Showing posts with label GUNS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GUNS. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 20, 2026

Police chief: Politics, progressive D.A.s enable gang violence in Minnesota | Wake Up America

Police chief: Politics, progressive D.A.s enable gang violence in Minnesota | Wake Up America

Newsmax

Oct 20, 2026  

NEWSMAX Crime Correspondent Jason Mattera investigates concerns over Somali gang violence in Minnesota, where local law enforcement officials warn that political correctness is hampering police efforts to combat crime and hold offenders accountable.


Sunday, February 01, 2026

Leftist and liberal gun groups are seeing a rush of new members

By
Harmeet Kaur


People light candles at a makeshift memorial for Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed by federal agents in Minneapolis on January 24. Octavio Jones/AFP/Getty Images


Several niche, left-leaning gun advocacy groups said that since the killing of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis, they can hardly keep up with the surging demand for firearms training.

With President Donald Trump sending armed federal agents into communities around the country, even more once gun-shy liberals and leftists are considering getting armed. And while Americans tend to think of gun owners as leaning more Republican and male, already more women, gay people and people of color have taken up arms in recent years, particularly after 2020.

Weekend classes at L.A. Progressive Shooters are sold out through March. Registrations for permit-to-carry courses at Pink Pistols Twin Cities, which serves LGBTQ people in Minneapolis and St. Paul, are up from an average of five people per class to 25 — the group recently added seven more courses to accommodate increased interest, and those are filling up, too. To paraphrase a recent meme: The right is arguing for gun control, and the left is buying guns.

“In the past couple of days, there has been a shift,” Lara Smith, national spokesperson for the Liberal Gun Club, says. “This changed views on the left.”

Alex Pretti, a beloved ICU nurse who cared for ailing veterans and an outdoorsman who was concerned about the environment, was also, like one-third of Americans, a gun owner. He was carrying his lawfully owned weapon in a holster before federal agents disarmed him and then fatally shot him.

Jordan Levine, founder of the inclusive gun community A Better Way 2A, says his organization has seen an influx of gun groups and instructors asking to join its resource page in the last few weeks — Ready Rainbow in Chicago, Grassroots Defense in Iowa and Solidarity Defense in Sacramento are a few recent additions. “People are scared and angry and want to equalize the power imbalance that we’re seeing on the news, where you’ve got ICE steamrolling people with no recourse,” he adds.

Philip Smith, founder and president of the National African American Gun Association, says membership in his organization has grown since Trump’s second term began and since Pretti was killed. “People join when they’re scared,” Smith says. “People join when certain people get in office, because it scares them. People join when they see these shootings across the country, and it seems like it’s just madness starting to grow more and more.”

Wednesday, May 02, 2018

Students walk out of classrooms nationwide to show support for Second Amendment



By Jessica Schladebeck

| NEW YORK DAILY NEWS |
May 02, 2018 | 4:03 PM


Pro-gun supporters wrapped in flags and carrying guns rally at the Kansas Statehouse in Topeka, Kan., on April 14, 2018. (Orlin Wagner/AP)


Hundreds of students on Wednesday walked out their classrooms in support of the Second Amendment as a direct response to a recent walkout organized by the survivors of a deadly school shooting in Parkland, Fla., which inspired thousands to stand together in protest of gun violence.

More than 300 schools in 40 different states registered for "Stand for the Second" — a 16-minute student walkout organized by New Mexico 18-year-old Will Riley.

Students from California High School in San Ramon and those from Grand Ledge High School in Michigan walked out of class in droves around 10 a.m. while other protesters at schools like Waukee High School only had a handful of like-minded teens join in the demonstration.

Many of them sported t-shirst, the name of the demonstration written in blue block letters across the front, while others waved flags and held up signs.

The event comes just more than a month after students staged a mass walkout to protest gun violence in wake of the Valentine's Day school shooting in Parkland, Fla.

Monday, April 02, 2018

Jesuits Call for Repealing the Second Amendment


NOTR - Jesuits Call for Repealing the Second Amendment - 3.30.18


Friday, March 30, 2018 at 10:28AM




Today's Show: JESUITS CALL FOR REPEALING THE SECOND AMENDMENT - 3.30.2018


Chris discusses some of the anti-gun hysteria surrounding the "March for our Lives" event in Washington D.C., including the fact that the Jesuit Order now openly calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment. At the same time, Pope Francis has given words of encouragement to the young anti-gunners, telling them: "Dear young people, you have it in you to shout." Meanwhile, in an article from the Jesuit's America Magazine the Order describes "the post-repeal world that we envision ... in which no one has a right to own [a gun]."





Tuesday, March 27, 2018

Repeal the Second Amendment


POLITICS & SOCIETYEDITORIALS

FEBRUARY 25, 2013 ISSUE





The Editors

February 12, 2013






Plagued by rising levels of violent crime, in the autumn of 1976 the District of Columbia enacted one of the nation’s toughest gun control laws. The law effectively banned handguns, automatic firearms and high-capacity semiautomatic weapons. Police officers were exempt from the provisions of the law, as were guns registered before 1976. Over the following decade, the murder rate in Washington, D.C., declined, then increased, shadowing a national trend. Overall, however, the new law helped to prevent nearly 50 deaths per year, according to one study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “We knew there were problems we couldn’t wipe out,” said Sterling Tucker, chair of the district council at the time, as he reflected on the law 22 years later. “But we had a little more control over it.”

On June 26, 2008, in a closely watched, far-reaching decision, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the D.C. law, ruling that it violated the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states: “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.” In the court’s majority opinion, Associate Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: “We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that the prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”

Justice Scalia was right. Even those who subscribe to methods of constitutional interpretation other than Mr. Scalia’s brand of modified originalism must concede the basic point: The Second Amendment impedes the power of the government to regulate the sale or possession of firearms. Unfortunately, the grim consequence of this constitutional restriction is measured in body counts. The murder of 20 elementary school children and six adults in Newtown, Conn., in December was merely the latest in a string of mass shootings: Virginia Tech, Fort Hood, Tucson, Aurora, Oak Creek. In the last 30 years, there have been 62 mass shootings (each leaving at least four people dead) in the United States. Since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Columbine, Colo., there have been 130 shootings at schools; nearly half involved multiple deaths or injuries.

John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment



OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR




A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.
CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .


By John Paul Stevens

March 27, 2018


Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

Thursday, March 01, 2018

AR-15s Are Biblical 'Rod Of Iron' At Pennsylvania Church




March 1, 20188:02 AM ET


SCOTT NEUMAN



Jacqueline Larma/AP




Jacqueline Larma/AP




Spencer Platt/Getty Images




Spencer Platt/Getty Images




Jacqueline Larma/AP


Hundreds of faithful at a Pennsylvania church on Wednesday carried AR-15-style rifles in adherence to their belief that a "rod of iron" mentioned in the Bible refers to the type of weapon that was used in last month's mass shooting in Parkland, Fla.

The armed ceremony at World Peace and Unification Sanctuary in Newfoundland, about 20 miles southeast of Scranton, featured gun-toting worshippers, some wearing crowns of bullets as they participated in communion and wedding ceremonies.

Attendants carefully placed a zip tie into the receiver magazine well of each weapon to assure that a clip could not be loaded.

Concern over Wednesday's gathering prompted a nearby elementary school to cancel classes for the day. It also sparked a small demonstration outside the church, with one protester telling The Associated Press that "it's scaring people in the community."


Monday, February 26, 2018

Catholic colleges say peaceful gun control protests won’t impact admission



 

Colleen Dulle

February 26, 2018





High school students Mia Arrington, center, 18, of West End, and Cheyenne Springette, right, 17, of Mt. Oliver, lead chants as they march down Liberty Avenue during a walk-out in solidarity with other high schools across the country to show support for Parkland, Fla, students in downtown Pittsburgh. (Stephanie Strasburg/Pittsburgh Post-Gazette via AP)


After a gunman killed 17 students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14, the survivors of the shooting quickly mobilized to speak out against gun violence, inspiring a number of protests at high schools across the country.

Students in Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey and Washington state staged “walk out” protests as students left class at predetermined times and gathered elsewhere for a rally or demonstration. Some also participated in a “die in” protest, laying on the ground outside the White House.

Still, some high school students may worry that participating in protests could lead to a suspension or other disciplinary action, which could jeopardize their college prospects.

In response, a wave of colleges and universities around the country have issued statements of support for the students, saying that suspensions for peaceful protests will not affect admission decisions—a relief in particular for high school seniors who have already been admitted or wait-listed but have not yet committed to a school. They may have worried that college administrators could still reject their applications.

Sunday, February 18, 2018

R.I. State Police urge officers to bring concealed weapons to church





Rhode Island State Police Capt. Derek Borek shares best practices at an active shooter preparedness session Saturday at St. James Church, in North Providence. [The Providence Journal / Sandor Bodo]



By Jacqueline Tempera
Journal Staff Writer




Saturday Posted Feb 17, 2018 at 11:07 AM Updated Feb 17, 2018 at 7:24 PM




NORTH PROVIDENCE, R.I. — Rhode Island State Police are encouraging law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons when they attend church services, Capt. Derek Borek said at an active shooter preparedness session Saturday morning.

More than 100 clergymen, greeters, ushers, and parishioners from churches across the state packed the hall at St. James Episcopal Church for the presentation. Borek taught the crowd of mostly seniors how they could stop — or at least slow down — deadly shootings in their own parish halls.

“If someone comes in here shooting,” Borek said, gesturing toward the door, “what are our options? What can we do?”

They could run out the door, a man suggested. But the trooper countered: “Do we know what we’re running into? How many people do you think we can get out of here in 15 seconds?”

“I’m not telling you what’s right or wrong,” Borek said. “I just want to get you thinking.”


Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Democrats Occupy House Floor to Compel Votes on Gun Bills



Lawmakers were reprimanded by the House Sergeant at Arms for taking photos in the chamber, which is prohibited under House rules.




POLITICS


Scores of representatives stage a sit-in; House forced into recess




By

Kristina Peterson and

Natalie Andrews

Updated June 22, 2016 
5:07 p.m. ET


WASHINGTON—House Democrats wrested control of the chamber Wednesday to demand votes on new gun curbs in a protest fashioned by tactics of civil-rights demonstrations from the last century and new technologies made possible in this one.

Led by civil-rights champion Rep. John Lewis (D., Ga.), at least 170 House Democrats staged a “sit-in,” occupying the floor of the House chamber in an effort to extract votes from Republican leaders on bills that would expand background checks for guns and prevent suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

“There comes a time when you have to say something, when you have to make a little noise, when you have to move your feet,” said Mr. Lewis, shortly before a group of House Democrats took the rare step of sitting on the chamber’s floor in protest. “This is the time.”



A photo shot and tweeted from the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives by U.S. House Rep. Katherine Clark shows Democratic members of the House staging a sit-in on the “to demand action on common sense gun legislation” on Wednesday.PHOTO: U.S. REP. KATHERINE CLARK/REUTERS

Fueled by lawmakers’ tweets and other social-media messages, the House demonstration quickly caught national attention, drawing tweets of praise from Democratic presidential nomineeHillary Clinton and PresidentBarack Obama. For the first time since the June 12 Orlando shooting, which left 49 people dead and dozens wounded, the House dominated the debate over new gun restrictions previously centered in the Senate.

Senate Democrats left their offices to join the House lawmakers accumulating on the chamber’s floor. With the House forced into recess and its cameras and microphones turned off, lawmakers had to shout to be heard as they took turns reading the names of gun-violence victims, chanting “no bill, no break” and calling on Republican leaders to schedule a vote before the chamber’s recess next week.

Republican leaders said they were forced to put the House in recess, delaying planned votes, while Democrats were flouting the chamber’s rules.

“The House cannot operate without members following the rules of the institution, so the House has recessed subject to the call of the chair,” said AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.)

Republican leaders were reluctant to schedule the gun votes in response to the sit-in, not wanting to reward the Democrats’ behavior, Republican aides said.

The Democratic protest wasn’t the first time the minority party had taken over the House’s floor, but new technology tools helped broaden its reach. For the first time, C-Span, the cable network that shows congressional proceedings, streamed a Periscope feed of the House floor, provided by Rep. Scott Peters (D., Calif.). Periscope is a video live-streaming platform owned by Twitter.

“The editorial decision is we cover Congress, and if a member is showing what is happening in Congress, that’s part of our coverage,” said Howard Mortman, a spokesman for C-Span. The network also used Facebook video from Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D., Texas.)

Lawmakers were reprimanded by the House Sergeant at Arms for taking photos in the chamber, which is prohibited under House rules.

House Democrats said they wanted to vote on legislation to expand background checks for all commercial gun sales. Currently only federally licensed dealers are required to perform background checks. Democratic legislation that would have expanded background checks to all sales at gun shows and online stalled in the Senate on Monday night.

Democrats are also pushing in the House to vote on a measure aimed at preventing suspected terrorists from being able to buy a firearm. Two competing partisan measures aimed at blocking individuals on the “no-fly list” and other government watch lists were also defeated in the Senate on Monday, but senators led by Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) were still working Wednesday on a compromise measure.

The bipartisan bill steadily picked up support Wednesday, but it wasn't clear whether it would secure the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles. Although the measure drew the opposition of the National Rifle Association Tuesday, several Republicans up for re-election this year in swing states said they would vote for Ms. Collins’s bill, including Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Mark Kirk of Illinois and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

“Senator Kirk supports the Collins’ bipartisan compromise to keep guns away from suspected terrorists,” his spokeswoman Sarah Dolan said Wednesday. “He believes partisan standoffs are irrelevant to the safety of Americans.”

Whether to support Ms. Collins’s bill is a difficult decision for liberal Democrats who had hoped to see the Senate put in place much tougher gun curbs.

“I’m concerned that it’s just not enough and that we will claim credit for having solved this problem when in fact we’ve addressed a minuscule portion of the problem,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D., Hawaii) said Wednesday, noting he was still deciding how to vote on the measure.

Ms. Collins’s bill would ban sales of guns to terrorism suspects who appear on either the government’s no-fly list, or on a “selectee list” that requires additional screening at airports, a narrower population than Democrats had proposed in their legislation. Federal authorities would also be notified of any gun purchases by anyone on the watch lists over the prior five years, allowing the Federal Bureau of Investigation to put the person under surveillance.

Republicans want to make sure that the ban doesn’t infringe on the ability of law-abiding citizens who might have been mistakenly placed on the list to appeal that decision and buy a gun. Under the bill, Individuals could appeal the decision blocking the purchase of a firearm, and be awarded attorneys’ fees if successful.

“That bothers me that it takes place after the fact,” Sen. Deb Fischer (R., Neb.) said of the appeals process. Mrs. Fischer said she was still evaluating the bill.


Source

.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016



The Seventh-day Adventist Church's Official Stance on Assault Weapon Sales: Ban Them!

14 June 2016 | SPECTRUM and GENERAL CONFERENCE OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISTS

Powered by Translate


The Pulse Massacre Sunday in Orlando, Florida has once again shone a light on the use of assault weapons in acts of mass violence. The Seventh-day Adventist Church has spoken clearly against the legal sale and purchase of such weapons.

The following is the Seventh-day Adventist Church's official stance on assault weapons, adopted in 1990. -Ed.


BAN ON SALES OF ASSAULT WEAPONS TO CIVILIANS

Automatic or semi-automatic military-style weapons are becoming increasingly available to civilians. In some areas of the world it is relatively easy to acquire such guns. They show up not only in the street, but in the hands of youngsters at school. Many crimes are committed through the use of these kinds of weapons. They are made to kill people. They have no legitimate recreational use.

The teachings and example of Christ constitute the guide for the Christian today. Christ came into the world to save lives, not to destroy them (Luke 9:56). When Peter drew his weapon Jesus said to him: "Put your sword back in its place . . . All who take the sword will die by the sword" (Matt. 26:52 TEV). Jesus did not engage in violence.

The argument is made by some that banning assault weapons limits the rights of people and that guns do not commit crimes, but people do. While it is true that violence and criminal inclinations lead to guns, it is also true that availability of guns leads to violence. The opportunity for civilians to acquire by purchase or otherwise automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons only increases the number of deaths resulting from human crimes. Possession of guns by civilians in the United States has increased by an estimated 300 per cent in the past four years. During the same period there has been a staggering increase in armed attacks and resulting deaths.

In most of the world such weapons cannot be acquired by any legal means. The Church views with alarm the relative ease with which they may be acquired in some areas. Their availability can only open the possibility of further tragedies.

Pursuits of peace and the preservation of life are to be the goals of Christians. Evil cannot be effectively met with evil, but must be overcome with good. Seventh-day Adventists, with other people of good will, wish to cooperate in using every legitimate means of reducing, and eliminating where possible, the root causes of crime. In addition, with public safety and the value of human life in mind, the sale of automatic or semi-automatic assault weapons should be strictly controlled. This would reduce the use of weapons by mentally disturbed people and criminals, especially those involved in drug and gang activities.

This public statement was released by the General Conference president, Neal C. Wilson, after consultation with the 16 world vice presidents of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, on July 5, 1990, at the General Conference session in Indianapolis, Indiana.


Source

.

Saturday, January 09, 2016

CNN: Guns in America town hall with President Obama



Full HD Video - CNN's Guns in America Town Hall - US President Barack Obama Town Hall




World SX


Published on Jan 7, 2016


During CNN's Guns in America town hall, President Barack Obama answers the questions

President Barack Obama rejected the "imaginary fiction" that he wanted to take away the guns of law-abiding Americans during a town hall meeting on his gun policies aired on CNN Thursday night.

"The way it is described, is that we are trying to take away everybody's guns," Obama said, charging that his opponents had twisted his plans on gun safety measures.

"Our position is consistently mischaracterized," Obama said. "If you listen to the rhetoric, it is so over-the-top, it is so overheated."

The town hall was a rare forum for a President who is entering his final full year in office. He fielded questions from those who support his actions, including a priest and victims of gun violence at the "Guns in America" special. But he also heard from a wide range of advocates opposed to his policies, including a gun executive, a sheriff, a rape survivor and a widow who criticized his executive actions that would, among other things, narrow the so-called "gun-show loophole" on background checks.

The President also said that he would be happy to meet with representatives of the National Rifle Association, which declined to take part in the town hall meeting even though other gun rights advocates did attend. But he said the conversation would have to be based on facts, "not some imaginary fiction in which Obama is trying to take away your guns."

He dismissed such accusations as conspiracies, and that the notion that he would be paving the way for eventual martial law as absurd given that he didn't have much time left in the White House.

"I'm only going to be here for another year," he said.

Obama is headlining the "Guns in America" event exclusively on CNN to press for public support for the executive measures he announced on Tuesday. In an interview with Anderson Cooper, Obama attributed some of the tensions over the issue to divergent perceptions on gun ownership between rural and inner city communities.

"Part of the reason, I think, that this ends up being such a difficult issue is because people occupy different realities," he said.

The President opened the event by acknowledging that he himself has never owned a gun and had little experience with them, stemming in part from his upbringing in Hawaii, where he said sport shooting is not as popular as in other parts of the country.

He then disputed the notion that most criminals got guns illegally or through personal connections, making background checks -- a major focus on his policy initiative on guns -- of little utility.

"All of us can agree that It makes sense to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of people who would do others harm, or themselves harm," he said.

He called on Congress to set up a system that is "efficient" and doesn't inconvenience lawful gun owners to create a background check system that would stem at least some illegal gun activity.

"The fact that the system doesn't catch every single person ... has to be weighed against the fact that we might be able to save a whole bunch of families from the grief that some of the people in this audience have had to go through," he said.

He made a similar argument in response to a question from Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu, who said that the executive actions wouldn't have prevented the mass shootings that prompted much of Obama's push for greater gun control.

"How are we going to get them to follow the laws?" Babeu asked of those who commit gun crimes.

After Babeu was introduced as a Republican running for Congress, Obama responded with a hint of sarcasm as he wished him good luck in his race.

.

Tuesday, January 05, 2016

GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN



Posted on January 5, 2016

by Ron Patton
in Articles





GUN WARS THE FORCE RETAKEN

I woke early this morning to the wall-to-wall coverage of the presidential hard sell to the American people that changes to the gun laws and zeroing in on the mentally ill will somehow reduce the risks of gun crimes, terror, and lone nut shooting incidents which become such political footballs, it fuels the speculation that most if not all of these incidents look like false flag events.

A teary-eyed President Obama announced plans to expand background checks and make other changes to America’s gun rules. Once again, Obama used the dreaded pen and phone to use executive action‎, which of course circumvents Congress and once again fuels allegations of executive overreach.



While most of what he said sounded like the whaa whaa whap sounds heard from parents in a Charlie Brown cartoon, there was a part of his speech that stood out for me because it centered around constitutional rights and how we have somehow accepted over time the idea of surrendering rights for safety.

Obama stated:

“We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society.”

What he fails to point out is the reason we are paying this price for living in a so-called civilized society is that we have been fed a diet of fear and thus we see a constitution with conditions that go from reasonable to complete negation of civil liberties.

Obama seems to feel that the people will allow for the weakening of things like the second amendment in order to feel some sort of renewed sense of security.

President Obama wants us to believe that we take comfort in hearing the same worn out and tired tropes of how all of these provisions have somehow prevented “who knows” how many terror attacks.

The “who knows” remark can be a vague form of negative logic, for those who are awake but for the police state it is a doublespeak euphemism for a consensus mind numbing where the people can assume that all of their so-called foiled plots are reasons for constitutional tinkering.

I don’t want reduce the various American tragedies to mere statistics – but they are very telling of how afraid we have become and how we now accept government overreach as a way of life.

There have been only 38 Americans that have been killed on American soil by radicalized Islamic terrorism since 9/11.

While that is 38 too many, it is a drop in the bucket compared to those killed in car accidents or those that have died as result of intestinal illnesses brought on by eating in restaurants.

The National Safety Council reports that more than 6,000 Americans die a year from falls; most of them involve people falling off their roof or ladder trying to clean their gutters, put up Christmas lights and the like. That means you’re 353 times more likely to fall to your death doing something idiotic than die in a terrorist attack or even these first person shooter events.

I know that it is hard to persuade a constantly re-frightened American public that the constitution should not be weakened because of gun crimes and terrorism, but the facts are very telling of how easy it has been for the Obama Administration to mislead us on the idea that we need more surveillance and strict gun laws to prevent terrorism and mass shootings.

At the centerpiece of Obama’s plan is a more sweeping definition of gun dealers that the administration hopes will expand the number of gun sales subject to background checks. At gun shows, websites and flea markets, sellers often skirt that requirement by declining to register as licensed dealers, but officials said new federal guidance would clarify that it applies to anyone “in the business” of selling firearms.



Almost all of our homegrown lone gunmen and terrorist shooters trend on Google and their notoriety is pushed through the newsfeeds of Facebook to the point that everyone is under the impression we are breeding trigger-happy unstable miscreants in need of control.

The Obama Administration has now finalized a rule that enables health care providers to report the names of mentally ill patients to an FBI firearms background check system.

While no one wants an unstable person with a gun, the definition of someone who is “mentally ill’ is so broad and expansive. Most of us probably assume a mentally ill person is a violent person. However, a mentally ill person can also be someone overcome by post traumatic stress disorder or one who suffers from high anxiety or one who is depressed. Why should these people who show no indication of intent to harm others be discriminated against and lose their right to own a firearm?

America falsely believes the easy scapegoat is the so-called terrorists, the mentally ill or perhaps even violent T.V. or video games, but the reality is that most of these horrible events are coming from within the political and military complex and are somehow slipping by the national security infrastructure that we have been told is there to protect us from such events.

In fact, if you look at the track record, since all of these so-called safeguards have been employed, we have seen an increase in these “tragic” and “senseless” events and thus, we have become trapped in an unsafe environment.

Regardless of what you are hearing, it is becoming more apparent that these shootings are less random and are actively being planned in order to traumatize us into thinking the state can only protect us with their militarized police forces and our own guns and self-defense skills can’t neutralize an active shooter.



Human sustainability far outweighs the political sphere of influence and yet the political discussions go on incessantly in a country that seems to fixate its tiresome national dialogue about our lack of leadership, our need for more national security and the right to defend one’s own family and property.

The Second Amendment argument should not even be argued. There should be no infringement on the right to bear arms and yet it’s now an issue up for debate, all because of a number of “senseless acts.” Do we not see these shooting incidents as expedient for gun control agendas being proposed by the few and not by the majority who know safety of property and family is a priority in times of crisis?

The most devastating truth facing us in the event of national crisis is that urban areas are the most unsafe places on the planet and the convenience we cherish will become our undoing as the aftermath of a crisis inevitably leads to civil unrest and the armed populace that is constitutional becomes the armed horde who can be your enemy in the face of all resource depletion.

We know now that 2016 is the year designated for “full spectrum” operations, as requiring the military to prepare for internal campaigns against radicalized American citizens.

There will be if necessary, “full spectrum operations in the coming two decades according to the US Army Training and Doctrine Command, The Army Operating Concept 2016 – 2028, TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1, dated 19 August 2010.

With this document we learn that the plan for the United States in a major crisis is not for anyone’s benefit but for the continuity of government.

Police and military units are training to deal specifically with urban uprisings and civil unrest because emergency services planners understand that America’s metropolitan death zones, which is military speak for major cities, will be completely devoid of law & order.

These agencies are already planning on the American people to turn into gun toting outlaws if there happens to be a government decapitation, meaning that if a crisis is so dire that the government can’t function, the country will be divided into regions and governed like military territories.

The Obama Administration has demonstrated with all of its political doublespeak that the entire national security infrastructure he defends and lies about has done nothing to insure the safety of the American people.

It is also important to note that no campaigns for disarming Americans or even weakening of the second amendments for stricter background checks will make us any safer in scenarios of national crisis.

All of the lame arguments we are having now for political reasons will amount to nothing but affluent in a future for America that seems to be evolving into a repressive despotism with a militarized foothold that with the help of Executive Orders, will create a battlefield in our backyard.

While the warnings of police state are dismissed by those who have not been in one, it is evident what we are seeing transpire, from deadly force in the open market place, to riots and civil unrest are pretext to a turn in the evolution of how law enforcement restrains the populace and secures the peace.

It must be reiterated that the evolution of the country’s views on social issues are right in your face and if you are not paying attention, you may find yourself in a world more foreign and hostile than you can imagine.

Obama says to all of us that his new gun policies do not infringe on second amendment rights, but we need to understand it does begin the weakening process of the rights of the citizens to bear arms and avoid government entanglements.

We know that the agenda of government is to disarm America, and surprisingly, you may want to wait and realize that the next administration and the administration after that will conduct the gradual process of dismantling the constitution in order to pave the way for a new globalist treaty that we know will be enforced by the year 2030, if not before then.

If we disarm the people or make it harder to obtain a firearm, there will be limited resistance to a hostile takeover of a sophisticated tyrannical criminal element that uses organized crime to sustain their full spectrum control of everything we do.

We all know that in a war or in a crisis, it is a good strategy to disarm your enemies.




Source

/
.

Sunday, January 03, 2016

Armed protesters occupying national wildlife refuge building vow long stay






OREGON

Published January 03, 2016 

FoxNews.com





NOW PLAYING

Armed militia takes over Oregon wildlife refuge in protest


Armed protesters, including three sons of a Nevada rancher who battled with the government in 2014, vowed to occupy a federal building in Oregon for “as long as it takes,” as state and federal officials on Sunday sought to defuse the situation.

The protesters took over a federal wildlife refuge in a remote area near Burns, some 280 miles east of Portland, to protest the prosecution of a father and son facing jail time on an arson charge for burning 130 acres of land. Prosecutors said the fire was set to hide poaching, but the ranchers, who face five years in prison, and the protesters supporting them say it was set to stop invasive plants.

"We will be here as long as it takes," said Ammon Bundy, a spokesman for the group and the son of Cliven Bundy, a Nevada rancher who clashed with the feds two years ago.

"We have no intentions of using force upon anyone, (but) if force is used against us, we would defend ourselves," Ammon Bundy said while issuing a broad appeal for others to come join the occupation in a show of support.

Those occupying the refuge claimed they had as many as 100 supporters with them. The occupation came shortly after 300 marchers paraded through Burns in support of ranchers Dwight Hammond Jr. and Steven Hammond, who report to prison Monday.

The tense situation involved the Oregon State Police, the Harney County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI.

Harney County Sheriff Dave Ward told people to stay away from the building as authorities work to defuse the situation, the Oregonian reported.

"A collective effort from multiple agencies is currently working on a solution. For the time being please stay away from that area. More information will be provided as it becomes available. Please maintain a peaceful and united front and allow us to work through this situation," Ward said in a statement.

On his Facebook page Ammon Bundy said “this is not a time to stand down. It’s a time to stand up and come to Harney County.”

"(asterisk)(asterisk)ALL PATRIOTS ITS TIME TO STAND UP NOT STAND DOWN!!! WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! COME PREPARED," he wrote.

Related Image




He told reporters late Saturday that the group was occupying the government building because “the people have been abused long enough.

"I feel we are in a situation where if we do not do something, if we do not take a hard stand, we'll be in a position where we'll be no longer able to do so," he said.

He vowed to occupy the facility as long as necessary, even years.

"The facility has been the tool to do all the tyranny that has been placed upon the Hammonds," Ammon Bundy said

Ammon Bundy’s brother, Ryan, told the paper the group isn’t looking to harm anyone, but wouldn’t back down if police try to remove them from the refuge site.

The refuge is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It had been closed and unoccupied over the holiday weekend, according to the Oregonian.

One of the occupiers, Blaine Cooper, told KTVZ-TV likened the occupation to what is done about bullies in school: “You have to put him in his place.”

"Now, I'm not going to be best friends with the BLM," he said. "The point is, until that line is drawn, that we have had enough of this tyranny and you are going to leave us alone, it will not change. This is the power of America, right here. ... This could be a hope that spreads through the whole United States,” Cooper added.

An Idaho militia leader who helped organize the march in Burns said he knew nothing about activities after a parade of militia members and local residents in Burns walked past the sheriff's office and the home of Dwight Hammond Jr. and his son Steven, the ranchers headed to jail.

Cliven Bundy told Oregon Public Broadcasting on Saturday night that he was not involved in the takeover.

He said his sons felt obligated to intervene on behalf of the Hammonds.

"That's not exactly what I thought should happen, but I didn't know what to do," he said. "You know, if the Hammonds wouldn't stand, if the sheriff didn't stand, then, you know, the people had to do something. And I guess this is what they did decide to do. I wasn't in on that."

He said his son Ammon told him they were there for the long run.

“I guess they figured they're going to be there for whatever time it takes and I don't know what that means," the father said. "I asked him, 'Well how long can ya, how long you going to stand out there?' He just told me it was for long term."

The Oregonian, citing government sources, reported the militia had planned to occupy a closed fire station near Frenchglen. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management sends its crews there during the fire season.

Dwight Hammond has said he and his son plan to peacefully report to prison Jan. 4 as ordered by the judge.

The 73-year-old rancher and his 46-year-old son claim they lit the fires in 2001 and 2006 to reduce the growth of invasive plants and protect their property from wildfires. The two were convicted of the arsons three years ago and served time — the father three months, the son one year. But a judge ruled their terms were too short under federal law and ordered them back to prison for about four years each.

The decision has generated controversy in a remote part of the state.

In particular, the Hammonds' new sentences touched a nerve with far right groups who repudiate federal authority.

Ammon Bundy and others protestors from other states arrived last month in Burns, some 60 miles from the Hammond ranch.


The Associated Press contributed to this report




Monday, April 14, 2014

Welby addresses gun culture in the US





by Tim Wyatt

Posted: 11 Apr 2014 @ 04:14






Reconciliation: Archbishop Welby told his audience to seek to pray with both victim and perpetrator (file photo)



THE Archbishop of Canterbury has urged the Episcopal Church in the United States to challenge a culture of violence by being reconcilers.

Speaking at a peace conference in Oklahoma on Thursday, Archbishop Welby said that the Church should neither pretend violence was not happening, nor be compromised by being drawn into it. Instead, he proposed a "prophetic response to violence which accepts the world as it is and seeks to bring redemption and salvation".

He told his audience at the Reclaiming the Gospel of Peace conference, in Oklahoma City, of how the provost of Coventry Cathedral had begun a reconciliation ministry, following the destruction of the cathedral and much of the town in German bombing raids during the Second World War.

Archbishop Welby worked as a canon at the cathedral for five years, and said it was essential to recognise the evil at the heart of humanity and how violence "damages the soul", if the Church wished to speak out against it.

"Reconciliation and an end to violence is something that can only be achieved by sacrifice and by a prophetic stand. There are no shortcuts and no cheap options."

Speaking of how the US Church should respond to violence, he cited the shooting in 2012 at Sandy Hook, where 20 children and six teachers had been killed at a primary school, as well as the bombing of a US government building in Oklahoma in 1995, which killed 168 people.

He acknowledged that, coming from a different culture in the UK, it would be "discourteous" for him to tell Americans what to think.

"What does [reconciliation] look like in the USA where there are people who are faithful Christians on all sides of the debate about guns?" he asked.

"What it does not mean is to shout louder from your corner in the conviction that you are right and everyone else is stupid. Rather, a Church committed to the reclaiming of the gospel of peace looks like those who join their enemies on their knees.

"Here in the USA you look at questions of gun law and violence. Perhaps part of the answer is not only advocacy, and that must happen, but being on knees together with the poorest and the most vulnerable in your local communities."

The Episcopal Church has been increasingly drawn into the national debate on guns in America in recent years. Earlier this year, the law in the state of Georgia was changed, making it possible for churchgoers to bring firearms into church for the first time.

Bishops and clerics expressed their discomfort with the idea of parishioners carrying weapons in the pews. In an open letter opposing the new law, the Bishops of Atlanta and Georgia, the Rt Revd Robert C. Wright and Scott Anson Benhase, remarked that supporters of the Bill "claim that if only the 'bad guys' have guns, then the 'good guys' cannot stop them.

"Our Christian faith has a more complex understanding of 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. Our biblical understanding of human sin informs us of this universal truth. This Bill solves nothing, and it only creates the potential for more gun violence, not less."

Separately, a group of more than 30 Episcopalian bishops have started a campaign to introduce stricter gun regulation.

Called Bishops Against Gun Violence, the group lobbies for expanding the system of background checks on those buying firearms, ensuring that guns are stored safely, and improving access to mental healthcare.

The three bishops who convened the group said: "We will no longer be silent while violence permeates our world, our society, our Church, our homes and ourselves. Our faith calls us to be ministers of reconciliation, to give voice to the voiceless and to strive for justice in the name of our Lord."

Full text of Archbishop Welby's speech here


Source
.