Utterly ridiculous, but sadly predictable. Now Jeh Johnson is saying gun control is a matter of homeland (national) security and something has to be done that doesn’t infringe on the 2nd amendment *AS INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT. We could ask Scalia what he thinks about that, but he’s dead. Others are calling for a complete repeal of the 2nd Amendment, while still others are calling for everyone who buys a gun to have to go to a doctor to be declared mentally fit.
All that on top of a renewed push for the “no-fly no-buy” loophole legislation, which, considering the guy supposedly worked for a top DHS contractor, he was vetted more than most people to buy guns by the very agency that claims it is securing the homeland! So tell me again… how would the “no fly no buy” list have magically prevented Orlando? Answer: it wouldn’t have.
Visit Melissa Dykes’ website TruthstreamMedia.com, Subscribe on YouTube, Like on Facebook, Follow on Twitter.
Everyone should realize that this was planned for a very long time so that when the SHTF we won’t come to the banking cartels’ doorsteps armed.
The current regime of the Usurped States has had more ‘mass’ shooting on his watch than any U.S. potus in history.
He wants our guns – so they will be the only gun owners.
Never submit.
Funny how they all started right after the passage of the Smith Mundt Modernization Act of 2012 huh? Must be coincidence
Please ‘splain to Lucy….
Idiotic response! However very typical of an ignoramus.
What’s your view if you don’t mind I ask. I’m not a huge fan of guns but the person is correct about mass shootings, and it seems quite obvious to myself and many, many others that tptb have been making an increasingly intense push to disarm the citizenry- while, at the same time, civil rights are being dismantled, police forces are being heavily militarized as well as most if not all federal agencies buying large quantities of guns and ammunition for unclear purposes. So I’m wondering what makes him an ignoramus, exactly.
The ignoramus part is related to his misunderstanding of the American Republic. The people control the government, not by guns, but by the ballot box. If the people are too foolish to vent their distrust of government at the ballot box, then they deserve what they get! Everyone complains about Obama, but elected him twice. Everyone knows GW Bush was an incompetent fool but elected him twice. That is not the leaders’ fault, but the peoples. No amount of guns can cure that built in stupidity.
Gilens and Page. You might want to start there when you’re ready to learn how govt really works.
Just a little interesting info from Mother Jones not really known for it’s Christian or conservative views.
When all incidents where four or more people were shot in a single event are broken out by president going back to Reagan (considering the database only stretches back to 1982), there just so happens to have been a startling increase in mass shootings since Obama, the most pro-gun control president America has had in modern history, took office.
Mass Shootings under the Last Five Presidents
Ronald Reagan: 1981-1989 (8 years) 11 mass shootings
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
George H. W. Bush: 1989-1993 (4 years) 12 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 3
Bill Clinton: 1993-2001 (8 years) 23 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 4
George W. Bush: 2001-2009 (8 years) 20 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 5
Barrack H. Obama: 2009-2016 (in 8th year) 166 mass murders
Incidents with 8 or more deaths = 20
Obviously this isn’t so easily simplified as more guns in the hands of more crazy people, the way the media likes to spin it. We have more gun laws now than ever before. Less types of guns are legally available to the average citizen than ever before. We also have more “gun-free zones,” zones where, just by the way, most of these shootings happen (because mass shooters do not follow laws or care about zones, obviously). So that’s not it.
Notice anything here? We’re talking about a more than six-fold increase from the number of mass shootings in the eight years Bush Jr. was president compared to the last seven years under Obama, and his 2nd term isn’t even up yet! Not to mention that six out of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in American history have happened not just since Barack Obama became president, but just under his first term as president alone. That’s half.
What is going on here?
Obviously this isn’t so easily simplified as more guns in the hands of more crazy people, the way the media likes to spin it. We have more gun laws now than ever before. Less types of guns are legally available to the average citizen than ever before. We also have more “gun-free zones,” zones where, just by the way, most of these shootings happen (because mass shooters do not follow laws or care about zones, obviously). So that’s not it. Shocking right?
What’s the key ingredient? None of the other presidents had legalized propaganda used against the US population. These incidents kicked off right after the end of the legislative sessions of 2012 w/the passage of the Smith Mundt Modernization Act. Check it out. It has NO place in a free society. It is one piece of legislation that is most often overlooked by the truth community.
***** …. As in, most of the shootings under Obama should have an asterisk next to it seeing as how they appear to be engineered events- whether outright hoaxes or perpetrated by elements within or associated with the govt. Making the official numbers dubious. I also love how they took a break from the staged shooting event business until the presidential nominees were all but confirmed.
Hegelian bullshit and the dumbasses are lapping it up. Whenever the gov tells you that you don’t need something, better get 2.
people are worried about guns, I’d say if you don’t have ammo you best be stocking up. THATS our achilles heel. Odumbo shut down the last lead smelting plant and all our lead is IMPORTED. With so many countries already refusing the dollar, you’d better believe that the supply could be bought up in a NY minute.
Nailed it.
For a moment that we “enjoyed safety” as prescribed by those who know what is best for us – you know – those who care about you and your safety, but you don’t have diddly squat concern about theirs.
Just suppose the 2A was repealed for unquestionable reasons as “for the common good” / ” for your safety” etc etc ad-nauseam:
(1) How many of the bad and the mad would so meekly comply?
(2) Would the result of such total bans equate to less, or the same, or greater negative outcomes as total bans that has created the illegal drug industry and organised crime?
Let’s suppose for a moment that the good, the mad and the mad did comply.
I presume then that USA would take the lead and completely dismantle it’s defence industries and defence forces. No soldiers, no ships, no planes, no bombs, no rockets and all the other things that “peace loving governments” want.
I presume that as the same principles apply equally, then wars will cease forever?
Yes – that makes sense. It all makes sense …………….. to the likes of Obama, Hillary and the rest of that mob.
yes that is what is going on in every country, they are allowing these evil monsters into every country to under mind your lives It is all planned by the Evil Scum who rules this planet by Fear and wars they create. WAKE UP, WAKE UP, WAKE UP And stop allowing yourselves to be treated like sheep. Their plan is working and next they will aske you to totally give up your God given freedom. you watch.
In 1938, the country went mad over a fictional radio program about martians invading earth. War of the Worlds, the ultimate propaganda beta test, and it passed despite the ludicrous nature of the content, so the die was cast (enter OK City, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, 9/11, Operation Galdio, Operation Northwoods, etc, etc) all either proven to never have happened or perpetrated by THE GOVT itself. SO, how many people, in light of these and Iran Contra, Fastn Furious, Benghazi, IRS scandal, etc, etc are willing to believe a word that comes out of these criminals mouths? Too many IMO. Thats ok, they’ll thank us later for remaining clear headed because like they say, those who do not know their history are doomed to repeat it.
It really comes down to this: In order to take guns away from people, whether they have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms or they just happen to have them, you have to go up against people who have the means to shoot back. It’s obviously in the best interests of “Takers” that you lack the wherewithal to resist, so it makes sense that “Takers” will convince you that you don’t need the wherewithal to resist.
Consider:
“They” have come for your right to educate your children intelligently.
“They” have come for your right to grow your own nutritious food.
“They” have come for your right to self-medicate.
“They” have come for your land and your water, for the very hours of your life and labor.
“They” have come for your family.
“They” have come for your right to travel, your desire for privacy, for your right to free speech, free assembly, they’ve diluted your ability to address or reach out to “Them” in any meaningful way, to tell “Them” to STOP DOING THESE THINGS TO US. Stating your objections is now tantamount to “terrorism,” and we now have an ongoing War Against Terrorism (no end in sight, suspects can be rounded up and incarcerated “till the end of hostilities” without habeas corpus or legal representation, per the NDAA).
But you cannot reach “Them” by throwing intelligence at them. You can’t hurt “Them” by starting a food fight or flinging herbs and supplements at “Them”, you can’t reach “Them” through petition or voting in a notoriously rigged system. You can’t expect “Them” to simply go away by shutting off your media access, or by living without required permits and not paying your taxes, because “They” can and will ultimately come after you with…guns. All of their laws and rulings, right down to parking violations, truancy, and broccoli planting in your front yard tulip garden are enforced by threat of superior firepower. Lethal weaponry and ammo, pointed in your face if you defy “Them.” The person who comes to your door with a court order will carry a gun, the cop who stops you for a tail-light infraction or jay-walking carries a gun, the “authorities” all either carry guns or threaten you with calling in people who carry guns.
There is only one sensible response to anyone who puts a gun in your face. It’s not prayer, it’s not reasoned argument, it’s not voting for a different party, it’s not flashing a copy of your constitutional rights.
The sensible response is either submission, or armed defense. That is your choice, that is the choice you are presented with, that is the position you’ve been placed in. Submit, or present equal force. Your choice.
And we’ve been told, are being told continually, “Fighting is not the answer.” Really? In a nation which spends half its tax money on military might and blows up hungry water-starved villages all over the world, fighting is not the answer? Correct. Voting and discussion and prayer are the answer. Petition. Peaceful assemblage. Submission to the rule of law till better laws can be found and agreed upon. Join in community discussions.
Right. Personally, I don’t think so. I think our nation tried all that stuff before we became a nation, and it all failed. So we tried plan G(uns), and then we wrote it into the Constitution of the United States. The People shall have, uninfringed, the right to keep and bear arms. So no one can put a weapon in our face and order us to pay usurious taxes, to not grow organic cauliflower in our tulip beds, or make our daughters sign up for the draft (the NDAA now requires this, along with permission to jail people with suspected ties to suspected terrorists till the end of hostilities, without legal representation).
I think I’ll keep my guns, thanks for thinking about this, and me. Think about this: millions upon millions of Americans, owning weapons, is all that keeps us from becoming a gun-fearing, gun-driven totalitarian police state. You don’t even have to shoot anyone who comes knocking, threatening to take more of your rights away. Just owning a gun helps secure our rights. Because “They” know some indeterminate percentage of us might get pissed off. And so far that percentage is still a large one.
I don’t know why this comment was roundly ignored but that’s a pretty powerful statement there as well as being eloquently said and logically sound. I may have a slightly different take on parts but I
Now Mr. Average don’t be sarcastic. I’m just pointing out to you that there is always a way without using guns, without shedding blood, without breaking ties. That’s all.
“We tried that before”? There are always two sides to every story. Before the US became a country it was an assemblage of 13 British colonies. These colonies were managed by various governors sent from the Old Country to the new together with cohorts of military to protect them from possible enemies. Unfortunately for all parties concerned, the British national government was having structural problems with an increasingly incompetent King, George III. He was finally deposed due to mental instability and his attempt to govern while mentally unstable allowed the British Parliament to reduce all Monarchs’ rights with respect to national governance. It was a boon for British democracy but at the same time it resulted in the War of Independence. After the war was decided in the former colonists’s favour, many former colonists moved North to the area where Canada sits today because they believed in British law and the strength of the British Parliamentary system of governance. Britain was not an evil usurper but it was hamfisted in its colonial governance. Approximately 80 years later, the nation of Canada was born from the same parent that the US was wrested from but this time without bloodshed and without rancour. In fact, if you remember what happened in the War of 1812, the US believing that everyone felt the way the original colonists felt about Britain, attacked the British colonies north of the Great Lakes. They were profoundly repulsed by those Northern colonists and unfortunately even the White House was burned to the ground to make the point that they weren’t interested in becoming “free”. So you see the myth of independence is not the whole story!
Thanks for the Canadian history lesson from 1812-14, in which your half million colonials were somehow involved in burning down the US capitol, Archie. Most Americans thought it was the British army and navy who were responsible for that.
My comment: “We tried that before,” referred to events which took place around 40 years previous. At that time King George was ignoring the many petitions of his American subjects, taxing them heavily without representation, forbidding free trade, housing armed troops in American homes, and trying to disarm colonial opposition at gunpoint. Some of us didn’t like this and weren’t willing to wait 80 years for more just laws to prevail.
You conclude: “…the myth of independence is not the whole story!”
Well, perhaps not, if you want to bring Canadian border history from four decades after the Declaration of Independence into it. You patient northern folks seem to have done of a marvelous job of handling your politely won freedoms, since. (For example, I understand you have quite the political brouhaha going on over gun ownership and registration these past several decades.)
Which was, in fact, the topic of discussion, Archie, in case you lost sight of it: The right of the people to keep and bear arms, which was in fact the final spark which set off the American Revolution. You say: “After the war was decided in the former colonists’s favour…,” as though there were a panel of judges presiding over a sports event. Um, yeah, if you want to bring more history into it, the event was Yorktown, VA, 1781, and the judges were Generals Washington, Rochambeau, and Lord Cornwallis. Cornwallis had the deciding vote. He surrendered. At gunpoint.