Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
12-20-2012, 05:32 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-20-2012, 05:38 PM by shortwave.)
#46
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
Regarding 2012 and the end of the world ...For those who follow Clif High and the web bot thing. Clif is scheduled to be on Marc Stevens broadcast tonight Dec 20 and Time Monk Radio tomorrow Dec 21. more info at http://www.halfpasthuman.com/ .


Excerpts from the John Moore broadcast this morning Dec 20:
(John has been covering items that the mainstream media refuses to touch.) Just so everyone knows I put a disclaimer to research this yourself. The callers could be legit or maybe not. The torrent is here at Concen.



John tells a story going around that the shooter's AR 15 was found locked in the trunk.

Caller Jerry from Chicago mentions he heard on RBN that .223 bullets were taken from the wall of the school and yet the rifle was found in the trunk.

Allen in New Hampshire mentions he heard that the parents were not allowed to identify the bodies of their children but could only identify them through pictures. (Can anyone verify or debunk this?)

Steve in Alaska mentions he listened to the 911 audio of the shooting and they said that there are two shadows running by the gym. Steve said there is a video of the shooter being tackled by the police. Steve says that the shooter looked like the shooter that was the shooter in Norway.

John said if anyone captured this video, or any other video of the CT Shooting that was "wiped from the net". John wants a copy of it.


.
"They scare us all with threats of war. So we forget just how bad things are." 'Open Your Eyes' - Lords Of The New Church 1981



Reply
12-20-2012, 06:13 PM,
#47
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
Seems like the more I look into the connections being made between the fathers of the shooters and the LIBOR scandal - looks to me like thats some disinformation going around. A lot of jumping to conclusions without any verified information. Sorcha Faal seems to be the originator of these claims.
"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research"
~William Cooper

DTTNWO!
Reply
12-20-2012, 08:04 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-20-2012, 08:53 PM by CharliePrime.)
#48
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
(12-20-2012, 06:13 PM)SiLVa Wrote: Sorcha Faal seems to be the originator of these claims.

If that is true, the purpose of the LIBOR "connection" is to make Truthseekers look ridiculous.

More interesting will be how they explain this guy who was arrested in the woods wearing camo pants...

http://memoryholeblog.com/2012/12/20/analyzing-the-newtown-narrative-sandy-hooks-disappearing-shooter-suspects/

Think of strange collection of people present in Dealey Plaza at the time of the JFK shooting. All of them were initially explained away. Later interesting connections emerged after researchers dug into their backgrounds.

Oh BTW, the "Sandy Hook" words on the map in the Batman movie seem to be real. I heard it was on the DVD.

Queer coincidence? We'll never know.
Reply
12-28-2012, 01:52 AM, (This post was last modified: 12-28-2012, 01:58 AM by Andrej75.)
#49
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
Who really killed the Connecticut children? Operation Gladio on a New Moon, is the tell...
by Kevin Barrett




When something unbelievably evil happens in one of our schools, like the recent murder of 27 children and teachers at the Newtown School in Connecticut, the media always tells us the same thing: blame the lone nut(s).



But history suggests that many if not most schoolyard massacres, like other large-scale acts of domestic terrorism, have a much more sinister agenda.


Sheriff Pat Sullivan, who ran the Columbine investigation, was arrested last year and convicted of coercing sexual favors from a child in exchange for methamphetamine. His ridiculously short sentence, served in the jail that bears his name, amounted to a slap on the wrist. Rumor has it that Sullivan is part of a pedophile network along the lines of the Finders of Lost Children and the perpetrators of the Franklin Scandal child sex ring.


Some Columbine victims’ family members suspect that Sheriff Sullivan was involved in a “butt rape” incident involving the alleged Columbine shooters. Were those shooters mind-controlled sex-abuse victims?


Rogue intelligence agents and their psychiatrist colleagues have been brainwashing “lone nuts” to commit murder at least since the CIA’s MK-Ultra program achieved its objectives circa 1960.


Why would such “rogue networks” want to send brainwashed Manchurian Candidates into schools to massacre children?



Let’s allow one of the terrorists themselves to answer that question.


Remember Operation Gladio? The Pentagon, through NATO, organized bombings and shootings in the streets of Europe. When one of the terrorists got caught, he explained at his trial: “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple. They were supposed to force these people, the Italian public to turn to the State to ask for greater security.” He later explained the “strategy of tension” to the BBC: “To create tension within the country to promote conservative, reactionary social and political tendencies.”



Google “Brabant massacre” for more gory details.



So the answer to the question, WHY? is really very simple: When you terrorize the population, you open the door for fascist, authoritarian politicians.



Operation Gladio never ended. It’s still happening, right here in America.



Wade Michael Page, the “man with a 9/11 tattoo” blamed for the Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, turned out to be a US Army psy-ops specialist.



The “DC Sniper” – the US Army Special Forces whiz who changed his name to “Muhammad” just in time to go on a shooting spree – was another government-sponsored false-flag operation.


So whenever an event like today’s Connecticut massacre screams out at you from your screen: BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID, you should tell the mainstream media brainwashers to go to hell, then join those of us who are exposing the false flag terrorists and setting the stage for a world in which they will no longer ply their bloody trade

Posted by Juicing and Raw Foods Sunboy

Labels: Conn shooting, False flags, Operation Gladio

http://dailymessenger.blogspot.com/2012/12/who-really-killed-connecticut-children.html

Wolves in sheep's clothing and Internet disinformation
After the Sandy Hook shooting - and all the shootings in recent years being touted by the MSM - all the internet big bugs are all about how psychotropic mind drugs were really the cause and blah blah blah...




What a load of psyop crap...



Like the chemtrail misinformation game, which blames chemtrails on weather manipulation when it really is about keeping the population sick and sickly and a prolonged and sustained attack on the immune system, the mass shooting disinfo and LIMITED HANGOUT play is to get people to NOT see these things as staged military operations - which in fact they really are - but poor kids or people (and they are always white males, btw) on medication. Nothing could be further from the truth.



These are misdirects. Get you looking at the wrong causes for inexplicable events.



Understand this: Every operation and I MEAN EVERY OPERATION, ever put into play has before any executive or lower action taken has already conceived and in play, a lower or outer shell level set of limited hangouts and fictions ready to go by assets of the agencies so involved in said stage action. It's about controlling the thinking of the event, once it is set into motion. Every single play action since World War I has this as its operational foundation and is the backbone of any operation ever to take place. Control the event and BE DAMN SURE YOU CONTROL THE PERCEPTION OF THE EVENT.

To have this kind of control, you need to make sure your field assets – these would be men and women in the so-called truth movement who are given energy, covert support, and radio time – the same script with the same outcomes and perceptions, just slightly skewed to the dialect and spin of their local country and setting as to believable and acceptable to their stupid band of followers who cannot and will not think critically about such things and basically need to be told what to think.

This works because the majority are still just as programmable as the rest of the masses watching MSM TV. They do not employ critical thinking and want to be given their perceptions without obtaining them for themselves. The herd then is the herd now. And always. The intel communities know this and in fact, count on it.



And, right on cue, after each staged mass murder (to destroy the 2nd amendment of the constitution) here come the network shills ALL SINGING THE SAME DAMN SONG.



Purpose of chemtrails: weather manipulation. Truth: population control and sickness.

Mass shootings: prescription drugs. Truth. Patsies shot and left for dead on site by the real shooters, often employed with patsies who have been heavily brainwashed.



And so on.


Always the same shill outlets and players, all singing from the same page of the same script.


Do your own thinking. Look at ALL THE FACTS. COME TO YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS. See the truth of things, rather than be told the truth by others.



Even me.

DB





Posted by Juicing and Raw Foods Sunboy

Labels: alex jones, False flags, LIMITED HANGOUT, sandy hook shooting, what really happened

http://dailymessenger.blogspot.com/2012/12/wolves-in-sheeps-clothing-and-internet.html
"AS WE THINK, SO ARE WE."
quoted from: http://www.uwantson.com/articles/water2009.htm
...
"Fear
By Don Bradley, May 2009
My, how they sell it, package it, use it like a weapon, and shower it over the heads of the masses." ..quoted from: http://dailymessenger.blogspot.com/2009/05/fear.html
Reply
12-28-2012, 02:44 AM,
#50
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
“Everything Popular Is Wrong” - Oscar Wilde
Reply
12-28-2012, 05:45 AM,
#51
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
Celebrities:



GO FUCK YOURSELVES!!!!!
Reply
12-28-2012, 03:01 PM,
#52
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
The hypocrisy of that celebrity anti-gun video is even worse because Sarah Silverman and Chris Rock pay armed guards to carry guns around for them, but they want to disarm poor people who tend to live in high-crime areas and need guns for self-defense.
Reply
12-28-2012, 04:53 PM,
#53
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
After the Journal News published the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in two counties, a blogger, Christopher Fountain published the names and addresses of the people who work for the news agency….





. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and you know you're a gun control hypocrite if...



Reply
12-28-2012, 05:31 PM,
#54
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
(12-28-2012, 04:53 PM)April Wrote: and you know you're a gun control hypocrite if...

Ha! That was pretty good. Who is the guy in this video?
Reply
12-28-2012, 06:07 PM,
#55
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
(12-28-2012, 05:31 PM)CharliePrime Wrote:
(12-28-2012, 04:53 PM)April Wrote: and you know you're a gun control hypocrite if...

Ha! That was pretty good. Who is the guy in this video?

Smile Mr. Colion Noir
Thought you might enjoy that Charlie... he's got an excellent channel! You should have a look..

YOU KNOW YOU'RE A GUN NUT WHEN? Laugh

Here's two more good on topic vids of his...







Reply
12-28-2012, 07:03 PM,
#56
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
Lots of US Citizens with Guns were the reason Japan didn't attempt a land based invasion on American soil in World War II.

I like that line .. you don't see these cowards wanting a challenge. They attack the innocent people to up the kill count to the max.

If you think there are mostly good people that can use guns protect themselves then guns are fine. If we have a disproportionate bunch of medicated up schizophrenic narcissistic psychopaths in the world then maybe guns would just inject more death into the mix.

I notice that there is a lot of plugging of different types of weaponry that does not stand a chance against guns. Swords (Lot of video games, geek shows), Bows and Arrows (Hunger Games, Green Arrow..) and Hand to Hand fighting (MMA, JCVD..) being the biggies. Is this just a way to make us 'feel' like we have a chance against illegal guns?

At the same time we have plenty of the gun culture rammed down our throats gangsters are now cool, 80 of the top selling video games in the US are FPSes and most action movies have at least a few gun deaths in them. Buy a gun, guns are cool has been echoed everywhere. Perhaps the plan has always been to pump drugs and guns into America to get us to kill eachother off then enhance the need for a military police force. Just like they did with black ghettos. The police and military will always be a step or two ahead of the common citizen in terms of force.

Perhaps this is an elaborate multi-step plan to recruit for military fodder where the only people allowed to have guns are police and military folk - making it appealing to be part of the army.

Guns are meant to kill and invoke fear of being killed. I'd prefer if we didn't have to have an arms race with tyranny and criminals but that might be altruistic in the face of reality.

Do you really think the Ewoks would have stood a chance slinging rocks against the Empire?
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
12-28-2012, 07:16 PM,
#57
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
On the John Moore broadcast this morning Dec 28 2012. John heard from his East Coast 'FEMA source' that Palestinian troops will be coming to the the US.

They will be dressed in American Uniforms and have M4 Carbines, state of the art night vision and communications. The purpose of them will be used against American Citizens. John says that 150,000 soldiers would be the equivalent of 5 divisions or an Army Corps.

A caller asked questions about Military threats within the United States. John mentions that the Palestinians will be used along with the Russians and Eastern Europeans and following orders from DHS.

The caller asks what is the biggest threat in the Southwest, John says Mexican and Chinese troops. Caller asks if all this is 6 to 10 months. John responded by saying that he doesn't see the calendar year going without an incident.
"They scare us all with threats of war. So we forget just how bad things are." 'Open Your Eyes' - Lords Of The New Church 1981



Reply
12-28-2012, 09:11 PM,
#58
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
Friday, December 28, 2012
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and SANDY HOOK SHOOTING
The following are screen shots from the summer hit movie, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, which took in over 1 billion dollars in 6 1/2 weeks (there's that timeline again, time between each witch's sabbat.) As can be seen below, this film, which was shot and filmed in 2011, has these maps of Gotham put out in the movie. Look very closely at the bottom of the map and the name of what should be Manhattan island is now SANDY HOOK ISLAND, a definite change from previous batman movie profiles of landscape.

As anyone who knows, in early December 2012, an autistic boy allegedly went crazy and shot 27 people. Do you still believe an autistic child can operate a fully automatic gas operated field assault weapon with one shot, one kill precision in less than ten minutes?

You do?

You are then misinformed and insane. The best shooters in the world cannot perform such a feat. Ask anyone in combat or other situations if they can have a near perfect sniper kill record in ten minutes of almost 30 people all screaming and running from you. Try it with just rabbits...you'd be lucky to get one or two...

And an autistic boy did the shooting? What kind of a lunatic could ever believe an autistic child could do anything? They can barely tie their shoes and very often, have no idea of where they are or how anything is or ever came to be.

And, here is your proof the CIA has, as with other school shootings of the past, created yet another event for idiots to disarm this country. And of course, their shills are all saying it's drugs. Drugs or no drugs, no autistic yet alive could do what they are blaming this PATSY for.

You must understand how these things are done by the agency. They put a patsy or patsies into play, who are very often born into multi-generational families of witches (fact, see SPRINGMEIERS research as a starting place) who are then sacrificied for the OP in play. The real shooters do the shooting, the dead patsy is left to take the blame. No one questions this because the media is controlled by the CIA (read up on operation mockingbird for starters.)

You have to get your mind right. See things as they really are, rather than how you would like them to be. You have to dump your programming and start over again, only looking for the truth of things, to get a real sense of how and why this is the way it is in our time.

We live in a satanically controlled world right now and the beast wants more blood, more death, and more suffering for slake his lust. His people have been placed in every position of power from high to low with every possible angle covered. So, when his shills try to get you to think about these truths you uncover, realize that the best men and women who have brought you the truth were either killed or imprisoned and only the shills remain.

Be careful out there, or you won't see the next thing coming. Because it may come for you.

Posted by Juicing and Raw Foods Sunboy

Labels: autisitc patsy, cia, predictive programming, sandy hook shooting, THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

http://dailymessenger.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-dark-knight-rises-and-sandy-hook.html
"AS WE THINK, SO ARE WE."
quoted from: http://www.uwantson.com/articles/water2009.htm
...
"Fear
By Don Bradley, May 2009
My, how they sell it, package it, use it like a weapon, and shower it over the heads of the masses." ..quoted from: http://dailymessenger.blogspot.com/2009/05/fear.html
Reply
12-28-2012, 10:25 PM, (This post was last modified: 12-28-2012, 11:09 PM by SiLVa.)
#59
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
(12-28-2012, 07:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote: Lots of US Citizens with Guns were the reason Japan didn't attempt a land based invasion on American soil in World War II.
Its hard to determine authenticity but supposedly - Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during WWII said
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."
Exactly why we have the 2nd Amendment.

(12-28-2012, 07:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote: If you think there are mostly good people that can use guns protect themselves then guns are fine. If we have a disproportionate bunch of medicated up schizophrenic narcissistic psychopaths in the world then maybe guns would just inject more death into the mix.

Statistically speaking the former is more accurate. There are far more responsible, non-psychotic, good people in the U.S. with guns. Just looking at the numbers of guns out there and how many people have them in comparison to these shootings. Most of those gun owners are more likely to die in a car accident then to get killed by a gun.

(12-28-2012, 07:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote: I notice that there is a lot of plugging of different types of weaponry that does not stand a chance against guns. Swords (Lot of video games, geek shows), Bows and Arrows (Hunger Games, Green Arrow..) and Hand to Hand fighting (MMA, JCVD..) being the biggies. Is this just a way to make us 'feel' like we have a chance against illegal guns?
All of it is crap. The games are made to be easy, as if taking on a whole military force can be done with an M-16, just as long as you rank up and get all the seemingly cool add-ons to your weapons. Not realistic at all in any of the way that they portray actual combat. Even just shooting in general- its way easier to point and shoot a gun in a video game than it is to hit precise targets in the real world. Inaccurate gun sites, No real recoil, no adrenaline, no battle fatigue, no breath control - shooting for real at moving targets is not easy.

(12-28-2012, 07:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote: At the same time we have plenty of the gun culture rammed down our throats gangsters are now cool, 80 of the top selling video games in the US are FPSes and most action movies have at least a few gun deaths in them. Buy a gun, guns are cool has been echoed everywhere. Perhaps the plan has always been to pump drugs and guns into America to get us to kill eachother off then enhance the need for a military police force. Just like they did with black ghettos. The police and military will always be a step or two ahead of the common citizen in terms of force.

Perhaps this is an elaborate multi-step plan to recruit for military fodder where the only people allowed to have guns are police and military folk - making it appealing to be part of the army.

Yes, I agree. Cops and robbers, Cowboys and Indians, all these things contribute to promote the use of force with guns from an authoritarian viewpoint. They promote that its OK to use guns if you're a cop or in the military. And there are extra perks for cops and military - cops in NJ can own personal guns that I'm not allowed to get, which is straight up bullshit.

One thing I do disagree with tho, "The police and military will always be a step or two ahead of the common citizen in terms of force." The common anti-gun citizen? yes. Common citizen that does a minimum amount of gun training? No way. I see what kinds of targets the police and military are using, how far they shoot at them and what requirements they must meet to pass their skills tests. Believe it or not its pretty minimal. Any amount of training is better than what they get for the most part. I use smaller targets and put them further away- encourages better accuracy and pushes the limits of my long range shooting. Im no marksman but Ive been told by match shooting trainers -legitimate rifle marksmen that my groupings are better than those they see from police and military trainees and Im a total noob compared to most of Americas life long gun owners and hunters. And from what I understand, thats the norm.
So in terms of firepower and resources, the military and police do have the upper hand no doubt but if it ever came down to a real protracted war against the citizens, I think its safe to say that the citizens have it hands down. Just look at how poorly we are doing in the Middle East. And if the war was here I know for a fact a lot of the soldiers would not be fighting for the military. Hubris is the downfall of tyrants and dictators. I may be a little over confidant in my abilities and those of other citizens but I still hope to God it never comes to that. Better to be prepared though, imo.

(12-28-2012, 07:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote: Guns are meant to kill and invoke fear of being killed. I'd prefer if we didn't have to have an arms race with tyranny and criminals but that might be altruistic in the face of reality.
Yes. The reality is tyrants and criminals exist and until those disappear from existance, guns are needed by innocent law abiding citizens to equalize the playing field.

(12-28-2012, 07:03 PM)FastTadpole Wrote: Do you really think the Ewoks would have stood a chance slinging rocks against the Empire?
But you see what I mean? The hubris of the Empire to underestimate them led to their defeat at the hands of the rebels!
Ewoks were the best! I loved those damn furry little monkey bears.
Like Han Solo said, "Well, short help is better than no help at all."
"Listen to everyone, read everything, believe nothing unless you can prove it in your own research"
~William Cooper

DTTNWO!
Reply
12-29-2012, 02:31 AM,
#60
RE: At least 27 dead, including children, in Connecticut school shooting
A well written article from a leftist gun enthusiast.

Quote:Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…

[EDIT: Since this article was published, the Democratic party has officially added support of the assault weapon ban renewal to their party platform and Senator Feinstein has vowed to introduce it again in the upcoming session, hoping the Newtown massacre will help it push through. This bill WILL be debated and voted on, and I hope you can learn something about it here.]

Between Two Worlds

It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right’s oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It’s exhausting to always feel like I’m apologizing for the other “side”.

This article takes a point of view, but aims to do so in a way that members of both sides of the political spectrum can understand. I’ll try to give some idea as to why we on the political left roll our eyes at the rhetoric of the NRA, and how we in the “gun culture” can possibly defend something called “assault weapons”.

We all know the cycle by now: Tragic incident occurs, both sides attempt to use it for their political gain, both sides act shocked that the other would attempt to use it for political gain, insults are flung, statistics are cherry-picked, rinse, repeat.

I began writing this some time after the Aurora massacre, but it was just this morning that news started coming in of the mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. I knew the wave of cries for a renewal of the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans hadn’t yet faded from Aurora, and that they would be reinforced by this next event, regardless of how relevant either of the topics were to the incident.

So in order to get around to why the assault weapons ban was an utter and absolute failure in its attempt to deter violent crime, I have to start with mass shootings.

Misleading Vividness

I’m just going to submit this uncomfortable truth to both camps up front, with the vain hope that it will not sound callous:

Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the “logical fallacy of misleading vividness”.

The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they’re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport.

This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.

However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at how things are in the world of guns and how they got to be that way.

Obama & the NRA: Frenemies of the State

It is a running joke in gun-interest circles that Obama is the “gun salesman of the year”[1]. From the moment he won the Democratic nomination, gun sales in the US surged dramatically. If the joke were more honest, he might be called “gun salesman of the decade”. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the economic impact of the firearm industry grew more than 50% (from $19 billion to $31 billion) between 2008 and 2011[2] In 2010, a record was set for the number of background checks filed for firearm purchases. That record was broken again in 2011.

All of this was largely the result of a campaign by gun rights advocates like the NRA to convince the country that Obama would be a gun control activist. To be sure, their concerns weren’t entirely baseless. In a 2004 NPR interview, then-senator Obama clearly stated that he not only supported the Federal Assault Weapons ban, but that he would “continue to support a ban on concealed carry laws” altogether.[3] The administration reaffirmed its support of the assault weapons ban in 2009.[4]

But, lacking political capital, Obama made no such push for gun control legislation. In fact, quite the opposite. During his first term he signed laws making it legal for people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks and in their checked luggage on Amtrak trains, provided they met their state’s requirements to do so. As a result, the Brady Campaign, the leading gun control lobbying group, gave Obama an “F” rating. When the administration was asked about how it would respond to the Aurora shooting, the first words out of spokesman Jay Carney’s mouth were, “We plan to uphold the second amendment.” When the Sikh shooting happened, his press conference informed people that the President “will continue to instruct his administration to take action towards common-sense measures that protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens but make it harder and harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law to obtain them”.

Despite this conspicuously moderate viewpoint, the NRA continues to stoke the flames of fear, promising that once Obama is reelected to a second term, he’ll have no reason to hold back on the gun control legislation he’s been wanting to implement since 2004. In fact, at a recent CPAC conference in Florida, NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre went so far as to suggest, without offering any evidence, that Obama’s failure to act on gun control has been a “massive Obama conspiracy” to postpone his attack on the second amendment until his second term.[5] While I appreciate the NRA’s vigilance on an issue I feel strongly about, I can’t help but think that it is rants like this that make much of the populace totally unable to identify with the organization.

Meanwhile, the Aurora shooting, like all shootings, has revived the cries for gun control from the political Left. At a loss for somewhere to direct their grief, outrage and sense of justice after such a senseless tragedy, they are again calling for renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. If a second Obama administration will have the political capital to promote any gun control legislation at all, it will be the renewal of this ban. It will therefore benefit anyone interested in gun politics to review what the assault weapons ban was, what it was not, and how it affected (or failed to affect) the nation.

Creating the Category or How Do I Look?

The most important question, of course, is: “What exactly is an assault weapon?”

The term was specifically designed to conjure images of military machine guns, but for those totally unfamiliar with firearms, it should be made clear that automatic weapons (those that fire more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger) are already illegal for the average citizen to own. They are heavily regulated by the federal government, registered with the ATF and very difficult to obtain licenses for. Almost no crime is ever committed with them.

So in 1994, legislators were forced to ask themselves, “What exactly will this ban do away with?” The category of “assault weapon” didn’t actually exist, and this was an opportunity for gun control advocates to create it, to say exactly what they wanted off the streets.

As it turns out, they were mostly opposed to things they saw in movies. Which is to say that most of the features that now defined “assault weapons” had to do with form and not function, totally sidestepping the issue of violent crime altogether. Three quick examples:

1) Stock Manipulation

This is the Ruger 10/22. It has been in production since 1964 and is one of the most popular rifles in the country.

It is an ideal first rifle, small and manageable, which is why my parents bought one for me in my mid teens. It is well-made, inexpensive and easy to maintain. Its small caliber (.22) means that it is cheap to shoot and has almost no recoil. It can be used for very small game hunting (foxes, rabbits, etc) or varmint control, but is generally a sport (target shooting) gun.

What you see is also an assault weapon.

Not because of anything it actually does, but because of the stock. You might be able to tell that it is hinged, allowing it to fold up against the rest of the gun. This was one feature of an “assault weapon”, according to the new law. Another was the grip, which is vertical like a pistol rather than horizontal. A non-”assault” Ruger 10/22 looks like this:

There is not a single difference in the functioning of these two firearms. All the moving parts that make up the actual firing mechanisms are identical. The diminutive size of the ammunition means that it isn’t even recommended for self defense purposes. But the ban was far more concerned with the way guns looked than their ability to actually assault anything.

2) Suppressing

Can you tell the difference between these two guns?

The gun on the bottom has a slightly longer barrel, which is threaded to allow a suppressor or other accessory to screw on. This too was now illegal. Suppressors are usually called “silencers” by the general public, though they do no such thing. (That little *ptew* sound you hear in the movies whenever a gun with a “silencer” is fired? It was dreamed up entirely by the film industry.)

As an acquaintance of mine wrote:

In the early 20th century, before guns lost social acceptability and marksmanship was publicly encouraged, people with enough space were known to practice in their back yards. No one wants to annoy their neighbor with fussilades of afternoon gunfire, so the Maxim Silencer found success being marketed as a relatively inoffensive and civilized way to increase shooting proficiency.

In addition to being polite, home defense uses also prevent the temporary and permanent loss of hearing that is sure to occur when firing a pistol indoors, while also reducing recoil and eliminating muzzle flash, which can be temporarily blinding or disorienting.

Modern criminals have never really used suppressors, and its hard to understand where the gun control crowd were getting their ideas about the world if not from bad movies. Did they really think that assassins were creeping around executing people with suppressed pistols? Surely not. Nonetheless, one of the pistols you see above is an “assault weapon”, while the other is not.

3) Shrouds
As it turns out, even the most vociferous and high-ranking gun control advocates didn’t actually know what was being legislated. After the Virginia Tech massacre, Democratic House representative Carolyn McCarthy went on MSNBC to explain why she had introduced legislation even more extensive than the elapsed Federal Assault Weapons Ban. After some discussion, Tucker Carlson picked a banned feature from the list – a barrel shroud – and asked her to explain what it was and why it should be regulated.

For those interested, a barrel shroud is simply a metal cover that prevents the operator of a firearm from burning their hands on a hot barrel.

It would have been interesting to me if Carlson had explained the barrel shroud, and then asked again how cooler barrels contributed to violent crime. It is hard to imagine what her response could possibly have been. But it looks mean, and this was apparently what mattered to whoever actually wrote the legislation.

These are some examples of what the ban in question covered. Perhaps most tellingly, semi-automatic (legal) versions of automatic firearms were banned just because they looked like illegal guns.

When the category of “assault weapon” had finally been conjured into being, all of its included firearms together accounted for less than 2% of violent crime.[6] None of them had any more functionality than a hunting rifle. It couldn’t have been clearer that this was a war founded on image rather than reality.

The foreshadowing of just how much it wouldn’t accomplish was clear. Years later, a study of the ban’s effectiveness by the National Institute of Justice seemed to scratch its head out loud that “[a]lthough the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these weapons posed a threat to public safety…”

There was only one banned feature that had anything to do with practical function.

“High Capacity” Magazines

The ban on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” was the most far reaching aspect of the legislation, as it applied to magazines for all guns, not just guns that were illegal due to other cosmetic features. Again, the question became: “What exactly is a high capacity magazine?” No such thing had been defined, and an arbitrary number of rounds would have to be selected.

Legislators settled on the number 10 for rifles and pistols, while 5 shells would be the maximum for a shotgun.

The strongest focus by gun control advocates in the wake of various shootings has been a return to these limits on magazine size.[7] (During Carol McCarthy’s question-avoidance in the above video, notice that her stump speech is an assertion of the importance of banning high capacity magazines. This has been duplicated on countless news and talk programs, blogs and websites, especially those that lean politically to the Left[8].) The idea is that if mass shooters have larger magazines, they will be able to kill more people before police or an armed citizen can intervene.

Keeping in mind the statistical rarity and relatively tiny death toll of mass shootings to begin with, is this true? Will high capacity bans lower the number of people killed in mass shootings? All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre.

With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn’t need any massive magazines or custom weapons. The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can’t lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized.

Of course, most semiautomatic pistols hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In preparation for this article I asked a gun dealer to guess what percentage of new pistols came standard with magazines of more than 10 round capacity. His estimate was 70-75%, and he took model after model out of the display case to illustrate. The most popular (best selling) handgun in the world, the Glock 17, holds 17 rounds of 9mm ammunition. In fact, after looking at all available Glock models, I found that less than half them even had magazines smaller than 10 rounds available at all.

This is the model I own, a Ruger P95. It’s a standard sized pistol, small enough for me to regularly carry concealed. It was made to hold 16 rounds, more than either of the standard-sized magazines used by Cho.

My point here is that “high capacity” magazines are not some specialty aftermarket part that criminals obtain shadily over the internet. They were defined arbitrarily into existence, and before the ban were considered standard production to give consumers a decent product. (If you’ve made the decision to be an armed citizen to defend your self, home or family to begin with, why would you want less capacity than you could practically fit into one mag?)

Bottom line: Whether you have two magazines that hold 15 rounds or three mags that hold 10 rounds, you’ll be able to shoot all 30 bullets in less than 45 seconds. This fact, combined with the statistical rarity and low death rate of mass shootings and the statistical prominence of guns used in self defense (2 million times every year) make it difficult for me to justify the criminalization of what has, throughout American history, been considered a perfectly normal capacity – that is, however many rounds fit comfortably inside the firearm.

Remember, the only sensible reason for a capacity ban of any kind is the specific class of crime whose degree of success depends on the 5-10 second difference between having to reload and not having to reload. Mass shootings, it turns out, are the only time this is the case, and only to an incredibly slight degree, as demonstrated by Cho. I have already discussed why I do not believe that mass shootings should guide our policy to begin with.

And yet, I can almost hear the voices I have heard before, asking whether it is realistic to think that people actually defend their homes with “assault rifles” that have “high capacity” magazines…

Grandfathering

This ban presented gun control legislators with another huge problem, which can’t be overstated.

There were about 1.5 million of these “assault weapons” already owned by Americans, and far more high-capacity magazines. In order to actually ban them, the government had to do one of two things:

1) Turn many thousands of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight, even though the guns were legal at the time of purchase or receipt.

2) Demand that the whole country surrender 1.5 million guns and millions of magazines.

Both options were practically and politically impossible, especially the latter. Images of the federal government confiscating and destroying the firearms of veterans, families and law-abiding Americans would not sell to most of the nation, and in some areas, might result in open revolt or civil unrest. It would also ignore a fundamental flaw with gun control legislation in general – that people willing to abide by laws aren’t the ones we should be concerned about.

The predicament resulted in what is generally referred to as the “grandfather clause”. It essentially meant that all “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines manufactured before the ban remained legal to own, sell and use.

To reiterate, millions of these banned firearms and high capacity magazines were legal to own and sell during the ban.

This meant that prices for these firearms and magazines shot up along with demand. Manufacturers had churned out as many soon-to-be-banned items as they could before it went into effect, then sold them at nearly twice what they had originally cost. Individual dealers who had already stocked up made small fortunes. You might even say that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was the gun salesman of that particular decade.

10 Years Later

When the ban expired in 2004, everyone was anxious to study the results. Had it reduced crime?

How could it have?

The National Institute of Justice found that the ban hadn’t reduced gun crime or crime involving “high capacity” magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were “likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” It then added: “Assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”[9]

The Center for Disease Control released a study of gun control legislation, including the assault weapons ban and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[10]

The National Research Council noted that all of the studies they had looked at “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small…”[11]

Slippery Slope

If there was ever a single quotation that summarized the fears of the gun rights crowd surrounding the “assault weapon” ban, it is this one:

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
– Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994

As we have seen, the battles of gun control have been fought, won and lost with definitions. Categories are created, connotations ascribed with the stroke of a pen. The Brady Campaign, the strongest advocate for these bans, has taken this particular work one step farther since Aurora. They have now redefined “mass shootings” to include all drive-bys involving a shot fired toward three or more people, regardless of whether anyone was even actually hurt, leading them to assert that there are “20 mass shootings every year”. People who follow the news with some regularity may sense that there is something wrong with this statement, but this sort of redefinition does influence many people who don’t have the time or will to investigate such a claim.

It is intentional deceptions like this that have peaceful, gun-loving folks like myself looking over our political shoulders all the time. Add to this the fact that the Brady Campaign strategically changed its name from the more honest designation of “Handgun Control, Inc”, and perhaps it’s easier for the Left to understand why those of us who believe in the importance of ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights (including firearm ownership) are worried about the progressive nature of these bills.

With intentionally dishonest lobbying groups pushing already-failed legislation while calling it a “stepping stone”, we can see the slippery slope right in front of our feet.

Summary
If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” ban, they MUST address these questions:
- Why ban cosmetic features?
- Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
- Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
- Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
- How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?
- How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban’s expiration?

And most importantly:

After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/why-not-renew-the-assault-weapons-ban-well-ill-tell-you/
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  world-disgrace-gaza-un-shelter-school-israel Frank2 19 1,303 08-05-2014, 12:00 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Who Was John Wheeler? CFR, MITRE Corp.; More than a dead body lacyv 0 1,545 01-04-2011, 08:28 AM
Last Post: lacyv
  Has Osama Bin Laden been dead for seven years - and are the U.S. and Britain covering it up to continue war on terror? TriWooOx 0 727 09-12-2009, 09:51 AM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  War Criminals, Including Their Lawyers, Must Be Prosecuted mexika 0 563 02-22-2009, 03:27 AM
Last Post: mexika
  Terrorism: 7/7 bombers got Children in Need money TriWooOx 2 1,073 08-24-2008, 04:52 AM
Last Post: nataraja
  Harvest Moon Dead Exercise V13 2 548 10-08-2007, 01:52 AM
Last Post: GeneralSpecific
  Bush Administration Prays For More Dead Americans qqqqqq 0 384 07-14-2007, 01:20 AM
Last Post: qqqqqq
  Britannia Key In 9/11, Christian Leaders, Bushes & Flight School MC David 0 487 05-22-2007, 04:04 AM
Last Post: MC David
  Beslan School Siege Inquiry ‘a Cover-up’ pizzaman777 0 444 02-12-2007, 01:36 AM
Last Post: pizzaman777

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)