Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Trayvon Martin and Gun Violence — Setting the Stage for Gun Control in Obama’s Second Term

Brandon Pierce, Contributor
Activist Post

The controversial killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman as a “neighborhood watch patrol” is one of the biggest stories of 2012 so far.  And with his trial upcoming, it will continue to be so.

The incident is a rallying point for those that think that gun control is a necessary evil for the United States and that it is time for the Second Amendment (you know, the one that guarantees that we have the right to bear arms) to be nullified.

Many people believe that President Obama will seek some sort of legislation if he is re-elected to a second term in November that will cripple the ability of the American people to get guns. Or ammo. Many conspiracy theorists believe that Obama might try to make it more difficult to get the bullets than the guns.  By restricting ammunition, the guns that are currently in American’s hands would be rendered harmless and useless. 

The government uses strategies like this all the time.  Consider Internet poker.  The United States was able to stamp out this form of what it calls “gambling” (most poker players contend that poker is a game of skill and not luck) not by outlawing or criminalizing the playing of it online, but by making it illegal for United States banks to process electronic transactions.  So, it’s perfectly legal to play online poker, but you have no way to deposit money.  The same concept is what many fear will be behind gun control.  Stop the bullets, stop the guns.  Simple enough.

The timing of the Trayvon Martin story only spotlights the issue and helps the agenda of those that want to take guns out of people’s hands.  But have you paid attention to the news lately?

The media has bombarded us with violent outbreaks, all involving handguns.  If you thought it seemed like a lot more shootings were taking place, you were right.


Jan. 29, 2012 - 5 shot dead in Birmingham, Alabama
Feb. 22, 2012 - 5 shot dead in Atlanta, Georgia
Feb. 27, 2012 - 3 shot dead, 3 wounded in Cleveland, Ohio
March 8, 2012 - 2 shot dead, 7 wounded in Pittsburgh, PA
April 1, 2012 - 2 shot dead and 12 injured in Miami, Florida
April 2, 2012 - 4 wounded from gunshots in Hattiesburg, MS
April 2, 2012 - 7 shot dead, 3 wounded in Oakland, CA

Pretty staggering statistics for the last four months of 2012.

Consider also 2011, which had its share of shootings as well.  One notable entry is another shooting at Virginia Tech.  What are the odds of two shooting events on one college campus?  Then you have the international incident of the Norway shooter.  Shootings are becoming remarkably common, so common in fact that we often don’t even pay attention now when one hits the news.  Remember Columbine?  School shootings used to be a polarizing, show-stopping event.  Now they are almost commonplace.  But why?  Why now?

The government likes to have reasons for what it does.  The amount of gun-related violence this year alone will give them all the ammunition they need to pursue gun regulation if Obama is re-elected.  With a second-term President with nothing to lose, it may be time for the New World Order to make one of its primary objectives a reality.  Are you ready for the gunless era of America?  It’s just around the corner.

This article first appeared at Common Sense Conspiracy.

You can support this information by voting on Reddit:  http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/sr0l5/trayvon_martin_and_gun_violence_setting_the_stage/


This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


tilting@windbags said...

Just like Agenda 21 is an end-run around property rights, Codex Alimentarius and WHO on food/health freedom, the UN Small Arms Treaty is to the Second Amendment.
Rand Paul vs. Hillary Clinton
Yes, all this gun violence in the news carries a whiff of the false flag, to my nose, anyway!

Anonymous said...

If you dig into these mass murders you'll find that most of the shooters were on some type of psychotic drug particularly anti depressants.Makes many people violent.Same for returning vets who commit violence,it's all the legal drugs they are on.I heard that in some cases if you've been on or are on a psychiatric drug you cannot get a permit to own a gun,so they know all about this. I vote for pharmaceutical control, not gun control.

Anonymous said...

Years ago, when neighborhood watches were created, the neighborhood was patroled by persons within their neighborhood for suspicious activity and the police notified and I believe it was in the days before cell- phones. So George Zimmerman with a cell phone was able to immediately call the police and keep them informed.
So he had no reason to approach Travone unless the carrying of a gun made him feel he could lord it over , what seemed like a stranger in his neighborhood.
It has not been said , how or why as far as I know that Travone was shot- because Zimmerman told him to stop, grabbed him , asked him what he was doing in the neighborhood, told Travone to stop, or whatever else he might have done in approaching Travone. Zimmerman was as much a stranger to Travone as Travone was to Zimmerman, so Travone had a right to be suspicious and defend himself if Zimmerman made any attempt to touch or hold him.
Travone had even more reason and right to defend himself against a stranger , being a stranger in the neighborhood and Zimmerman approaching him equally as a stranger , but not idenifible as a policeman or safety personel.
Zimmerman had no right to kill or approach Travone unless he commited a crime.
Zimmerman deserves prison time.
I am sure the police have overlooked these stand your ground murders because they felt they did not know how to evaluate them as a crime.
Well, this case will be the test case.

Anonymous said...

Over 30,000 deaths a year are caused by gun fire in the US. Compare this to nations with tight gun control, like Austria or Spain, where less than a hundred gun deaths occur (See Nationmaster and Wikipedia).

The 2nd Amendment, per the text, is not absolute, but conditioned on the need, in the absence of a standing army, of local militias for defense not against the government but to protect the community from outside attack.

Since we now have the largest military in history, the condition for the "right to bear arms" no longer exists. When the justification for a right no longer exists, the right becomes a privilege, as it is in all 35 developed nations, none of which is less free than the US but all of which have much lower gun deaths and violent crime.

Against the largest military in history, it is pure illusion to think that armed citizens can somehow fend off the government.

What we need is to understand that US gun policy has led to 350,000 gun deaths since 9/11. We need to give up the fantasy of armed insurrection (against an elected government?) and deal with how to make the US safe. The Heritage Foundation index of free economies shows 9 nations, all with strict gun control, that have freer economies than the US.

Obama will not touch the 2nd Amendment because he knows that it would create an unproductive uproar among the gun zealots and make any other reforms impossible.

It's time to understand that loose gun rules (terrorists can get guns legally; criminals can get guns at gun shows, etc) only lead to mass slaughter of each other. Which nation is safer, Spain (less than 100 gun deaths a yr) or the US, with 30,000? Where you fear for your life, you are not free.

Unless you belong to a well-regulated militia (not the Timothy McVeigh kind) such as the National Guard, you have no right to a gun.
The SC (which has been wrong before) disagrees, but original intent and logic demonstrate that guns rights are no longer needed.

I expect no sympathy for this position, but the logic is airtight and the appeal to empirical evidence from other countries (no less free but much safer) is compelling. I pity those who are so afraid they feel the need to own guns. We will not end governmental tyranny with private arms but with massive non-violent resistance. During the Civil Rights movement, non-violent demonstrators won the battle against armed police and racists. Learn from history.

Anonymous said...

You completely missed Chicago, add on 20 more.

Anonymous said...

Keep in mind that George Soros' Cerberus Group has been buying up US firearms manufacturers (and soaked up $7.4 BILLION as Chrysler-Cerberus). If Soros (or his masters) are wiling to forego the income, they could cease new gun production in a heartbeat. Consider the closures of New England Firearms, Harrington & Richardson, and Marlin plants.

Recall too how US military ammunition procurement and the paucity of powder manufacturing plants (only 2, count them, 2 powder manufacturing plants in the USA) dried up ammunition stores in 2009-2010. Who could have missed the recent ammunition procurement by the domestic police state?

dejayajay said...

If you want to have a truly free society, the only answer is binding (!) Citizens Initiated Referenda at all levels of government, as in Switzerland. There is no other answer. Switzerland, by the way, has mandatory gun OWNERSHIP !!! And a very low crime rate.


In my lifetime, on four occasions, with pistols in hand, I thwarted: A rape murder, two break-ins, and an attempted robbery. In two of those adventures the result was capture of the would be rapist/murderer and the robber's attempt. After reading this article, I think I shall go out and buy a few more weapons. PS: Ben Franklyn said: "When threatened with a loss of freedom for added security, one receives less of the former and none of the latter."

Anonymous said...

Amen! The "legal druggers are the problem in America"... dea... fda... cia & fbi! !

Anonymous said...

Very well said!

Anonymous said...

That sounds supremely intelligent and legalizing drugs also drops crime rates as in Portugal!

Anonymous said...

That George Works scumbag and his Zionist Occupation Government minions are creating all this animosity and much more!!

Anonymous said...

In Mobile Alabama, no less than 20
Parents (Black) attacked a single man (white)simply because he had asked their kids to stop playing basketball in the street so late at night, making a disturbance for him and his neighbors... They attacked him with bricks, steal pipes, metal paint buckets... and I am sure anything else they could get their hands on... He is now in critical condition in the hospital... I would imagine, if the white guy had a gun with him at that time, he would been able to defend himself against those 20 people...Of course, he would have been demonized by the media for protecting himself... But, I would think if he had a gun and simply let it be known he would protect himself with it, he would not have been jumped by all those people... and everyone would have verbally expressed their frustrations rather than face the alternative...

Anonymous said...

We have no right to judge Zimmerman,unless we are setting on the jury listening to the FACTS.Here-say doesn't cut it ?? I might have done the same thing Zimmerman did,but most of the News Media have already convicted him.They have already hung him.

Anonymous said...

How many automoblie deaths in the same period? Don't hear anything about banning cars.

Anonymous said...

Activist Post seems to have some trolls posting. If a man is literally getting his head beat in while being told he is going to die and shoots his attacker. Where is the controversy? Where is the evidence that Zimmerman was the attacker? Anyone that buys into this media insanity needs therapy.

Post a Comment