Skip to content

Tag: gun control

The Second Amendment Has No Exceptions

Laurence Vance comments on bump stocks and a free society. Among other things, he writes:

The Constitution nowhere gives the federal government the authority to have anything to do with the regulation, registration, licensing, or control of firearms, ammunition, magazines, or accessories.

The Second Amendment (“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.”) has no exceptions. This means that on the federal level, all laws of any kind concerning firearms, ammunition, magazines, accessories, background checks, gun shows, gun manufacturing, gun sales, and gun dealers are illegitimate.

The right to own a bump stock is essential to a free society. It is what you do with the bump stock that is the issue.

A gun can be used for good or ill. And so can most anything else. A knife can be used to cut up a chicken or to stab someone. A hammer can be used to frame a house or to crack someone’s skull open. A needle can be used to administer an IV or to shoot up with heroin. A baseball bat can be used to hit a homerun or to bash someone’s brains in. A saw can be used to trim a tree or to dispose of a dead body. A shovel can be used to plant a garden or to bury a murder victim. A can of spray paint can be used to restore an object’s appearance or to deface a building with anti-Semitic graffiti. An ink pen can be used to write a letter or to poke someone’s eye out. A key can be used to open a car or to scratch a car. A pillow can be used to sleep on or to smother someone.

New Zealand Going More Fascist in Shooting Aftermath

According to Zero Hedge, New Zealand authorities are now threatening to jail people for “possessing” or downloading or distributing the mosque shooting livestream video. So, given that the video the shooter himself allegedly livestreamed during the alleged attack is evidence, the gubmint in New Zealand is intentionally encouraging people to suppress, hide or cover up the video evidence, and threatening people if they don’t oblige the rulers in the cover-up mandate. Should this be considered obstruction of justice?

Additionally, the NZ Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, wants to put even more and stricter gun control laws on the books. Hey, Jacinda, criminals don’t obey the law, so they will still get their guns. And if they can’t get their guns and if they are intent on killing innocent people they will stab them or drive vehicles into them, such as in France when a psychopath drove a truck into crowds and killed 84 people. (Should we ban cars and trucks and vans?) A further example is Connecticut with the strictest gun control laws, at the time of the Sandy Hook School shooting was the 5th strictest gun-controlled state. But that didn’t stop Adam Lanza from shooting and murdering 25 or 30 innocent people, most of them children.

So, as the rulers of these “democracies” including the U.S. become more hysterical every time there’s a shooting, they and their hysterical supporters continue to turn to more police-state restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms (as these government bureaucrats themselves continue to arm themselves to the teeth), and more police-state restrictions on the right of the people to the freedom of speech and their right to disseminate information.

Government censorship and gun-grabbing does not turn out well for the people. We know that from history.

Some Misc. Items

So this is quite a not good day for me and I will just post some comments and some links. The New Zealand mosque mass shooting. I heard the U.S. ambassador to New Zealand, former Sen. Scott Brown on various radio shows and I didn’t hear him make the point that if someone in the mosque had been armed he or she could have saved many lives by disabling the shooter. I didn’t hear Brown point out that criminals don’t obey laws against murder, assault, rape and robbery, then why would they obey gun laws? New Zealand’s current gun laws have NO respect for the right of the people to possess weapons to protect themselves and their families. People want even stricter gun laws? To protect the rights of criminals and “racist extremists” to shoot and kill people, apparently. Oh, well.

Scott Brown’s reelection opponent, his replacement Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the Fake Indian, wants to break up Big Tech companies. Hey Lizzie, how about breaking up Big Government agencies and bureaucracies? How about abolishing FBI, NSA, CIA, DHS, TSA, ICE, DEA, ATF, and the whole national security state apparatus? She won’t do that because she loves the national security state, just like all the other statists in Washington.

Speaking of the national security state, Zero Hedge with an article on whistleblowers saying that NSA still spies on Amerikan phones in hidden program.

And another Zero Hedge article on DOJ and Clinton lawyers wheeling and dealing to block FBI access to Clinton Foundation emails.

Jacob Hornberger asks, Should libertarians support a police state?

Thomas Knapp asks, Would social media have censored video of 9/11 or the Kennedy assassination? The Kn@ppster also posts tweets by The Donald, Obama, and Hillary, and says they’ve got a lot of nerve.

And Yvonne Lorenzo says connect the cord and cut the Wi-Fi.

On Saving Lives

Karen De Coster writes on the LewRockwell.com blog:

Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful. Three single Detroit ladies going out to their car on the way to church Sunday morning were confronted in their driveway by a piece-of-**** lurking around. When they managed to escape to the house – sensing something was very wrong – the piece-of-**** got into their house behind them. The 55-year-old woman grabbed her gun and killed the SOB on the spot. A perfectly aimed chest shot. Yes, I celebrate this occasion. I celebrate the lives of three good and peaceful women saved by a gun (and one diligent woman). Imagine what might have happened to these ladies had they been without The Equalizer?

And yet, I’ve lost (real) friendships from friends who live in La-La Land and consistently exclaim no need for a gun because they choose to spin the wheel of fortune with their lives, like Bambis-in-the-Woods. And they could not, and can not, come to grips with my intelligent, educated, rational defense of the right to bear arms, any arms – unlicensed, unregistered, and unencumbered by special interests or bureaucrats elected by The Mob. I’ve stood my ground and lost friendships. And that is perfectly acceptable to me. And these folks never – ever – have a response for these occasions. They won’t dare touch these instances because they can only resort to uneducated, anti-gun ranting and emoting that cannot justify their position.

Muslim Refugee Acquitted of Rape Because of “Cultural” Differences

In France, a Muslim refugee was acquitted of rape of a girl based on a difference in “cultural norms,” according to WND. Now, I don’t like linking to an article involving the anti-Islam wacko Robert Spencer (not to be confused with the racist neo-Nazi wacko Richard Spencer, it’s a different “Spencer”). But no one should be acquitted of rape or any other crime of violence, when there is evidence of proof against the accused. No excuses. If you are someone who doesn’t understand that people have a right to not be raped and that it is immoral and criminal to do that, then tough noogies, in my view. Perhaps a good way for girls and women to protect themselves from rape or any violent assault is to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. This is exactly why women are the ones who should be encouraged to be armed, as they are more vulnerable than males.

Articles to Remind People Exactly What You’re Voting for Today

Ron Paul says that censorship and gun control will not make us safe.

Zero Hedge with an article on fascist Orwellian AI “lie detectors” coming to airports and border checkpoints. (That’s right, sheeple. Vote for Democrats and Republicans who are giving us this ****.)

Jacob Hornberger says that Brent Taylor did not die for God, family and country.

And Nick Turse on America’s forgotten Vietnamese victims.

Gun Ownership Rights Are Not Safe in Amerika

José Niño says that gun ownership rights are not as safe as many people think. Because of the bureaucracies. Well, abolish the bureaucracies!

And while we’re referring to gun rights, and regarding these sexual assault allegations against some government apparatchik who is running for Supreme Bureaucrat: If women and #MeToo victims want to prevent rape or sexual assault, the best way to do that is to be armed. If anyone should be armed, it is the women of society. If some brute is attempting to force himself on you, if you are armed and able to reach your weapon, then all you have to do is brandish the weapon and the coward runs away. There would be far fewer rapists and attempted rapists if more women were armed. Do you disagree with that?

And also, why do gun-control liberals want a police state? That is what they advocate for, when they want a disarmed civilian population and a government armed to the teeth. Nutsos.

School Shootings, the Hysterical Gun-Grabbers, and Psychiatric Drugs

There was yet another school shooting that left two kids dead and injured several more, this time in Kentucky. But rather than insisting that “gun-free zone” laws be repealed, irrational hystericals like former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords want to strengthen the gun control laws.

In his attempt to revive Ron Paul’s bill to repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, Congressman Thomas Massie wrote, according to Reason, “Gun-free school zones are ineffective. They make people less safe by inviting criminals into target-rich, no-risk environments … Gun-free zones prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves, and create vulnerable populations that are targeted by criminals.”

It’s only common sense.

And it’s only a matter of time that we hear about this week’s Kentucky school shooter having been on Xanax or some antidepressant or one of those combined with pain killers. There have been too many of them now.

In this post, I wrote,

As I noted before, the South Carolina church shooter, Dylan Storm Roof, was on the benzodiazepine anti-anxiety drug Xanax and the pain killer Suboxone. (Another well-known benzodiazepine drug is Valium.) Suboxone is a dangerous drug known to cause violent outbursts.

Last year’s Santa Barbara college shooter, Elliot Rodger, was on Xanax and the pain killer Vicodin.

The Aurora Colorado theater shooter James Holmes was taking the SSRI antidepressant Zoloft and the anti-anxiety drug Clonazepam. (Other SSRI drugs include Prozac and Paxil.)

The Germanwings Airlines co-pilot Andreas Lubitz who took down his plane and mass-murdered 144 people had been on Lorazepam, an anti-anxiety drug, as well as an unnamed antidepressant.

And Columbine High School shooter Eric Harris had been on Luvox, an SSRI anti-depressant also used to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder and anxiety disorders.

While it was not officially confirmed that Sandy Hook School shooter Adam Lanza had been on psychiatric drugs, a parents rights organization sued the state of Connecticut to release Lanza’s medical records, but the request was denied “because ‘it would cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications’.” I guess that answers that question.

And Dr. Peter Breggin, a psychiatrist who has testified several times before Congress on these issues, speculates that Nidal Hasan, the 2009 Fort Hood shooter who apparently was a military psychiatrist, was in all likelihood “self-medicating” with psychiatric drugs.

And in this more recent post, I wrote,

A major study released last year showed that antidepressants can increase the risk of suicide. Some common antidepressants include Zoloft, Luvox, Celexa, Prozak, and Paxil…

Among antidepressant possible side effects are the worsening of the user’s depression, or causing an increase in stress or anxiety. In some cases, antidepressants can actually cause someone to be depressed.

According to psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, antidepressants have been shown to cause long-term depression and other side effects.

Dr. Breggin has published this series on the Michelle Carter case. That’s the teen who was recently convicted of “texting her boyfriend into committing suicide.” Dr. Breggin’s series is quite extensive on that whole case. According to Dr. Breggin, who gave expert testimony at that trial, Ms. Carter and her late boyfriend had been taking prescription antidepressants for years up to that terrible moment. Dr. Breggin considers them both “victims of psychiatry.”

Dr. Breggin has also written on the hazards of prescribing Ritalin to children diagnosed with ADHD, and has written on the misdiagnosing of children, noting how anti-ADHD drugs have been shown to stunt kids’ growth and cause brain shrinkage, among other problems. (Here is Dr. Breggin’s informative page on children and psychiatric drugs.)

Dr. Breggin has also noted how pharmaceutical companies’ marketing strategies have pointed them toward the U.S. armed forces, some of whose members are taking dangerous combinations of drugs, and in which the suicide rate of servicemen is at an all-time high. According to military psychologist Col. Bart Billings, the military psychiatrists “have no clue about what they’re doing.” (So reassuring, isn’t it?)

Incidentally, if someone wanted to stop taking antidepressants, to prevent dangerous withdrawal symptoms see Dr. Breggin’s book on psychiatric drug withdrawal, Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and Their Families.

Besides those kinds of drugs poisoning the kids and stunting their physical, emotional and intellectual growth, there are also vaccines (and too many of them), the harmful chemicals in processed foods and food dyes, and harmful street drugs.

Melissa Melton wrote in this article that, “Of the top ten prescription drugs linked to violence toward others, a 2010 study based on FDA adverse reaction data show that five were antidepressants and two were for the treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).” And she quoted from a Facebook post that gun manufacturer John Noveske wrote shortly before he died in a (suspicious?) car crash, a full list of youths who had killed or hurt someone and the particular psychiatric drug the killers were taking:

Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

And there are quite a few more on the list.

So why is it, after all this time that we have known that most of the school shooters (and many otherwise killers, assaulters, murderous reckless drivers, etc.) in the past 20 years have been drugged up not on hard drugs or street drugs but prescription psychiatric drugs, that the media still refuse to report on it? Are news media outlets that dependent on Big Pharma for ads?

But instead of addressing the real causes of these violent episodes, the hystericals want to disarm law-abiding, peaceful people and make them defenseless. WHY?

So I will quote further from my earlier linked post on all this, especially regarding the gun control hystericals out there:

Will the mainstream media zombies ever begin to report on these important aspects of the mass shootings of the past 20 years or so? When I was growing up, there were no school shootings. At least, none that I can remember ever hearing about. There was the Kent State massacre, but that was the government shooting and murdering innocent students. Government goons don’t need psychiatric drugs to make it easier for them to kill people. They’re the government!

And when I was growing up, there was no “ADHD” or “Asperger’s,” i.e. made-up labels to stick to kids just for acting like normal kids. And there was no Adderall, no Ritalin, no Xanax. The top 12 deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history begin in 1966.

Besides these mass killers not controlling their emotions and aggression as normal people do, there is also the cultural aspect to this violence. American culture is now one of immediacy, distraction, and narcissism. And as Butler Shaffer and Jacob Hornberger observed, perhaps one reason why these mass shootings happen more in the United States and not in most other countries is that our government is the one government mainly that starts wars of aggression against other countries, occupies foreign lands and acts with impunity against foreigners. The American government police are also notorious now for their criminal violence against innocents. These criminal acts of aggression by government goons against foreigners and against the bureaucrats’ own fellow Americans are now being seen, especially by the young, as implicit acceptance of violence.

But rather than looking at these actual causes of these shootings, especially the psychiatric drugs, the mainstream media instead promote the government-imposed gun control agenda!

Yeah, how’s that “Gun Free Zone” stuff working out at Sandy Hook, and this week in Oregon, and at Fort Hood? You see, all you gun control robots out there, when you impose legal restrictions on guns, those who actually obey the law will obey those laws. The criminals, however, who don’t obey laws against murder, rape, robbery, and assault, obviously will not obey the gun laws! Why can’t the anti-gun people understand that? I wonder if they really just like the idea of disarming innocent people, and making innocent people defenseless. Including people deemed “mentally ill.” (But who is to decide who has “mental illness“? All those mentally ill bureaucrats in Washington? All those idiot psychiatrists and primary care “doctors” prescribing those life-destroying drugs like candy? But I digress.) Eventually, those people who disagree with the Regime and criticize the Bureaucracy will be diagnosed by the government psychiatrists as “mentally ill”!

No, it just makes the gun-grabbers feel good to see that they are taking away guns from peaceful, law-abiding people. But one thing the emotion-driven control freaks don’t like to acknowledge is that all tyrannical government regimes disarm the population as a way to strengthen and expand the bureaucrats’ own power and control. The Nazis disarmed the Jews to make it easier to murder them, by the way, as discussed in this book on Gun Control in the Third Reich by Stephen Halbrook. Yet, when we who understand history bring up these points against gun control, the gun-grabbing fanatics scoff at it, like we’re the irrational ones!