationalized violence and the mass shootings of hapless victims (who are virtually forgotten), they have not given defensive, beneficial uses of firearms (e.g., protecting or saving lives and property), the attention these positive acts deserve, which go usually unreported. By and large, to read about the cases where law‑abiding citizens use firearms for self and family protection, one has to read independently published books, such as Robert A. Waters' excellent tome, The Best Defense (199.

    Only infrequently do these cases even get publicized in the mass media or published in the medical journals by public health investigators in their “gun and violence” research.

    The death of innocents, particularly children, is a tragedy, and responsible media commentators should be compassionate while remaining honest, objective professionals in dealing with social problems of this magnitude. We cannot use atrocious crimes charged with emotions to incite even more passion to effect a desired public policy. And the media moguls need to get their minds together to begin the systematic de-sensationalization of crime and making morbid celebrities out of criminals.

    In medicine, surgeons cannot guarantee results. Complications and sometimes bad results occur; the same can happen with guns. Firearms in the hands of terrorists, criminals, or the mentally deranged, are dangerous. Those using the latest tragedy, eliciting emotionalism to push for another round of gun control (5) — while ignoring the accumulated objective research published in the criminologic or sociologic literature (6) — are not only sensationalizing violence and not lamenting the deaths of the innocents or sympathizing with their families, but attempting to score points, political points at the expense of the victims.

    My heartfelt thoughts and prayers are with the grieving families in Connecticut!


    (1) Faria MA. The Tragedy in Arizona — A Mental Health Challenge Failure.
    » Faria: The Tragedy in Arizona – A Mental Health Challenge Failure! » Commentary -- GOPUSA

    (2) Faria MA. America, guns and freedom: Part II - An international perspective. Surg Neurol Int 2012; 3:135.

    (3) Faria MA. Women, Guns, and the Medical Literature — A Raging Debate. Women and Guns. October 1, 1994. Women, Guns, and the Medical Literature --- A Raging Debate | Hacienda Publishing

    (4) Faria MA. California: Another Lesson About children and Guns. Newsmax. March 12, 2001. California: Another Lesson about Children and Guns

    (5) Newton shootings: Democrats Malloy and Feinstein seek gun controls. BBC, December 16, 2012.

    (6) Faria MA. Public Health and Gun Control: A Review (Part 1: the Benefits of Firearms). Medical Sentinel, April 12 2001. I 'm indebted to the work of Dave Kopel, Don. B. Kates, Edgar Suter, M.D., Timothy Wheeler, M.D., Gary Kleck, PhD., and others. Public Health and Gun Control: A Review (Part I: The Benefits of Firearms) | Hacienda Publishing

    Miguel A. Faria, Jr., M.D. is Clinical Professor of Surgery (Neurosurgery, ret.) and Adjunct Professor of Medical History (ret.) Mercer University School of Medicine. He is an Associate Editor in Chief and World Affairs Editor of Surgical Neurology International (SNI), and an Ex-member of the Injury Research Grant Review Committee of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). 2002-05; Former Editor-in-Chief of the Medical Sentinel (1996-2002), Editor Emeritus, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS); Author, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine (1995); Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine (1997); and Cuba in Revolution — Escape From a Lost Paradise (2002). His website is Featured Articles | Hacienda Publishing.

    » Faria: Mass Shootings and Mental Health – At What Cost? » Commentary -- GOPUSA
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  4. #14
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Liberals hope Supreme Court will restrict concealed carry

    By Mark Sherman December 17, 2012 6:57 am

    Washington (AP) - The next big issue in the national debate over guns — whether people have a right to be armed in public — is moving closer to review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

    A provocative ruling by a panel of federal appeals court judges in Chicago struck down the only statewide ban on carrying concealed weapons, in Illinois. The ruling is somewhat at odds with those of other federal courts that have largely upheld state and local gun laws, including restrictions on concealed weapons, since the Supreme Court's landmark ruling declaring that people have a right to have a gun for self-defence.

    In 2008, the high court voted 5-4 in District of Columbia v. Heller to strike down Washington's ban on handgun ownership and focused mainly on the right to defend one's own home. The court left for another day how broadly the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution may protect gun rights in other settings.

    Legal scholars say the competing appellate rulings mean that day is drawing near for a new high court case on gun rights.

    The appeals court ruling in Chicago came early in a week that ended with the mass shooting in Connecticut that left 28 people dead, including 20 children at an elementary school and the presumed gunman.

    Laurie Levenson, a professor at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that along with thorny legal issues, "we have the overlay of these tragedies hitting us on a somewhat regular basis."

    The author of a book that traces the battle over gun control in the U.S. said he thinks Supreme Court intervention is likely in the short-term. "Since the Heller case, the next great question for the Supreme Court to decide was whether there is a right to carry guns in public," said UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, whose book "Gunfight" was published last year.

    Roughly 40 states make it easy for people to carry a gun in public. But in California, New York and a few other states, local and state regulations make it difficult if not impossible to get a license to carry a weapon. Illinois and Washington, D.C., have been the only places to refuse to allow people to be armed in public.

    "In some of our most populated states, the right does not exist either because it's completely forbidden or practically forbidden," said Alan Gura, the lawyer who won the Heller case at the Supreme Court.

    Gun rights advocates and gun control supporters are as split over the issue of having guns in public as they were over whether the Constitution protected gun ownership at all — and along the same lines.

    Jonathan Lowy, an attorney with the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said, "If law enforcement makes a determination that somebody would increase the danger to the public by carrying a loaded gun on the streets, then that person should not be carrying a loaded gun. Some people in the gun lobby want to tie the hands of law enforcement."

    But Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, the influential gun owners' lobbying group, said, "Clearly, the individual right under the Constitution does not apply only to your home. People have lives outside their home and the constitutional right applies outside their home."

    Sometimes, LaPierre said, "The only thing to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

    Judge Richard Posner of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals employed similar reasoning in his majority opinion striking down the Illinois law. Posner said that threatening confrontations do not only or even principally occur at home. "A Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighbourhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower," the judge said.

    He focused on the distinction between inside the home and on the street in his questioning of another recent appeals court ruling that upheld New York's restrictive law on granting people permits to carry concealed weapons. A unanimous panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said the requirement that people demonstrate a special need to carry a concealed weapon does not violate the Constitution.

    "Our principal reservation about the Second Circuit's analysis is its suggestion that the Second Amendment should have much greater scope inside the home than outside simply because other provisions of the Constitution have been held to make that distinction," including the right to privacy that underlies the high court ruling striking down sodomy laws. "Well of course, the interest in having sex inside one's home is much greater than the interest in having sex on the sidewalk in front of one's home. But the interest in self-protection is as great outside as inside the home," Posner said.

    In dissent, Judge Ann Williams said governments have a strong interest in regulating guns on the street. "It is common sense, as the majority recognizes, that a gun is dangerous to more people when carried outside the home. When firearms are carried outside the home, the safety of a broader range of citizens is at issue. The risk of being injured or killed now extends to strangers, law enforcement personnel, and other private citizens who happen to be in the area," Williams said.

    The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution reads: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    Gura represents the challengers to the New York law and he said he will ask the high court to review the 2nd Circuit ruling. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan has not yet said whether the state will ask the full 7th Circuit court to reconsider its ruling or appeal to the Supreme Court.

    So far, the Supreme Court has turned down appeals asking it to say more about guns. But that reluctance might fade if the court were presented with a split between appeals courts, typically a strong factor in attracting the justices' interest.

    The Second Amendment talks about "the right to keep and bear arms and it's as if some courts want to take a giant eraser to the words 'and bear' and pretend that they're not there," said David Thompson, managing partner of the Cooper and Kirk law firm in Washington. Thompson represented some plaintiffs in the Illinois case.
    Northwestern University law professor Eugene Kontrovich said the difference between the New York and Chicago courts over what it means to bear arms could be enough to persuade the Supreme Court to intervene.

    Winkler, the UCLA professor, said he thinks the Illinois statute would fall if it were put to a test at the Supreme Court, probably by the same 5-4 vote as in Heller. But it is hard to predict how the Supreme Court might rule on restrictions that fall short of an outright ban on the right to carry a loaded weapon in public for self-defence, he said.

    "Public possession is a different issue than having a gun in your home," he said.

    » Liberals hope Supreme Court will restrict concealed carry » News -- GOPUSA
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  5. #15
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Ed Schultz: Confiscate Guns and Kill the Second Amendment

    Kurt Nimmo
    December 17, 2012

    MSNBC liberal blowhard Ed Schultz is calling for the government to confiscate “assault weapons.” He made the comment over the weekend on a tweet.

    “Why should anyone own an assault rifle?” Schultz asked, and then said “it’s the confiscation of these types of weapons that counts and will have an impact.”

    “The NRA needs to state the case why assault weapons are needed by anyone,” he added.

    Ed, like most liberals and other government-lovers, is completely brain-dead when it comes to the Second Amendment. It was added not to ensure the rights of duck hunters and plinkers, but as a last resort to fend off a tyrannical government.

    George Mason, considered one of the founding fathers of the Bill of Rights, said disarming the people is “the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    This is precisely what Ed Schultz and the liberals want to do – disarm the American people. For Schultz and his fellow travelers, a tyrannical government is inconceivable .

    As anybody who understands history realizes, gun confiscation is not about saving children. The Soviet Union and communist China did not confiscate weapons to save children. Hitler did confiscate Germany’s gun to put a stop to school shootings.

    Confiscation is about the government having its way with us. It’s about slavery.

    “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe,” wrote Noah Webster in an 1787 pamphlet published to convince Pennsylvania to ratify the Constitution. “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”

    Over the weekend, the liberal website Daily Kos ran a poll asking if gun confiscation is do-able, revealing that Democrats and other “progressives” are at least thinking about stealing guns from law-abiding Americans (the liberals never take into consideration how many cops will be killed in the process).

    “The progressive community needs to adopt a program of first identifying all guns and equipment with no valid hunting or defense purpose such as assault weapons, high capacity magazines, .50 cal rifles, etc.; second , requiring that these weapons be turned in for appropriate compensation and then destroyed,” Daily Kos explained.

    The idea of firearms compensation fits right into the liberal pathology – stealing money from one segment of society and giving it to another after the government steals something from them.

    Schultz also called for subverting the Constitution to make sure the American people cannot defend themselves against government tyranny.

    “We are the Constitution and we as a people can change whatever we want. Get ready Dude!”

    Fortunately, it is inordinately difficult to amend the Constitution. As stipulated by Article V, the Constitution can be amended by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the state legislatures. It can also be amended through a convention called by two-thirds of state legislatures.

    Currently, there are not enough gun-grabbers in Congress to pull this off.

    Ed’s wish to nullify the Second Amendment is not likely to happen. His wish, however, to confiscate weapons is far more possible, as the gun confiscation beta test in New Orleans in the wake of Hurricane Katrina demonstrated.

    » Ed Schultz: Confiscate Guns and Kill the Second Amendment Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    Similar/Related Articles

    1. Obama Rep. Schultz on The NDAA and Secret Kill List
    2. Foreign Troops Training To Confiscate Guns of Americans
    3. Video: National Guard Helping Confiscate Guns in New York State
    4. Foreign Troops to Confiscate American Guns Under UN Treaty
    5. Oath Keepers Proves That There WERE Troops Who Refused to Confiscate Guns During Katrina
    6. Obama Rep. Debbie Schultz Claims Ignorance on Obama’s Secret Kill List
    7. Will governments confiscate gold?
    8. MSNBC’s Ed Schultz Demands Return to the Fairness Doctrine
    9. State Dept. Nominee Says “Guns Kill Civil Society”
    10. New Government Initiative Would Circumvent Second Amendment By Targeting Ammunition Not Guns
    11. Ed Schultz: Borrow More Money from Bankers to Pay for Welfare
    12. Toronto Cops Confiscate Guns in “Safe-city Initiative”

    This article was posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 at 2:44 pm
    Tags: constitution, domestic news, gun rights, police state

    » Ed Schultz: Confiscate Guns and Kill the Second Amendment Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  6. #16
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Mainstream Media Declares War on 2nd Amendment

    Mainstream media pushes anti-gun agenda, ignores lawful gun owners stopping other mass shootings in the same week.

    Melissa Melton
    December 17, 2012

    When an armed man opened fire on a crowded shopping mall in Oregon last week, 22-year-old Nick Meli pulled out his concealed carry permitted gun, and took cover in a store before taking aim.

    “I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself,” Meli reported of the gunman’s suicide that followed to KGW News Channel 8. Two people died at the hands of the shooter before the man took his own life, but many more could have lost their lives in Oregon that day had Meli not been there.
    Yesterday in San Antonio, Texas, two people were wounded in another movie theater shooting before an off-duty officer took the gunman down, wounding him and effectively ending the murder spree before anyone else could get hurt.

    As with other shootings stopped by lawfully armed citizens, news about these two incidents has been widely limited to local media outlets and seemingly ignored otherwise. Why the mainstream blackout?

    Even though the media has struggled with reporting the actual facts of the Connecticut shooting, all the national news outlets seem to have time to publish are propaganda pieces pushing gun control.

    In Reuters this morning, one headline reads, “In Newtown, an Anguished Debate over Gun Rights, Controls,” and the subhead reads, “Two days after a gunman opened fire in a Connecticut elementary school, killing 26 people, several dozen parents and children gathered in a circle at Newtown’s public library to draw something positive from the town’s sudden, tragic notoriety” (emphasis added).

    CNN’s Don Lemon used his airtime this morning to go on an anti-gun tirade, claiming mental health issues are secondary to gun availability.

    News outlet Salon went to task posting gun control stories and targeting preppers on its site and official Twitter account all weekend, even writing a hit piece on Alex Jones. In “What’s a Prepper?,” Salon’s Katie McDonough notes, “Preppers believe having weapons is just as important as having enough water. They are also deeply suspicious of government overreach, sounding Tea Party-like…”

    The Atlantic‘s Senior Editor Robert Wright offered, “A Gun Control Law that Would Actually Work,” going beyond the assault weapons ban Senator Dianne Feinstein has promised she will introduce during Congress’ first 2013 session. Wright calls for a ban on any gun that can hold more than six bullets. Feinstein is not alone, either; USA Today is reporting “the most prominent pro-gun member of Congress” with an NRA “A” rating Senator Joe Manchin has announced the horrific mass shootings have “changed” him. Manchin is now calling for more control on public firearm purchasing power.

    MSNBC asked, “Is the American Public Ready for Gun Control?” Politico gave us, “The Price of the Second Amendment,” presenting the argument that the lives of the children in Connecticut are what we must pay to have the right to keep and bear arms. The Christian Science Monitor declared, “Madison Never Meant Second Amendment to Allow Guns of Sandy Hook Shooting.”

    Anti-gun op-eds abound. The Huffington Post published, “Gun Control and Mental Health Funding—If Not Now, When?” and “The Real 2nd Amendment Isn’t the NRA Version.” The Washington Post posted, “Now Is the Time for Meaningful Gun Control.” Following an outcry on social media sites this weekend, the Discovery Channel announced its show “American Guns” was also canceled.

    In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy, a White citizen petition for “legislation that limits access to guns” put up the day of the school shooting already garnered over 150,000 signatures in just three days, breaking the record for the most-signed petition on the government’s site. People across the nation have also flocked to gun buyback programs to willingly turn their guns in.

    Even the National Rifle Association has fallen silent on social media sites, reportedly taking down its Facebook page and not responding on Twitter since the shooting.
    As Alex Jones reported on his radio show today, “Here’s the real newsflash folks—they’re coming for our guns. Make no mistake.”

    Although our government is responsible for the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that put guns in Mexican drug cartel hands that have since resulted in thousands of deaths, and Obama’s drone strike kill list is reportedly responsible for the murders of nearly 200 children among thousands of dead innocents in the Middle East, the president somehow found the ability to wipe away fake tears at a press conference following the Connecticut school shooting.

    In the Newtown massacre fallout, an all-out war has been declared on We the People’s right to keep and bear arms.

    The mainstream media has politicized the Connecticut school shooting to the point that using the tragedy to demonize the 2nd Amendment has seemingly become an Olympic event. Where is the supposedly objective media now to report on the other examples of guns in the hands of properly permitted American citizens saving people’s lives?

    Declaring we need stricter gun laws and to repeal the 2nd Amendment is synonymous with saying, “We want criminals and the government to be the only ones armed in America.” Because if our legal arms are stripped from law-abiding citizens, the only people who will have guns will be the government and the criminals.

    The problem is, the line between the two is so blurry, it’s nearly impossible to tell who is who anymore.

    The lessons of history are numerous, clear and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to—and dependence upon—the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose—either piecemeal or in one sweeping act—those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over two hundred years ago.Brian Puckett

    Similar/Related Articles

    1. Enemies of Second Amendment Will Exploit Connecticut Shooting
    2. Mainstream Media Blames Fake OBL Photo Used By Mainstream Media On “Conspiracy Theorists”
    3. Media Declares “Victory” For Gun Rights As Second Amendment Is Systematically Destroyed
    4. Piers Morgan Wants to Eviscerate the 2nd Amendment
    5. The Decline And Fall Of Mainstream Media
    6. NFL Declares War on 2nd Amendment for Obama
    7. Bailout for The Mainstream Media May be Next
    8. Newtown school shooting story already being changed by the media
    9. Mainstream Media is Crushing Public Confidence
    10. Trayvon vs Zimmerman: Mainstream Media Weapon of Mass Distraction
    11. The Mainstream Media’s Denial of Legitimacy
    12. Mainstream Media Refuses to Disclose that “Independent” Pundits Are Actually Lobbyists

    This article was posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 at 1:39 pm

    Tags: constitution, domestic news, gun rights, mainstream media

    » Mainstream Media Declares War on 2nd Amendment Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  7. #17
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  8. #18
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    NRA Running Scared After Sandy Hook Shooting

    Kurt Nimmo
    December 17, 2012

    The National Rifle Association, which has claimed for years to be the preeminent champion of the Second Amendment, shut down its Facebook page following the shooting in Connecticut last week. The NRA has also stopped posting on Twitter.

    Prior to the shooting, the gun rights organization boasted of having 1.7 million likes on Facebook.

    As we noted last week, there was a tsunami of tweets calling for the murder of David Keene, the president of the NRA, following the murders. “Calling for more senseless violence and murder will not bring these shooting victims back to life, neither will enacting stricter gun laws that shooters obviously do not follow when they commit these terrible crimes in the first place anyway,” Melissa Melton wrote for

    The NRA’s social media silence is likely a calculated response to a barrage of anti-gun messages on both Facebook and Twitter. In other words, the NRA apparently believes retreat and silence are preferable to responding to the irrational hysteria of the anti-gun crowd.

    “The Daily Dot noted on Friday that the Facebook page had turned into a hotbed of anti-gun sentiment in the wake of the shooting, which may be what prompted the NRA to take it down,” Will Oremus writes for Slate today.

    “Some have accused the organization of cowardice for taking down the Page and ceasing to tweet,” writes Josh Constine for Techcrunch. “However, this crisis-management strategy may be succeeding. It’s prevented creating a centralized place under the NRA banner where perspectives of its independent supporters could have been taken as its own. The last thing the NRA wants is to be characterized as sharing an extremist or offensive position posted by someone who doesn’t speak for it or the rest of its fans. Other brands and organizations might follow the NRA’s lead by retreating from social media when they face times of crisis.”

    Despite a “war on its wall,” the NRA’s response can only be viewed as unprincipled retreat and surrender to the anti-gun crowd.

    The NRA launched a tepid response to the vitriol of Fox Sports writer Jason Whitlock, who told CNN’s Roland Martin the NRA is comparable to the Ku Klux Klan.

    Instead of using Whitlock’s tirade against the Second Amendment to underscore the viciousness of the anti-gun crowd’s agenda, the NRA issued a polite response.

    “In the future we hope that Whitlock and others educate themselves on the sordid history of gun control, along with the defensive use of firearms during the civil rights era, before making inflammatory comments about an organization that has worked for generations to protect the rights of all people,” the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action blogged on December 6.

    The NRA has demonstrated in the past that it is willing to compromise with enemies of the Second Amendment.

    In 2010, the organization came out in support of HR 5667, the Firearms, Microstamping, Evaluation and Study Act. “Gun control advocates believe microstamping technologies combined with a registration list of guns and their owners would create a rapid identification system for firearms used in crime,” Illinois Gun reported on September 27, 2010.

    The NRA also threw its weight behind the unconstiutiuonal firearms background check system. In 2007, the organization teamed up with notorious gun-grabbers such as Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Sen. Charles Schumer to push through a bill to “fix” the background check system.

    “We’ll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn’t have guns,” NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News.

    “The NRA habitually rubs elbows with other declared gun-grabbers, for instance Chucky Schumer and Pat Leahy,” we noted at the time.

    Instead of running scared from the gun-grabbers and their irrational and emotional supporters, the NRA would do better to confront them head-on. If that response entails hiring an army of people to post principled pro-Second Amendment responses on its Facebook wall, then the NRA should expend the extra effort.

    What are we expected to think when the supposed preeminent gun rights organization backs down at the very moment enemies of the Constitution exploit a national tragedy to empower their effort to ultimately rob Americans of their natural right to self-protection – not only against insane psychopaths but also a tyrannical government?

    Similar/Related Articles

    1. China’s authorities are running scared
    2. Establishment Running Scared of Ron Paul
    3. Heroine of Sandy Hook: Teacher Took Bullets For Children
    4. Audit the Fed: Bernanke and the Bankers Are Running Scared
    5. Alex Jones: Bilderberg Is Running Scared
    6. Empire State Building Shooting: More Fodder for Gun-grabbers
    7. Gun Grabbing Congress Critters Come Out of Woodwork After Giffords Shooting
    8. Trayvon Martin shooting: a turning point in gun rights debate?
    9. Richard Belzer: The Ruling Class is Running Scared
    10. Republicans Running Scared of Ron Paul and Straw Polls
    11. Empire State Building Shooting Wrongly Hyped as ‘Mass Shooting’ by Media
    12. Celebrities Demand Outrageous Gun Laws Following Connecticut Shooting

    This article was posted: Monday, December 17, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Tags: constitution, domestic news, gun rights

    » NRA Running Scared After Sandy Hook Shooting Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  9. #19
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Texas School District Will Let Teachers Carry Guns
    December 17, 2012

    A tiny Texas school district may be the first in the nation to pass a law specifically allowing teachers and staff to pack heat when classes begin later this month.

    Trustees at the Harrold Independent School District approved a district policy change last October so employees can carry concealed firearms to deter and protect against school shootings, provided the gun-toting teachers follow certain requirements.

    Superintendent David Thweatt told the policy was initiated because of safety concerns.

    Read more
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  10. #20
    Senior Member AirborneSapper7's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    South West Florida (Behind friendly lines but still in Occupied Territory)
    Flashback: English Warned Us Not To Hand Over Our Guns......And We Won't!!

    Posted by Michael CHILDS, Admin II on December 17, 2012 at 2:43pm in Patriot Action Alerts

    It’s Godlessness behind these shootings. –The guns did not hop up and kill these children.

    English Warning "Our Gun Ban caused 40% jump in Gun Crime" DONT GIVE UP YOUR GUNS! - YouTube

    Every place where they enacted gun bans and control have had crimes run rampart and the citizens are the ones that pay the price because they are the ones that are left to protect their homes and family's with nothing but harsh words and perhaps a knife or two !

    Obama and his dog Holder need to be recycled back to the Communist regime they got turned lose from.

    People in Australia and England to name just two are telling us that gun control don’t work , and if you remember history Hitler almost concurred all of Europe because the people had given up their guns and could not mount any kind of defense, perhaps that is what Obama is hoping for here in the United States, weaken our economy then get rid of our second amendment , which was written in to our Constitution to protect us from people like Obama who want to concur from within.

    When are the Political going to honor their oaths of office and protect the people and our Constitution and make this once again the land of the free ?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

    Liberals love to blame “things” instead of the criminals because criminals CAN be held accountable and they don’t want to lose voters by putting them in prison! Besides, lawyers can’t sue someone that has no money. They would rather sue the companies that make the “things”!

    The Second Amendment

    The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure your freedom from public and private tyrants by endorsing your God-given right to shoot them in self-defense. Logically, anyone trying to deny you this right is also a tyrant. I oppose them.

    You can bet they are going to do their best to make us turn in our weapons or just take them…. We have our Second Amendment for a reason and that tyrant knows it…. We will not becomes slaves to this government or any government…..

    Everyone knows the guns did not walk into the school and start shooting little tiny children. It was a sick young man, with problems his mother and friends failed to pick up on. The killings at Ft. Hood were not caused by a gun walking in and start shooting to kill innocent people. It was a man with mixed loyalties that decided his loyalties to the religion of his birth, were stronger than to his adopted country. Our border agents were not killed by guns just opening fire on them, they were killed by men that our own government sold those guns to.
    Now our government would rather create more discourse and possible riots by trying to deprive our citizens of their 2nd amendment rights, than admit the truth of these horrible crimes. I pray God will bless this country and intercede so the truth is acknowledged by all, to prevent anymore disagreements and trouble.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~

    I propose two new rules of law. I think we should outlaw any laws or actions derived from imaginary fictional mythological entities or deities. That law should force everyone to take action and responsibility for their person and their own lives keeping their noses out of other peoples business.
    The rule would be
    1. “If YOU did it YOU will pay the consequences for it” and
    2. “There is no fictional entity or other person responsible for your actions or your life.”

    Tags: 2012, 2nd, Amendment, Guns, Killings, Obama, School, shootings

    Flashback: English Warned Us Not To Hand Over Our Guns......And We Won't!! - Patriot Action Network
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts