"There has never been an occasion where a people gave up their weapons in the interest of peace that didn't end in their massacre." Louis L'Amour
The rulers that should not be want slowly restrict guns right to citizens so that way they can own everybody in this country as slaves and kill unarmed dissenters. The increase in gun control sentiment among the general population is more than concerning. This is what would put a nail in the coffin as America being the last sanctuary on this Earth for freedom, peace, and prosperity. This is actually why people say are astonished how free America is and why millions still wish to immigrate. We are relatively free because we do not let ourselves be dictated by control freak politicians and police and have the means of resisting them.
People say it would not happen here, but it did for innocent Americans of Japanese in WW2 and nobody did a thing The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil was that good men should do nothing.”Because of Executive Order 9066, 120,000 innocent Japanese were violently relocated and property seized. Guns or any ballistic armaments are necessary to protect innocent people from harm. If the army can have it, why can't we because we don't don a costume and have fancy badges? Are innocent people not free to own and do what we want unrestricted by an arbitrary man made laws? People have the right to own an armament they wish as much as they have a right to eat, dress, assemble, or speak as they wish.
People might say that your an Uneducated Republican Gun Nut Southern White Trash but the original proponents of gun rights were well educated men who had little to no political allegiances at all such as the George Washington, the only president who had no party affiliation.
The challenges humanity faces can’t be solved by control, force, manipulation, or politics. In fact using politics can often cause the reverse effect, since after the war on drugs started there's has been more drugs users in the country than before. This challenges can be solved through education and peaceful cooperation. Gun control will not work for the same reason the war on drugs hasn't. Drug laws have strict enforcement, but yet more people are addicted to drugs today and more drugs are in the country than we the drug war began. Controlling people isn't the solution.
If you have not noticed, Americans have a thing for not caring what the law says if it is against their will. If gun control happened, people would be more likely to go out a get a gun, even those who are violent. Gun sales increase drastically any time gun control is talked about or about to be implemented. When alcohol prohibition was in effect in the 1920s-1930s , alcohols sales increased and was just as easy to obtain.
It's primarily in the hand of parents to raise children who are not hateful and violent.
The only reason America and perhaps Switzerland are the only truly free countries in the world is because they still have the right to defend themselves and the means to (to an extent). There is a reason why the US and Switzerland have never been invaded in modern times, despite being under threat multiple times from major military powers. All others countries could be turn into tyrannical regimes since citizens do not have the capacity to defend themselves. Many countries such as China and Russia turned into tyrannical regimes because of the fact their citizens were disarmed.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. -JFK
We should give peace chance and transform humanity to be its highest potential through peace, however, at some point it may be necessary to say enough is enough. It is not enough for people to physically rebel but you need to first mentally first. I tell people it doesn't matter how many guns you have or how trained you are if you will surrender them when asked. Those who don't kNOw won't say NO.
Being armed doesn't mean you can't be peaceful, the overwhelming majority people that are armed or have weapons are peaceful and know how to responsibly use them. You arm yourself because you know that not all people are good and it is necessary to prepare for the worst. Why do people lock their cars, homes, have safes, etc. It is because they know some people are evil.
Most of the mainstream media advances the gun control agenda. The agenda is pushed by the media because the media is a paid off by the CIA and Pentagon to push their sinister agendas. America is statistically one of the safest countries to live, in, but that doesn't suit the media's fear mongering profits and their agenda does it?
Why do you think militaries that take over a civilian population or defeat an army require them to surrender their weapons? This military strategy isn't just for war, but also necessary to implement tyranny. Hitler knew this well:
The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty.
So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories. -Adolph Hitler
The most dangerous superstition is government and the belief in it has murdered almost half a billion people in wars started on lies and by disarming people and then genocide, that's just in the 20th century. Throughout history, it is the #1 reason for murder. The system doesn't matter, regardless of if its Fascism, Communism, Democracy, Theocracy, Monarchy, or what else. All governments murder their own citizens, it is necessary to keep their power over people and to keep the tall poppies from sticking out and threatening then entire system and causing others to realize a better alternative. The only truth is that you have the right to do as you wish as long as you do not do violence to others or legitimately owned property, anything else is slavery.
You need to know how to defend yourself and others and to defend that right. “Beings have the inherent right to use force to defend themselves against conducted upon them.” -Mark Passio. Force is different from violence, force is the right to defend yourself from violence and you have that right ever since the day you were born. It is inherent to every person no matter where they live, their social status, economical status, race, religion, or gender, none of this matters, all have the right to defend themselves. One of the pillars of life is the self defense right. This right exists as long as you're being attacked. This right can never be legitimate taken away nor can any tool that you could use defend yourself or other innocents, no matter how powerful that weapon is. Imagine your certain situation where you're being attacked by many people and you need a fully automatic hundred round magazine rifle to deal with threats since reloading may lead you to being killed. These are rare situations but they do happen. You have the right to use force and defend yourself to the point where an attack stops. If you are punched in the face, you do not have the right to kill that person because that would be unequal force. However, you do have the right to non-lethally punch them. If they continue and do not stop then, you have the right escalate to the amount of force they use. One of the most basic rules is the non aggression principle which says you shouldn't initiate violence against someone else.
I'll mention statistics but it's important to know that gun statistics do not change rights even if the stats show that guns are bad, rights don't change. It's nice to have statistics to help defend gun rights and rights of self defense. That may not always be the case that the stats support the usage of guns or any weapons for defense. What if the statistics turned out that showing that gun ownership in their hands of non violent people will do more harm than good? Would it not still be a right? Most anti-gun statistics are biased and flawed. When statistics are discussed in public college decisions, they almost always are done at a cost benefit analysis, which means politicians will think about what policy benefits more than it harms. This is called utilitarianism. If they see more positive than negatives, then they will adopt the policy. The “virtue” of utilitarianism is that it's a pretty easy, natural and straightforward way of making decisions. Although it does require research, which means we have to frequently trust the so called “experts”. It's all about the numbers ultimately, as intuitive as it might sound there are many things that cannot be just a numbers game. Here's an example: suppose enslaving a portion of a population would have more benefits than bad effects. The numbers check out, would that make involuntary slavery just in this situation? No, it would not. So just because something makes sense from a numbers perspective does not mean that it's morally permissible. There are certain things that are more important than cost benefit analysis, they are called rights. The extreme nature of the scenarios just makes just serves to make them more evident rights are more important than utility. Rights are not dependent upon what is most beneficial for society. The concept of greater for the greater good of society is actually often a manipulation technique by the “elites” to get their agenda across to the masses. The policies that many politicians will say is for the greater good is actually not going to benefit the masses, they just say that as a way of advertising their policy to further their own agendas which benefit them, often at the expenses of others. Do you have the right to live even if you can’t contribute to society? No. You don’t work to earn the right to life nor is it based on merit. The natural right to live is simply because you are a person. Rights exist as shield to protect us from mob rule and tyrants. Guns are simply a technology invented to help exercise the right of self defense in a more effective way of fighting at range than archery, which aren’t effective in certain scenarios. The effects guns have on average safety or crime stats whether positive or negative is secondary even if permissible gun ownership increased average crime it wouldn’t weaken this right one bit. The best statistical evidence shows that guns are in fact a force for good. Gun stats can help defend the right of self defense gun rights. It is also more simple oftentimes to discuss to people stats than explaining the right of self defense, although understanding the right to self defense is actually more important than knowing all the stats and every human being should understand what their rights are. If more people understood their rights, then they would understand not only more about themselves, but it was also be a great safeguard against tyranny as well. Gun rights cannot and never have depended on statistics, you can use statistics to strengthen your case for gun rights but it cannot be the pillar on which it rests.
The second amendment is a great statement of the right to self defense. It actually does not say anything about gun ownership or gun rights. Even though it is only 27 words long there is actually as far more meaning than most people would think. Here's what the Second Amendment literally states, it says “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The 21st century version of the second amendment might be stated as “Since a well regulated militia of the people is necessary to secure freedom, the right and people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The second amendment doesn't grant rights to anyone, it is merely a statement of rights that applies to all human beings and it is eternal. It was written to try to prevent the government from infringing people's rights to defend with arms. All laws that restrict this right are null and void. Several Supreme Court rulings have supported the Second Amendment as an individual right. The Second Amendments went under multiple revision to focus from the a right of the collective to the right of individual. The authors of the Constitution said they didn’t want to add the right to bear arms for the common defense as they felt it would shift the focus on a collective right and not individual right so they rejected the second amendment being stated as a collective right. This was also echoed in other state constitutions at the time and even before the constitution was ratified. The Founding Fathers stated this clearly so you can understand what the Second Amendment actually means:
“The constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people the United States who are peaceful citizens from keeping their arms.” John Adams
“All powers are inherent in the people and they may access it by themselves that is their right and duty to be armed at all times.” - Thomas Jefferson
“What is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm them is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason
“No free man shall be disbarred the use of arms.” Thomas Jefferson
“A militia when properly formed in fact the people themselves and includes all men capable of bearing arms.” Richard Henry Lee
“A well regulated militia, composed of the people trained arms is the best most natural defense of a free country.” James Madison
Interestingly, the word necessary is only used once in the Constitution and even the branches of government are not considered necessary.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right people to bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Free state means: free, not under the control of domination. State: is the condition that someone or something is in a specific time. What is meant is a free state of existence not a state such as Virginia, nation, or government. It was created for all people of the country, regardless of age, race, or any other biological factors. It can’t be infringed even for military grade weapons. In fact, citizens in the early United States with no involvement in politics owned muskets, cannons, and war ships, which were the same weapons used by the military at the time. There were even fully automatic and semi-automatic high capacity weapons such as the Girandoni rifle, the buckle gun, the Belton flintlock, and the pepper box revolver. The founder knew these weapons and even owned some of them. The belt and flintlock was proposed to by Congress for the use in the army. The Girandoni rifle was given to Lewis and Clark by Thomas Jefferson for their expedition.
Remember, it says the whole people and that includes all human beings. Children should be taught firearm safety, at least so if they were to encounter a firearm then they will understand the dangers. Tell them when they see a gun to get someone trained to firearms to get rid of it and to get it into a safe area. Children who do not understand firearm safety can become victims of firearms and could potentially harm themselves or others accidentally.
To preserve liberty, the whole body of people must always possess arms and be taught to like especially when young how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee
The word arms is short for armament and it means the weapons and supply for which a military unit is equipped and a weapon used for self defense. It doesn't just apply to firearms which is why firearms is not part of the Second Amendment. The second amendment doesn’t grant government to keep and bear arms, since it's necessary for all governments to exist to have arms and all governments by default give themselves this right. The National Guard Militia is not a true militia. It's a state-based defense program. Patrick Henry explained that the Swiss was able to maintain independence due to their militia even without a standing army. Switzerland is also one of the most peaceful nations in Europe and has not be declared war on in either of the world wars, which almost every European country was a part of. They have not been in war since 1847. That should show you how effective militia can be at deterring hordes of armies, as well as mountains.
The well regulated milita part of the second amendment comes from a 1698 treaties called “a discourse of government with nations”. Militia means well behaved and disciplined, not government regulation. Regulation meant “to bring order, method, or uniformity to” according to the Webster dictionary, in modern times this definition is still used.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one. -Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments
Criminals do not buy guns from gun stores, most of the time they get them from social networks or personal connection.
Here are some studies that are too long to list in this book that you can view that support gun rights as an effective way to peacefully bring order in society:
I MIGHT REMOVE THE FOLLOWING SECTION
A University of Pittsburgh study revealed 80% of the criminals that were legally carrying guns were prohibited from possessing guns and that those 30% of those guns were stolen according to gaps continue and firearm surveillance.
60% of felons admitted that they avoid committing crimes because they knew the victim was armed 40% of felons admitted they they avoid committing crimes because they thought the victims might be armed according to armed and considered dangerous. A survey of violence revealed the following,
74% of felons agreed one reason burglars avoid house where people are home is that they fear of being shot during the crime.
57% of felons polled again the criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are running into police. According to The Armed Criminal in America: A Survey of Incarcerated Felons.
In Washington DC basically banned guns since 1976 and has a murder rate of 57 per 100,000. Across the river to Arlington, Virginia gun control is far less strict with the murder rate of only 1.6 per 100,000. That is massive. Washington DC has an insane amount of police presence there, yet it is still quite dangerous. That shows you how useless the police can be in protecting your life, it is up to you to protect your life.
Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes. Most often the gun never fired. In 83.5% of cases the attacker either threatened or use force first proving that guns are well suited for self defense. Of the 2,500,000 times citizens use guns defend themselves, 92% merely pulled out their guns or fired a warring shot to scare off their attackers, according to targeting guns Dr. Gary Clegg.
Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are running into the police according to armed and considered dangerous.
For every accidental death (802), suicide (16,869) or homicide (11,348) with a firearm (29,019), 13 lives (390,000) are preserved through defensive use according to Unintentional Firearm Deaths, 2001, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control and Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997
The rate of defensive gun use (DGU) is six times that of criminal gun use according to Crime statistics: Bureau of Justice Statistics – National Crime Victimization Survey (2005). DGU statistics: Targeting Guns, Kleck (average of 15 major surveys where DGUs were reported)
26% of all retail businesses report keeping a gun on the premises for crime control according to Crime Against Small Business, U.S. Small Business Administration, Senate Document No. 91-14, 1969.
In 1982, Kennesaw, GA passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate dropped 89% the following year according to Crime Control Through the Private Use of Armed Force, Dr. Gary Kleck, Social Problems, February 1988. Note: even though statistics says this, there shouldn’t be laws to force people to arm themselves. It must be a willing choice.
90% of all violent crimes in the U.S. do not involve firearms of any type according to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 1998
Even in crimes where the offender possessed a gun during the commission of the crime, 83% did not use or threaten to use the gun according to National Crime Victimization Survey, 1994, Bureau of Justice Statistics
Fewer than 1% of firearms will ever be used in the commission of a crime according to FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994.
You are far more likely to survive violent assault if you defend yourself with a gun according to he Value of Civilian Handgun Possession as a Deterrent to Crime or a Defense Against Crime, Don B. Kates, 1991 American Journal of Criminal Law
John Lott, author of the book, “More Guns, Less Crime,” is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, another outstanding source for info on this subject. He writes: By 66 percent to 32 percent, economists and criminologists answer that gun-free zones are “more likely to attract criminals than they are to deter them.” A 60 percent to 40 percent margin thinks that guns in the home do not increase suicides. And a 62 percent to 35 percent spread says that guns are used in self-defense to stop crime more often than in the commission of crime.
Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used atleast 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of “Guns in America” — a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig
If we can just confiscate the estimated 350 million guns in the country, you might ask, then won’t we eliminate the offensive use of firearms, so we won’t need any of those many defensive uses? Good luck with that. The war on guns would not be any more successful than the government’s war on drugs. Only the innocent who would be disarmed. Criminals would have no problem keeping their guns or getting replacements on a thriving black market created from gun control.
Whenever there's a crime with a firearm, there's always people out there that will say that we need registration. People who say this are lying or are dense. What does gun registration mean? It means the people in power have a list of people and the guns they've registered. You can look up the serial number and find out who owns what firearm, that's all gun registration does. It gives them a list of owners and firearms that have been registered, this doesn’t include illegal firearms (which are used more often the legal firearms in crimes). What good did that do? Let's consider a scenario a guy takes a gun and goes into a liquor store and kills the owner and runs away, but luckily he did that with the registered firearm. It doesn’t do investigators any good. When they get there they see a dead person with some in them bullets, you can’t tell exactly what gun it could have come from. There are thousands of different guns that use common ammo such as 9mm. You must have the gun, and a criminal would not run away and leave the gun there.
People will say we need gun registration to stop mass shooting. That isn’t going to help, mass shooters go in to guns blazing knowing they will be killed or they have a plan to kill themselves. Looking over at their dead body to see that the gun was registered does not good. The registration didn’t prevent him because he knew he wouldn’t get away with it, everybody knows you can’t get away with a mass shooting.
If you want to know the truth of what is meant by reasonable registration watch this video: Long Version DNC Delegate Mary Bayer Describes "Common Sense Gun Legislation”. Here is the Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJipQgOk_vY. In the video, Mary Bayer explains that politicians such as Hillary Clinton will publicly that they support “common sense gun control”, but that is stepping stone to their real agenda, gun banning and confiscation.
Even if every firearm is registered, politicians aren't dumb enough to think it's going to reduce crime, which means they're liars and crooks. They want gun registration so they know where the guns are so it will be easier to confiscate them. Once a crime has been committed, it is too late to do anything about it. Databases do no good either. It's just a way to get people to be afraid and to give up their arms so that they're defenseless against politicians grab for power.
DELETE THE NEXT STAT SECTION
Countries with the strictest gun-control laws also tended to have the highest homicide rates according to Violence, Guns and Drugs: A Cross-Country Analysis, Jeffery A. Miron, Department of Economics, Boston University, University of Chicago Press Journal of Law & Economics, October 2001
“… the major surveys completed in the past 20 years or more provides no evidence of any relationship between the total number of legally held firearms in society and the rate of armed crime. Nor is there a relationship between the severity of controls imposed in various countries or the mass of bureaucracy involved with many control systems with the apparent ease of access to firearms by criminals and terrorists.” Minutes of Evidence, Colin Greenwood, Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, January 29, 2003
There's no correlation to firearm ownership and firearms homicide according to firearm ownership small gun survey 2007 crime United States Office of drugs and crime
In Canada around 1920, before there was any form of gun control, their homicide rate was 7% of the U.S rate. By 1986, and after significant gun control legislation, Canada’s homicide rate was 35% of the U.S. rate – a significant increase.In 2003, Canada had a violent crime rate more than double that of the U.S. (963 vs. 475 per 100,000) according to Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, at 360 and Juristat: Crime Statistics in Canada, 2004 and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics online
The crime rate is 66% higher in four Canadian Prairie Provinces than in the northern US states across the border. According to A Comparison of Violent and Firearm Crime Rates in the Canadian Prairie Provinces and Four U.S. Border States, 1961-2003, Parliamentary Research Branch of the Library of Parliament, March 7, 2005
Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries according to Criminal Victimization in Seventeen Industrialized Countries, Dutch Ministry of Justice, 2001
Crime in Australia has been rising since enacting a sweeping ban on private gun ownership. In the first two years after the ban, government statistics showed a dramatic increase in criminal activity. 34 In 2001-2002, homicides were up another 20%.
From the inception of firearm confiscation to March 27, 2000, the numbers are:
Firearm-related murders were up 19%
Armed robberies were up 69%
Home invasions were up 21%
The sad part is that in the 15 years before the national gun confiscation:
Firearm-related homicides dropped nearly 66%
Firearm-related deaths fell 50%
according to crime addresses crimes a quarter by police Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Institute of criminology according to United Nations Office and drug crimes study when you compare Overall intentional homicide rates regardless of the weapon use with the rest of the world, the United States finished roughly around middle of the pack ranking 94 out of the 219 countries included in the study.
Despite the fact that America has the highest gun ownership, there is no strong correlation between homicide and gun ownership. If people want background checks, they can do it the private sector is plenty alternatives that stores can use. In fact, some stores do have their own system of background checks. There isn't many gun stores that would sell to someone who is a known criminal because they do not want to encourage that behavior and then have that behavior be associated with their business. With the current background check system often times false positives happen, which means an individual who goes to the background check their name is mixed with another criminal. They've effectively disarmed an innocent person. They have to go through a process of appeals to repeal this. As the database gets bigger the margin of error becomes wider. You can see possibly hundreds of thousand people who can’t get guns because of bureaucratic errors. Bureaucrats or artificial intelligence can’t legitimately decide what is a right and what is not.
Examining all the multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1999 shows that on average states that adopt right to carry laws experienced a 60% drop in the rates at which the attacks occur and a 78% drop in the rates at which people are killed or injured from such attacks.
FBI Uniform Crime units 1992 the total violent crime rate is 26% higher in the restrictive states 798.3 per 100,000 population, then in the less restrictive states 631.6 per 100,000 people, the homicide rate is 49% higher in the restrictive states 10.1 per 100,000.
And then in the states with less restrictive CCW laws 6.8 per 100,000 the robbery rate is 58% higher in the restrictive states 289.7 per 100,000. Then in the less restrictive states 183.1 per 100,000. The aggravated assault rate is 15% higher in the restrictive states 455.9 per 100,000 then in the less restrictive states 398.3 per 100,000.
A 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounted to 162,000 such incidents per year. This excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.” Paper: “Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun.” By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Fall 1995.
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 5.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2014.These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 600,000 or 10% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
Total of 888 people have died in mass shootings since 1982. That's a total of 1% of all gun deaths, approximately two thirds of which are suicide.
Politicians and celebrities will often talk about supporting gun control legislation immediately after mass shooting. An example is the Las Vegas shooting in 2017. Hillary Clinton said on Twitter “Our grief is not enough. We can and must put politics aside and stand up to the NRA and work together to try and stop this from happening again.” Notice how she said we must put politics aside and then she immediately says we must stand up to the NRA. Some others include Senator Dianne Feinstein. Jimmy Kimmel, Ariana Grande.Top legal executive at CBS Haley Catherine Gold said she was not sympathetic to those who died because country music fans are often republican gun totters. Just because you disagree with someone politically that means you should just not care that they died! instead of trying to preserve justice for the victims of Las Vegas shooting or questioning the official narrative of politicians, influential celebrities and media figures have instead resorted to calling for gun control
America is not high on the list of deaths from mass shootings (as you can see in the chart) it is ranked 11 out of deaths rate per million people for mass shootings from 2009 30,015. It is 11 out of 18 industrialized countries which include countries such as Norway, Russia, Netherlands and Austria. This is according to crime research.org and they use the number of murder with four people with firearms as the definition of a mass shooting.
Mass shooting is not a legally defined turn. Different studies use different definitions for what counts as a mass shooting and some studies consider accidental shooting that harm no one as a mass shootings. That is why you hear so many mass shooting or you will hear hundreds in one year, in reality only a few mass shooting happens out of 300 million people each year in America. A more reasonable definition is the murder of four or more people with a firearm.
The best way to prevent mass shootings is by encouraging people within the community to take responsibility for defense rather than relying on incompetent government agencies such as the police. Firearms are effective weapons for this.
The probabilities of mass shootings are greater than the probabilities of tyranny, simply because of the number of people that could engage in a mass shooting is greater than those who could implement tyranny. This is because are more armed citizens than soldiers in America. Only soldiers and police, not citizens, could impose tyranny. Those that have been killed by tyrants and their armies greatly outweigh the number of people killed by individual mass shooters.
Making laws to order guns out of criminals hands does not work because criminals do not obey laws, which actually is by definition what makes someone a criminal, all this does is disarmed so called law abiding citizens, which makes them vulnerable to criminals who carry around a gun for self defense is necessary.
A Supreme Court case ruled and it takes an average of five minutes for police to show up. Carrying a weapon (even illegal) on you is better than being dead when the police show up. Legally because your defense is more important than what other people feel about what they think their right to be safe is here to do whatever you want, as long as you're not harming others is more important than anything else.
You can never have enough of a budget to have enough school police to provide security to every school in the country, eventually they'll run out of their budgets. Sometimes police at schools even coward at the mass shooter. As many people as possible need to be responsibly armed. This insures at least one person will have the courage to defend the rest, since that is usually all it takes. Only then will others follow to assist in defense.
Rewrite this section!
Children have been coerced to attend the schools and the administrators in charge of schools have not provided adequate security, they have endangered those children by the combination of the coercion to attend in the absence of adequate security. They have been negligent in a civil sense, and perhaps even criminally negligent, given how mass shooting almost always happen in gun free zones.
“I have repeatedly told CNN and our other media the following: if you don’t want to propagate more mass murders, Don’t start the story with sirens blaring. Don’t have photos of the killer. Don’t make it 24/7 coverage. Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story. Localize the story to the affected community. And make it as boring as possible in every other market.”- Dr. Park Dietz, Forensic Psychologist
There is a well established phenomenon of copycat suicides, other countries media outlets have taken the step to minimize the spreading the killers faces and names. Their media outlets have a different standard for reporting suicides and mass shooting. This reporting method is done to prevent more suicides and mass shootings happening by minimizing coverage and sensationalism, so that others won’t want to copy other shooters and suicide victims.
The American media has no industry standard practices on how to cover suicides or mass shootings. There is a difference between how a mass shooting and shootings are covered. A suicide is treated as a somber tragedy, the mass shootings have sensationalism turned up to 11. There’s a detailed discussion of the shooter’s life story, motives and methods. Strong evidence suggests that this both encourages and instructs potential mass shooters.
Researchers at Arizona State University analyzed news reports of gun-related incidents from 1997 to 2013. They hypothesized that the rampages did not occur randomly over time but instead were clustered in patterns. The investigators applied a mathematical model and found that shootings that resulted in at least four deaths increase the likelihood of copycat shootings ,lasting an average of 13 days. Roughly 20 to 30 percent of all such violence took place in these windows.
Despite the low frequency of these tragedies, the media pays an insane amount of attention to mass shootings for self-serving reasons which are both political and economic. There’s an ongoing shift in the media’s business model to attention-based revenue that results in sensational news coverage and clickbait headlines.
The media does this for two reasons: First, it makes profit. Newspapers and other media are businesses and do what creates the greatest profits. However, there is another more sinister reason: The American media has a political agenda that includes banning and confiscation of firearms.
The mainstream media no longer relies on subscribers for most of their revenue. Instead, they get their money from page clicks on the Internet. This means that the business model of the average media oulet has shifted from getting long-term subscribers to getting as many clicks as possible. Studies have shown that people are far more likely to click on sensationalized news stories and “clickbait” than anything else. What this means is that mainstream media has a high incentive to publish the most outrageous and sensational version of events when reporting the news. This is also called yellow journalism.
Whatever gets the most attention spreads the furthest and generates the greatest amount of income for the media company. Mass shootings generate big business for the media, so they help to fuel the attention directed toward them. Refusing to share articles about mass shooters can be one way that people can begin reversing this trend. The ultimate desire of a mass shooter is attention and fear. When society reacts hysterically to mass shootings, it is playing into the hands the mass media’s agenda as well as the shooter.
In an NIH study called Mass Shootings: The Role of the Media in Promoting Generalized Imitation, the NIH found that mass shootings didn’t have to be portrayed as factual or realistic for it to be an influence on a mass shooter. Even merely describing the behavior of a shooter had the effect of influencing later shooters. The endless reporting on personal life details of the shooter, his crimes, and even the manifesto encourages mass shooters to rampage so they can get this hyped-up fame and coverage.
The obsession of the mass shooter in media is a sort of social status attractive to the type of person who has the idea of becoming a mass shooter. The portrayal of shooters wielding guns or looking menacing in photographs projects an aura of danger and toughness that can be attractive to those who are hanging on the edge of wanting to commit a mass shooting. Manifestos can inspire further action, especially if one of the goals of the manifesto is to create terror and panic, when the media shares these, manifesto’s mission is accomplished. Detailed reports of what happened can also provide an instruction manual for future shooters.
Banning of mass shootings reports, however, would be a mistake. People has a right to be informed of significant events and mass shootings are no exception. However, the manner in which mass shootings are reported on is the problem – the emphasis on the personal narrative of the shooter, the views that motivated him to commit the crime, and the gory details of his crimes.
Mass shooters are often treated as dangerous, powerful men. This makes mass shooting attractive to a certain unstable psychological profile. Mass shootings should be portrayed as the shameful act of a cowardly individual. Coverage could likewise emphasize punishment in cases where the shooter is apprehended alive.
The media should not focus on the mass shooting for weeks, they should only focus on if there is new details on the mass shooting rather than making all reports on the mass shooting and making up info in order to push the story they want to make money and push their agenda.
The cause of mass shootings was NOT guns; it is our sick society. Most of the perpetrators legally obtained their guns. Laws against murder, illegal use of firearms, illegal discharge of firearms, assault weapons. All of these laws were violated. None of these laws prevent crimes because criminals don’t obey laws.
We have a society where violence is glorified. Watch movies or tv, play video games, and the violence is appalling. There are many games where killing is the score by which you win. Denying this is putting your head in the sand. The same Hollywood that advocates for gun confiscation are the same Hollywood that glorifies guns and killing in their products.
The main thing, however, is to make the coverage as general and nonspecific as possible. Refuse to show faces and names except for briefly. This is the best way to reduce the fame enjoyed by the shooter. Even seemingly innocent terms like “lone wolf” can glamorize a shooter.
FBI Director James Comey believes that media predictions of mass shooters contributed to mass shootings in the United States. After the Orlando shooting, he said: “You will notice that I am not using the killer’s name and I will try not to do that. Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory, and I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families, and so that other twisted minds don’t think that this is a path to fame and recognition.”
The FBI has specifically requested the media stop naming mass shooters, but they continue to anyways.
A study connected by Mother Jones located no fewer than 74 copycat killings attempting or executed of the 1999 Columbine shooting alone the casualties till these individuals include 89 deaths and 126 injuries and nine suicide
There are some common attributes to mass shootings:
Irish author James Augustine Aloysius Joyce once wrote, “In the particular is contained the universal.” In the Dayton, OH, Connor Betts has a psychological profile shockingly similar to other shooters:
He is a single male.
He was a troubled teen.
He once drew up a “hit list” of students he wanted to kill or injure.
He experienced chronic rejection from the opposite sex.
The paper (Part I: Mental Illness, Firearms, And Violence by John Malcom and Amy Swearer) makes clear that, while most mentally ill individuals are not and never will become violent, certain types of serious mental illness, when untreated, are associated with a higher prevalence of firearm-related violence.
Individuals with serious mental illness are responsible for a disproportionate number of public mass public killing.
As many as two-thirds likely suffered from a serious mental illness prior to their attacks, and often displayed clear signs of delusional thinking, paranoia, or irrational feelings of oppression associated with conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar-related psychosis.
The most significantly between mental illness and firearm related violence is suicide, which counts for almost two thirds of all annual firearm related deaths.
The United States the most common method of suicide in the US is through the use of firearm. Despite the nation's exceptionally high rate of suicide by firearm, however, it is not have a high overall suicide rate compared with other countries. The number of countries was fairly restricted gun control laws have much higher rates of suicide than the United States including Belgium, Finland, France, Japan and North South Korea. The percentage of suicides with firearms has decreased since 1999. Even though the number of privately owned firearms has increased by more than 100 million. Restrictions on firearms access are unlikely to have an effect on suicide rates and there are other social and economic factors beyond firearm availability that better account for differences in suicide rates. These factors largely include: divorce rates, employment, poverty, past trauma and family structure. More socially inclusive communities tend to have lower suicide rates. The broad disarmament of the people, is unnecessary and inappropriate for dealing with the underlying problem. Analysis conducted by the Central Florida intelligence exchange, has found that 78% of mass shootings since 2011 have been perpetrated by individuals with mental illness.
Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years all share one thing in common, and it isn’t the weapons used. The overwhelming evidence points to the single largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.
The drugs most correlated to mass shootings in the last two decades are commonly known as “antidepressants,” “mood stabilizers,” and “antipsychotics.”
Numerous Neuroscientists and Physicians state that they chemical imbalance theory is false (Ronald Pies, Jeffery Lacasse, Johanathan Leo, Joanna Moncrief). This drugs do not really help with depression in the long term and depression is often listed as a side effect for these drugs. Psychiatrists often lie to their patients telling them they have a chemical balance, since many patients suffer from severe depression blame themselves and the psychiatrists want to shift the blame to make the patient feel better.
Psychiatric disorders are not real disorders or diseases, according to Allen Frances, one of the most well known psychiatrists in America. They are often social constructs to explain common mindsets, emotions, and behaviors.
According to Peter Breggins a former psychiatry professor at Havard, It is a mistake to view depressed feeling or even severely depressed feelings as a disease.
Similarly, former renowned Cambridge biological psychiatrist Robert Berezin remarks,
Psychiatry has lost its way and has become a distribution center for psychiatric drugs. It needs to face that psychiatric problems, and symptoms are human problems, no more and no less, derived from the formation of our characters as we adapt to our emotional environment. Real psychotherapy addresses what ails us, not psychiatric drugs.”
”In other words, you need to get to the root of the problem. Here is an analogy: instead of just simply putting bandages when you are putting your hand on the stove, it would be better to take your hand of the stove.”
Psychopharmacolgist Richard DeGranpre in association with Duke University says there are no invented medicines that threat any psychiatric disorders. In fact, they are often just synthetic versions of dangerous drugs with no real benefits such as cocaine and meth.
The Journal of the American Medical Association acknowledges that Ritalin acts much like cocaine, it was developed in the 1950s to mimic the results of cocaine.
Adderal is a synthetic version of meth.
Drug Manufacturers simply change the illegal drugs and make them legal by making slight differences and then they can be sold to the public and be trusted by consumers.
Psychiatrist Bessel van der Kolk states:
Over the past three decades, psychiatric medications have become a mainstay in our culture, with dubious consequences. Consider the case of antidepressants. If they were indeed as effective as we have been led to believe, depression should by now have become a minor issue in our society. Instead, even as antidepressant use continues to increase, it has not made a dent in hospital admissions for depression. The number of people treated for depression has tripled over the past two decades, and one in ten Americans now take antidepressants.
Editor in Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine Marcia Angell says in The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It, that big pharma exists mostly on fraud, false advertisements, misleading information, and refusal to fully disclose facts.
SSRIs can only provide a failing hope for those who consume them, and after six months of consuming them, research shows that most people lose hope in their effectiveness. The former head of placebo studies at Harvard University, Irving Kirsch, explains that sugar pills offered to people in clinical trials as powerful “antidepressants” have similar results to SSRIs, and in many studies, they had better results (further suggesting that anti-depressants may even make depression worse). His conclusion after years of careful research is that hope must be offered in any attempted treatment of hopelessness:
“Whereas hopelessness is a central feature of depression, hope lies at the core of the placebo effect. Placebos instill hope in patients by promising them relief from their distress.
The promise of relief instills hope, it counters a fundamental attribute of depression. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any treatment successfully treating depression without reducing the sense of hopelessness that depressed people feel. Conversely, any treatment that reduces hopelessness must also assuage depression. So a convincing placebo ought to relieve depression.”
A former researcher at Stanford University Medical Center Bruce Lipton says in Biology of Belief (a great book):
“Another interesting fact about the effectiveness of antidepressants is that they have performed better and better in clinical trials over the years, suggesting that their placebo effects are in part due to savvy marketing.
“The more the miracle of antidepressants was spread in the media and advertisements, the more effective they became. Beliefs are contagious! We now live in a culture where people believe that antidepressants work, and so they do.”
Such a reality explains why mass shootings, bombings, and violent acts continue to increase and will occur again and again, more and more as more psychoactive drug consumers are made each day. Drugs are known chemical enablers to violence and suicide.
In a study of thirty-one drugs that are disproportionately linked to reports of violence toward others, five of the top ten are antidepressants. These are Prozac, Paxil, Luvox, Effexor and Pristiq. Two other drugs that are for treating ADHD are also in the top ten which means these are being given to children who could then become violent. One could conclude from this study alone that antidepressants cause both suicidal thoughts and violent behavior. This is a prescription for mass shootings.
Selwyn Duke writes “If you develop digestive problems after a change in diet, do you look for the cause in foods you always ate or the new ones you started eating? While the answer is obvious, this common sense is painfully uncommon when analyzing the new phenomenon of continual mass shootings: Many blame the long-present “foods” — guns in this case — and ignore the new diet whose embrace coincided with the problem. And part of what’s new is the widespread use of psychiatric drugs.”
Politicians get more votes for proposing gun control than they do legal drugs by using fearmongering. The Guardian reports “Pharmaceutical companies spend more than any other industry to influence politicians.”
One study shows a quarter of all children on drugs such as Paxil and Zoloft become dangerously violent and/or suicidal.
Twenty-seven drug regulatory agency warnings cite psychiatric drug side effects of mania, psychosis, violence and homicidal ideation; 1,531 cases of psychiatric drug induced homicide have been reported to the US FDA; 65 high profile cases of mass shootings/murder have been committed by individuals under the influence of these drugs, yet there has never been a federal investigation into the link between seemingly senseless acts of violence and the use of mind-altering psychotropic drugs
Dr. Kelly Brogan says ““We know that all drugs have side effects. That’s just part of the deal, right? But is it really possible that an antidepressant can cause a sane person to act like a cold-blooded criminal?” The answer is yes and worse, they cause people to become mass murders going on killing sprees, that are destroying the fabric of society in America, and the press do not have the integrity to report on it.”
The damage done by Ritalin is similar to frontal lobe syndrome, over time this can make a person increasingly incapable of inhibiting impulsive behavior and depression.
There have been 65 high profile acts of senseless violence, including mass school shootings, mass stabbings, and even the intentional crashing of a commercial airplane, committed by individuals taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs since October 9, 2017, according to CCHR International
A mentally ill person is anyone whom a psychiatrist, or other health care provider officially says is mentally ill.
There is no science behind a mentally ill person. There is no blood test that you can take. There's no brain scan that you can do. There is no x ray that you can do to determine whether or not somebody is mentally ill or not. It's an opinion. Innocent people have the potential to go to jail with testimony from a psychiatrist.
Disorders, such as ADHD, were created by the Association of psychiatry by sitting at a table and they voted in this disorder into their Bible, the DSM.
Big Pharma is product. People get tricked into taking psychiatric drugs, because life is difficult sometimes. Everybody struggles. Everybody has some anxieties, some guilt, some shame, some anger, some difficulty. This is taken advantage of by psychiatrists who claim they can essentially cure life's problems by drugging people. Many of the things that they drugging are fundamentally spiritual problems. It's my life worth while? Is there a reason to live? Should I stay married? Is it wrong to get divorced? Do I have the courage to get a better job? Many others result from childhood child abuse, child trauma, child deprivation, none of these questions can truly be solved by drugs.
The American Psychiatric Association and the American Medical Association are trade unions to enforce the power and wealth of physicians.
If you ask the average psychiatrist if he/she feels mass shootings are caused by psychiatric drugs, they will most likely say, No, they did the killing because they were mentally ill. Other psychiatrists maintain that the mentally ill tend to be peaceful, if not docile. It's only when activated by psychiatric drugs, do they become aggressive or violent. Or when they're withdrawing from psychiatric drugs.
There a great deal of evidence that psychiatric patients were no more violence prone than anyone else.
Weapons are inert objects, they don't have the power to kill on their own. It's only people who hold the weapons that can cause those weapons to be used for some purpose. It's the people who are using the weapons that we need to focus on. The statistics are now there, that the overwhelming majority of these mass shootings are committed by people who are on psychotropic drugs.
If one in six are on psychiatric drugs and the US population is 327 million, that means 17% of the population or 55 million people are on psych drugs. That being said, even if a small percentage of these 55 million have adverse reactions, this translates into potentially thousands of shooters, terrorists, and violent criminals.
SSRIs do not cure chemical imbalance, they cause a severe biochemical imbalance in human and animal studies. All of them can cause Akathisia and mania. Akathisia is a terrible irritability and inner anguish, which can lead to violence. Mania is a euphoric out of control mood that's extremely irritable and touchy and can lead to violence, then it becomes an unpredictable random reaction in the brain as the brain fights back against the drugs, producing an extremely unstable state.
Prior to the 1980s mass shootings cost an average of 17 deaths per decade after the 1980s mass shootings caused an average of 92 deaths per decade. This is a 540% increase in the time period right after SSRI antidepressants like Prozac, Luvox, and Paxil became widespread. Although correlation is not always causation, this is a serious correlation between mass shootings and SSRI antidepressants.
One must also consider the effect of direct to consumer advertising. When in 1997, the FDA made it easier for Big Pharma to advertise psychiatric drugs to the masses on network TV. Drug companies are spending most of their advertising money on TV. It's almost impossible to watch TV for any length of time without seeing a commercial for a psychiatric drug.
The pharmaceutical industry is totally corrupt. They deliberately falsify test results to favor the acceptance of their drugs. They falsified the results, they've hidden evidence of adverse reactions. Then they put these drugs on the market and they make billions of dollars in profits. It's a business model, they know that eventually somebody's going to sue them, they know are going to have to go to court and they're going to lose the lawsuit, they're going to have to pay out millions of dollars in claims to compensate some family for the loss of a loved one, or for their permanent disability. But, it is nothing compared to the profits that they had made.
Another possible correlation is violent video games, though it is weaker than mental illness and psychiatric drugs.
The American Psychological Association (APA) considers violent video games a risk factor for aggression. In 2017, the APA Task Force on Violent Media concluded that violent video game exposure was linked to increased aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, as well as decreased empathy. However, it is not clear whether violent video game exposure was linked to criminality.
Studies have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in both the short-term and long-term. They can desensitize people to violent behavior and decrease empathy. Some studies suggest competition of players in video games is better predictor of aggressive behavior, note that may competitive video games are violent however.
An international study looking at more than 17,000 adolescents, ages nine to 19, from 2010 to 2017, found playing violent video games led to increased physical aggression over time.
The analysis of 24 studies from different countries found those who played violent games such as "Grand Theft Auto," and "Call of Duty" were more likely to do behavior such as being sent to the principal's office for fighting or hitting a non-family member.
In a study by the National Academy of Sciences, those who played violent games, had an increase risk of aggressive behavior. The new research echoes Hull's previous finding that playing violent games equates to about twice the risk of being sent to the principal’s office for fighting during an eight-month period, he said.
The effect is "relatively small, but statistically reliable. The effect does exist," Hull said.
"A lot of people ask, do these games really cause these kids to behave aggressively? I would say that is one possibility," he said. "The other possibility is that it's a really bad sign. If your kids are playing these games, either these games are having a warping effect on right and wrong or they have a warped sense of right or wrong and that’s why they are attracted to these games. Either way you should be concerned about it."
Rewrite section end
Mass Shootings and other terrorist acts done are often either faked or staged by governments in order to increase gun control and their power.
The strategy is called the Hegelian Dialectic or Problem-Reaction-Solution. You have a problem or present the illusion of one, hype up the problem to be worse than it is, and then present the solution. The same groups that intentional created or fabricated the problem, manufacture the solution. The media exaggerates the issue of gun crimes and mass shootings in order to support gun control and more powerful police state. Gun control is proposed almost immediately after false flags such as Port Arthur in Australia or The Christ Church shooting in New Zealand. The government knows that crime drops significantly when people have access to guns, therefore the government wants to revoke that right so they must depend on them for safety.
A R.I.P Facebook page was created for Victoria Soto, a teacher at Sandy Hook. This page was posted on December 10th, 4 days before the massacre. On December 11th, Google indexed the United Way website that offered condolences to the families of Sandy Hook, 3 days before the massacre. Two weeks before Sandy Hook, Attorney General Eric holder meet with Governor Daniel Malloy to launch a new project called Project Longevity to support gun control under the guise of reducing gun violence.
At the Auroa theater shooting, the gunman was dressed in tactical clothes, had tear gas, bomb making gear, booby trap devices, bullet proof vests, ballistic helmet, a SWAT uniform, and other odd items. Shortly before the shooting, there was a trailer for Gangster Squad which showed gangsters shooting at the crowd.
Interestingly, Sandy Hook and Auroa were both present in the Dark Knight Rises movie, the movie that was playing during the shooting.
Shortly after the Sandy Hook event, Facebook purged many accounts that carry pro-second amendment and pro-liberty information.
Hearing voices is often what mass shooters say the experienced during the shooting using military technology called voice to skull tech by using Long range acoustic devices. No body else can hear these messages and they can be put into a mind of a person with the devices at remote locations.
The shooter (Aaron Alexis) at the Washing DC Navy Yard filed a report to Rhode Island about his harassment that he believed was from Microwave Directed Energy Weapons. He also reports that three people were sent to fellow him and send attacks to his mind.
A woman (Miriam Carey) reported hearing voices of Obama talking to her before she slammed her car through a White House Barrier.
The Boston Marathon Bombing claimed he was under “majestic mind control” before the attack.
The Ft.Lauderdale mass shooting by Esteban Santiago, weeks earlier walked into an FBI field office claiming he was hearing voices and that the CIA was controlling his mind.
After the shooting, he claimed he was forced to have “terrorist thoughts” and that the government was “controlling his mind” and forced him to watch ISIS videos.
Jason Dalton who killed 6 people in Kalamazzo Michigan says that he was being controlled by the Uber app during the massacre. When he would open the app, a symbol would appear and he claimed it would “take over your whole body.”
A lawyer named Myron May shoot three people at FSU. He claimed to hear voices and was electronically harassed and gangstalked by the government. He sent info (which was intercepted by the FBI) to try and prove this before the shooting. A week before the shooting, he posted on facebook. “Also, has anyone here ever been encouraged by your handler to kill with a promise of freedom?
Jared Laughner killed 6 people and wounded congresswomen Gabrielle Giffords. He claimed he was “framed” and “handpicked illegally to be a sleeper assassin” and that the government put a chip in his head to control his mind.
CIA project Bluebook/Artichoke states it’s desire to create mind controlled slaves using hypnosis to commit murder.
According to Brown University, it is also possible to implant false memories and false perceptions into people, another possible reason for these mass shootings using DecNef.
There’s a direct correlation between fatherless children and teen violence.
According to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services “Fatherless children are at a dramatically increased risk of drug and alcohol abuse” (which could lead to violence).
According to a 2015 study, even if all guns were removed from America, in a ten year period, 355 people still would’ve been murdered in mass killings (4 or more people murdered).
From 2006 to 2015, 140 people were murdered by arsonists in mass fires, 104 were stabbed in mass stabbings, and 92 people were beaten to death in mass killings. According to James Alan Fox of Northeastern University. If good people don’t do something soon, you might wake up one morning to the sound of a SWAT team breaking down your door to confiscate your guns, prepared to kill you or any member of your family who resists. Why? Perhaps because a gun-hating neighbor hates you having guns or a relative doesn’t like you and is looking for any way to “teach you a lesson” or your ex-spouse is looking for any way to “get even” with you or an anti-gun cop with a grudge wants to send a political message or a school teacher overheard one of your children talk about how many guns daddy has and became alarmed, etc.
The FBI has just recently stated that if you believe in “conspiracy theories,” you are a “domestic terrorist threat.” That FBI designation alone could very easily precipitate a “red flag” gun confiscation order being rendered against you.
Connecticut enacted the nation’s first red flag law in 1999, followed by Indiana (2005). This means social scientists have had decades to analyze the effectiveness of these laws. And what did they find?
“The evidence,” The New York Times recently reported, “for whether extreme risk protection orders work to prevent gun violence is inconclusive, according to a study by the RAND Corporation on the effectiveness of gun safety measures.”
Red Flag Laws Violate Due Process
The Constitution mandates that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
Seizing the property of individuals who have been convicted of no crime violates the constitution. Gun control advocates claim due process is not violated because people whose firearms are taken can appeal to courts to reclaim their property. However, as economist Raheem Williams has observed, “this backward process would imply that the Second Amendment is a privilege, not a right.”
In theory, red flag laws are supposed to target individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others. However, being a threat to yourself doesn’t mean that you should have your rights taken away. Only if you are threatening someone with weapons should you have them taken away. In practice, they can work quite differently.
In a 14-page analysis, the American Civil Liberties Union of Rhode Island explained that few people understand just how expansive the state’s red flag law is.
“It is worth emphasizing that while a seeming urgent need for [the law] derives from recent egregious and deadly mass shootings, [the law’s] reach goes far beyond any efforts to address such extraordinary incidents,” the authors said. Individuals who find themselves involved in these proceedings often have no clear constitutional right to counsel.
“As written, a person could be subject to an extreme risk protective order (ERPO) without ever having committed, or even having threatened to commit, an act of violence with a firearm.”
Rhode Island’s law is not unique. A University of Central Florida student, for example, was hauled into proceedings and received a year-long RPO (risk protection order) for saying “stupid” things on Reddit following a mass shooting, even though the student had no criminal history and didn’t own a firearm. (The student also was falsely portrayed as a “ticking time bomb” by police, Jacub Sullum reports.) Another man, Reason reports, was given an RPO for criticizing teenage gun control activists online and sharing a picture of an AR-15 rifle he had built.
As I’ve previously observed, red flag laws are essentially a form of pre-crime.
If this sounds far-fetched, consider that the president recently called upon social media companies to collaborate with the Department of Justice to catch “red flags” using algorithmic technology. The idea that governments can prevent crimes before they occur is absurd and straight out of minority report, but the threat these ideas pose to civil liberties is quite real.
Compromising civil liberties and property rights to prevent acts of violence that have yet to occur are policies that you would find in a police state rather than a free society.
“The very act of attempting to limit our Natural Right to defend ourselves with weaponry is, in and of itself, Tyranny.” -Mark Passio
The way gun control is pushed is by using incrementalism, an ideology of Fabian socialism, an organization that is behind gun control in many countries, especially The Unite Kingdom. Gun controllers take your right to defend so slowly that you do not notice it, and by some point it is too lake and you are living in tyranny. The process is Background checks-Registration-Confiscation-Tyranny-Genocide. The original Fabian Society symbol is a wolf in sheep clothing.
The best way to take control of a people and to control them utterly is to take away a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed.” -Pat Miller
If you put a frog in cold water and gradually heat the pot, the frog will stay in the water and never jump out and allow himself to be boiled to death. Whereas if you drop the frog into a pan of really hot water, he'll jump out immediately. People tend to get used to incremental increases of tyranny. Eventually they will accept the total package.
Gun controllers know exactly what they are doing. The media almost never allows guests on shows to discuss the real purposes of the Second Amendment. Their long term mission is to slowly boil the frog and slowly disarmed Americans, so that we will accept totalitarianism.
Gun control advocates believe guns should only be in the hands of the military and police. However, rights are universal. How does law enforcement have the right to own and use firearms that the people do not? Belief that the military or police can have and use firearms but the people cannot is a recipe for tyranny and genocide.
The “need to feel safe” or even children being murdered by firearms is not a reason to abolish rights, nor is there ever a legitment reason. Gun control doesn’t result safety and millions of people, including children, have been murder by firearms from governments who banned government, which originally started with “common sense” gun control which eventually lead to genocide. If a child dies due to gun violence, the person responsible for the violence is the criminal, not the innocents who happen to own guns. It is the equivalent of punishing all kids in a class because one kid talked when they weren’t suppose to. Most child fatalities by firearms are due to a lack of proper weapons safety and training by adults. This would be elminated if children were taught proper firearms safety.
It is a universal and eternal truth that individuals are responsible for their own actions. This can be found in Aristotle, who stressed the capacity of each individual to choose, and the Buddha, who said: “We alone are responsible for our own lives.”
The fear of weapons is Hoplophobia.
“Hoplophobia, like homophobia, is a displacement symptom. Hoplophobes fear their own forbidden feelings and urges to commit violence. This would be harmless, except that they project these feeling onto others.” -Eric S. Raymond.
Fear almost always stems from ignorance. Since Hoplophobes don’t know how to use weapons to protect themselves, they irrationally fear that all weapons are going to harm them somehow. When it comes to weapons, they react only with fear, and they insist that everyone else should have to lose their natural right of self defense just so they can feel safe. This is the immature mentality of a fearful and bratty child with poor or absent parenting. Government is only too happy to step in and become proxy “parent” for such “grown children” who are really just mentally immature adults.
People don’t want the responsibility of self defense because they fear the may be injured or killed in the exercise of personal responsibility. They are also highly fearful of the possibility that they may need to kill another human being in their own defense. If someone was attempting to take your life or freedom of those you love, would you be willing to kill another human being if necessary?
“You have to be a spiritually broken person to think you cannot kill another person who is coming for you life.” -Mark Passio
2007 CDC study shows only 0.6% of accidental deaths are from guns, while the highest is motor accidents, which are 68 times more likely.
Less than 1% of accidental gun deaths are from homicides according to Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’, Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1989
Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.  * Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;  and * If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.
Dr. Gary Kleck, interview with J. Neil Schulman, “Q and A: Guns, crime and self-defense,” The Orange County Register (19 September 1993). In the interview with Schulman, Dr. Kleck reports on findings from a national survey which he and Dr. Marc Gertz conducted in Spring, 1993 — a survey which findings were reported in Kleck and Gertz, “Armed Resistance to Crime.”
10]One of the authors of the University of Chicago study reported on the study’s findings in John R. Lott, Jr., “More Guns, Less Violent Crime,” The Wall Street Journal (28 August 1996). See also John R. Lott, Jr. and David B. Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns,” University of Chicago (15 August 1996); and Lott, More Guns, Less Crime (1998, 2000).
Lott and Mustard, “Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns.”
Gun Control does not work, Chinese police destroyed 113 illegal gun factories and shops in a three-month crackdown in 2006. Police seized 2,445 tons of explosives, 4.81 million detonators and 117,000 guns according to China Radio International Online, September 7, 2006
When a gun control bill is being debated or people believe gun control is about to increase, gun sales go up, meaning more weapons in the hands of people instead of less, showing again gun control does not work. FBI Figures show another jump in purchases and background checks, with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System showing that in 2016 there was the highest number of checks, when sales soared in anticipation of Hillary Clinton winning the election because she opened supported strict gun control.
Once upon a time, shooting clubs and bringing guns into school was common. In 1975, New York state had over 80 school districts with rifle teams. In 1984, that had dropped to 65. By 1999 there were just 26. The state’s annual riflery championship was shut down in 1986 for lack of demand. This, sadly, is a familiar story across the country. The clubs are fading from memory, too. This is largely thanks to the zero-tolerance policy
Until 1989, there were only few school shootings that resulted in death, with an average of 2 killed, this is despite widespread ownership of guns and no “gun free zones”. Note: many mass shootings do not involve injury or death. Gun Free School Zones at the federal level began with Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994 (GFSA), after that, school shooting that resulted in death or injury increased, and had a higher average number of deaths, though there may be other factors involved besides gun free zones in school, there is a strong correlation.
Many magazines and catalogs from the 40-60 advertised guns to children. Hundreds of thousands of students would bring rifles to school, put them in lockers, on the bus, in class etc. school shootings were rare.
Here is one photo of a rifle club in high school (The rifle club at Tottenville High School, 1947) :
If we had gun control, we would not have less crime. To think you can 300+ million guns can be legislated out of existence is absurd, if not impossible.
One of the easiest ways to control people is to make them defenseless. Proof of this is in the communist and fascist regimes of the 20th century that killed an estimated 250 million people, and is possibly far greater, which was easy once they were disarmed because they had to way to resist the mass killings.
Rapist and muggers want people to be disarmed so they can terrorize and get want they want from the victims with virtually no consequences. Politicians and organized crime want people to depend on them for “protection” (which is just extortion in reality).
Being unarmed by choice or compulsion guarantees having to exist at the mercy of others more armed than you.
Violent criminals benefit from gun control. When natural law-abiding people are disarmed, they can rob, rape and murder without worrying that an intended victim would stop them.
Isn’t strange that many who favor gun control don’t mind having powerful rifles protect members of the federal government and bank guards. Apparently, protection of “important people” and their money is proper in the eyes. Yet some of the same people don’t want a parent to protect their children. They are hypocrites.
A number of sates have implemented constitutional carry, which means a citizen can carry a firearm. Even with these laws on the books, crime rates have continued to drop and incidents of gun accidents have dropped.
Gun Control supporters want a criminal organization called government that has killed hundreds of millions of people throughout the centuries to have all the guns.
If you have a medical marijuana card, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says that you can’t buy a gun.
The court ruled 3-0 that a ban preventing medical marijuana card holders from purchasing firearms is not in violation of the Second Amendment. The court argued that drug use “raises the risk of irrational or unpredictable behavior with which gun use should not be associated.”
Alex Kreit, marijuana law expert at the San Diego’s Thomas Jefferson School of Law, expects that this ruling won’t be the last we see of the issue. He told the AP that the ruling may be challenged by people who use medical marijuana who will argue “that they shouldn’t be lumped with other drug users in terms of concerns about violence.”
Marijuana doesn’t cause you to become violent there is no evidence of that, those who say that clearly have done no research or have tried it themselves.
Many say that the Second Amendment is an ultimate guard against tyranny, but they don't really want to get any more specific. More specifically if the people have the ability to kill government agents, it limits what the government can do to them.
If you support banning any sort of guns (fully and semi auto rifles, pistols, shotguns, rifles, etc), it means you're going to tell several million Americans who already guns that they're either going to surrender their guns, or lots of government agents with guns are going to go take their guns and arrest them. This is absurd.
If you support government agents going to someone house to violently take someone guns if they don’t give up the guns, you are not a peaceful person. If you're advocating that millions of people who haven't done violence to anybody, to be threatened with violence by men with guns, if they own a gun. What you're saying is, you would rather have all those people killed (since that will happen if you resist being arrested by government), than let them keep their firearms, even if they've been perfectly responsible, which the vast majority of them are and never threaten anyone ever heard anybody.
People say they want gun control to stop violence. However, gun control requires violence. It is inherently violent, to confiscate guns from innocent people. Law enforcers who enforce gun control are not peaceful, they used violence and threats to confiscate guns.
In a lot of ways gun control is a Trojan horse. “Common sense gun control” is not common sense nor is it purported reasons for it true. It’s ultimately a ruse for gun confiscation, where only those who are in law enforcement, military, politicians, and the politically connected can have guns.
Corporate support for gun control is becoming more common. For example, banks now are starting to break ties with pro gun organizations, a lot of corporations are starting to break ties as well with their pro gun affiliates such as Walmart after the El Paso shooting.
Politicians proposing the “buyback” program disguise it as a voluntary transaction, however, if you don’t choose to sell your guns to them, unlike a business, they will force the translation.
According to the Department of Justice, the average federal conviction for weapons violations resulted in 87 months in prison compared to 82 months for drug offenses and 28 months for property crimes.
Polls (which are often high manipulate to serve an agenda), show most favor gun control, but that does not make gun control justified. People tend to set aside their rights when they feel unsafe, from criminals or a foreign invaders. Rights are inherit and can never be legitimately taken away.
Almost all of the gun control lobby have some kind of a direct or indirect financial or political tie to the government itself. Governments, especially powerful and tyrannical governments, do not want citizens to be armed, they're all for gun control. It's not difficult to understand why the people who are either in government or who are dependent upon government or close to government call for gun control. They do not want people to be armed to resist a tyrannical government because they benefit from it’s existence and continuance.
Seventeen states have some form red flag laws, but only a couple of them even mention mental health. None of us wants violently mentally ill people or terrorists to have guns. Red flag laws are a slippery slope to another way for the government infringe citizens right to keep and bear arms. Gun control supporters wants some type of process like in Minority Report, where the government reads the minds of citizens and takes actions to arrest the citizen before they committed some crime. This is a slight exaggeration, but these laws would have government agents determining that someone should have their home raided and guns taken based on a tweet, Facebook post, or email. This is also a Fourth Amendment violation. So we start with a government deciding that something said by a citizen is illegal, violating the First Amendment, the government then violates the Fourth Amendment by going onto peoples property without permission, and then depriving a citizen of their Second Amendment right by confiscating their guns.
Ralph Gilbertsten in Richfield, Minnesota has no criminal record and yet police confiscated three of his guns. Officers took his guns because he believed in UFOs, Bigfoot, and conspiracy theories. The police Lieutanant Mike Flaherty in Richfield said “I’m confident our officers seized the weapons with the best intention, It was a mental health issue, and I think the cops responded appropriately. The process is being followed. If the court rules that we have to return his weapons, then we will return them.” Police took his guns at the request of Hennepin Community Outreach for Psychiatric Emergencies after Ralph Gilbertsten sent a message saying he believed CIA agents were watching him. Gilbertsen’s psychiatrist, however, said the man poses no threat.
The use of suspicion of mental illness as a pretext for gun confiscation is on the rise. An example is a California law that allows judges to order confiscation of weapons without giving gun owners a chance to appeal.
“With as little as a misunderstood Facebook post, your gun rights could be STRIPPED AWAY and your LIFE TURNED UPSIDE DOWN, in other words, a judge could issue the order without ever hearing from the person in question, if there are reasonable grounds to believe the person is a threat based on accounts from the family and police,” a Firearms Policy Coalition press release states.
Red flag laws propose that people can have their rights and property taken from them on the basis of mere allegations.
1,700 citizens had their guns confiscated in 2018, but the number is likely far higher, as some states didn’t report these gun confiscation orders.
To those who may be in favor of such laws, consider the following: There is no way to stop an angry spouse from calling police repeatedly and telling them their ex is threatening to cause harm to others. Anyone, any time, now has the ability to claim someone else is a threat and have police take their guns. It should also be noted that taking away someones guns and guns rights doesn’t prevent them from attain guns illegally, by stealing, getting it from friends, or through the black market.
For those that may not be aware, “Red Flag” Laws are allegedly devised to disarm individuals who may be at high risk to commit violent acts before they are able to do so. They are technically called Extreme Risk Protective Orders. These “red flags” can be thrown up by law enforcement, mental, and medical professionals regarding a person’s mental state and/or capacity to do harm. In some cases, family members and others can also trigger the gun confiscation order.
The violation of the 2nd Amendment is the most obvious since forcibly disarming an American citizen through a matter of law who has committed no crime is a clear infringement on the Second Amendment. In fact, so is the idea that “mentally ill” people should not have access to weapons.” The fact is that mentally ill people still have rights. The overwhelming majority of “mentally ill” people innocent people and less violent that the average citizen.
Involuntary confinement is already legal in the US already allows for “mental health professionals” to involuntarily confine people for the slightest statements. They violate their rights and, more often than not, ruin their lives with forced medication. The fact that mental and medical professionals have as much authority as they do should be considered abhorrent in a free society.
And thus we arrive at the second frightening aspect of Red Flag laws – the further weaponization of mental health and psychiatry. This is similar to methods used by the Soviet Union when critics of the government were deemed mentally ill and forced into “treatment” where they remained.
Rewrite End 2
Pschiatry was used in the Soviet Union on the interpretation of political opposition or dissent. As a psychiatric problem, it was called psycho pathological mechanisms of dissent. During Soviet Leadership, psychiatry was used to disable and remove political opponents who openly express beliefs that contradicted Soviet propaganda. The term philosophical intoxication was given to them and was widely applied to mental disorders diagnoses when people disagreed with the country's communist leaders. In other words, if you disagreed with the Soviet Union, you were diagnosed you with philosophical intoxication. That or they would label you with sluggish schizophrenia. Sluggish schizophrenia was the most infamous of diagnosis used by Soviet psychiatry, due to its usage against political dissidents. After being discharged from a hospital, people diagnosed with sluggish schizophrenia are depraved of their civil rights, credibility and their employability. The usage of this diagnosis has been internationally condemned. If you have sluggish schizophrenia, it means that you don't have schizophrenia, but eventually you will develop it. Disobedient soviets could be placed under psychiatric incarceration for possessing certain books, participating in a civil rights movement, or adopting a religion the government didn’t like. The union viewed dissenters as having a form of mental illness that needed to be cured.
Psychiatry has been used as a weapon in other countries as well. It has also been used against the Falun Gong religion by China. On Falun info.net, psychiatric torture of Falun Gong practitioners is widespread. Falun Gong people were put into hospitals and they were abused mentally, they were given drugs and hallucinogens, all to get them to not believe in their religion. Psychiatry was used as a tool against them. They were put into reeducation camps to retrain them how do not be “brainwashed.”
This is has been used as a weapon. China uses psychiatry as a weapon as well on the Uyghur Muslims. China believes Islam is a mental illness that needs to be cured. China is treating Islam like a mental illness, they are putting Muslims in internment camps and causing real psychological damage in the process.
The abuse of psychiatry is not unique to the Soviet Union and China. Every day in the United States countless people are forcibly hospitalized having committed no crime whatsoever.
From its inception as colonies, the United States has included the political abuse of those who are seen as psychologically deviant. Between early 1692-1693, at least twenty people died because they were accused of violating the orthodox beliefs of Christianity; they were called witches, in the Salem Witch Trails, although there were many others.
The most totalitarian institution in America has known was slavery; only the current prison system compares. During this period, the abuse of psychiatry revealed a second purpose; it not only provides social control but also justifies savagery in the eyes of those who commit it.
Consider the psychiatric term “drapetomania.” It refers to a mental illness defined in 1851 by a doctor named Samuel A. Cartwright in order to explain why slaves ran away. He stated that fleeing slavery “is as much a disease of the mind as any other species of mental alienation, and much more curable, as a general rule.” The recommended cure was “whipping the devil out of” slaves as a preventative measure against those who display signs of this impending mental illness.
In his 2010 book The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease, psychiatrist Jonathan Metzl explored the 1960 history of the Ionia State Hospital for the Criminally Insane (Michigan), which is now a state prison. The hospital was notorious for diagnosing blacks who advocated civil rights with schizophrenia and confining them for treatment. Treatments could become lifelong sentences without parole. Along with many other state asylums, the hospital was justly closed down during what is called “an era of deinstitutionalization” in the 1970s which came as a result of outrage over the brutal use of psychiatry as social control.
Changes in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM) gradually are increasing this use of psychiatry for evil purposes. It is considered the definite guide to mental illness. It has been extremely flawed at time, at once including the removal of homosexuality as a mental illness. The latest edition defines Opposition Defiant Disorder (ODD). To be diagnosed with ODD, a person must have had the following behaviors for more than 6 months: angry mood, argumentative behavior, and vindictiveness. This definition is so broad almost anyone could be diagnosed with it, especially those who criticize government, major corporations, and banks.
It has become common for courts to order a mental evaluation of those in custody, whether or not the ‘crime’ is violent. A prominent example is the whistleblower Bradley or Chelsea Manning. In a number of cases, authorities simply wish to punish a dissenter and discourage others from acting similarly.
An October 9, 2010 headline in Raw Story read, “Cop hauled off to psych ward after alleging fake crime stats.” NYPD officer Adrian Schoolcraft accused his supervisors of faking crime statistics and ticket quotas to make them look better. He backed up the accusations with documents and hundreds of hours of recorded tape which he supplied to the Associated Press. As a result of his alleged “hostile” behavior, he was taken in handcuffs to a hospital for evaluation.
Red Flag laws are a slippery slope to more tyranny. For those that believe Red Flag laws are “reasonable,” it is important to know that, once given power, those who receive it never give it back, as Frederic Douglass said, “power concedes nothing.” Even more so, they use the power they have gained to eliminate any opposition to their rule. If Red Flag laws are put in place today, the “red flags” may be threatening language. Tomorrow, they may be racism. Next week, they may be political disagreements. In a month, they may be any arguments at all. Next month, who knows? The goalposts are always moving. But, in a system of tyranny, the definition of dissent is always changing.
Lawmakers in New York have proposed a bill that will require a review of a citizens social media as well as their search engine history, going back years just to buy a gun.
Senate Bill 9191 would do the same. However, this is a federal bill and it also applies to current gun owners who want to renew their licenses.
This would also allow New York State to demand accounts and passwords. If they find hateful speech you could also be denied. The NYPD could also deny your license simply if they feel like it as well with no just cause. This sets a dangerous precedent for the rest of the country. This is an obvious violation of the freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and the right to privacy.
The Trump administration considered a proposal that would allow major tech companies like Google and Apple to monitor American citizens for signs of violent behavior and mental illness. This score could be used to determine if someone is allowed to own a firearm or not. This is shockingly similar to the social credit system of the Chinese Communist Party.
Devices such as Echo, Siri, and Alex could be used to monitor individuals for this purpose. This devices are always listening, including smartphones and other smart devices.
When the government deems certain individuals as dangerous and restrict their rights as a result, innocent people are always trampled. In the McCarthy era, innocents were criminalized for mere accusations of being communist. This was also true in the 1940s, when innocent Japanesese, where put into “internment” (prison) camps for their race. There is currently a no fly list, which provides little due process and consistently incorrectly flags innocent people including everyone from a four year old, journalists, military veterans, and American Muslims. t. If you are on this list, you can’t fly in the United States, which is violation of freedom of movement.
Racist history of Gun Control
The second amendment was originally created in non-slave states to defend themselves against British disarmament and tyranny. Slaves weren’t given the right to bear arms, because the slave master would lose their power over them. An excellent example of what happens when slaves get guns is John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry. John Brown, an abolishnist, A tyrannical elite government (slavemasters) doesn’t want its citizens (slaves) to have guns.
Self defense is a powerful tool, and that’s why the politically privileged often seek to prevent people from realizing the full potential of self defense. Throughout the Antebellum South laws were put in place preventing both slaves and free black people from possessing guns. In fact this went beyond guns, with New Orleans outlawing slaves learning fencing and Maryland restricting freemen from even owning dogs of their own, in case they could be used to attack the white population. These laws were clearly passed with the intention of preventing self defense.
In 1967, California State Legislature created Mulford Act of 1967 was the disarmament of the Black Pathers, an African American Self Defense Community. It should be noted, organization was mostly a peaceful organization until in the 1969s, when the CIA and law enforcement agents infiltrated the group to become more radical and violent. They openly carried, keep watch on the police, and protested against the government, all of which are natural rights.
Elaine Brown, head of the Black Panther Party in the 1970s, explains:
“The position of the Black Panther Party was that black people live in communities occupied by police forces that are armed and dangerous and represent the frontline of forces keeping us oppressed. We did not promote guns, but rather, the right to defend ourselves against a state that was oppressing us — with guns. There were innumerable incidents in which police agents kicked in our doors or shot our brothers and sisters in what we called red-light trials, where the policeman was the judge, the jury and the executioner. We called for an immediate end to this brutality, and advocated for our right to self-defense. Today, the brutal police murders of Sean Bell in New York and Oscar Grant in Oakland are just two examples of how little has changed. The gun-control discussion could result in policies that further criminalize and target black people.”
When Republicans in the 1960s advanced gun control, they were pandering to law-and-order conservatives who wanted police to have more power to protect them from minorities. If racism was not in the intent, it was definitely part of the effect.
Even today, gun laws are much like drug laws in that they are disproportionately used against minorities. Gun control is the primary reason behind New York City’s Stop-and-Frisk program, which in 2011 targeted minorities by a ratio of nine to one. Conservatives who defend this program are defending gun control at its most invasive; searching of people in the attempt to procure guns, which conservatives claim people have a natural and constitutional right to carry in the first place. Liberals opposed to this program should recognize that to violate gun rights, government must violate other rights.
In the federal prison system, almost half of those convicted for gun control violations are black and a quarter are Hispanic. Because of mandatory minimums for gun violation, the average convicted gun offender, usually someone who never hurt anyone with the weapon, rots in prison for longer than the average convicted rapist.
Gun control buy ups are often conducted in minority areas.
The history of gun control in the United States, has been used as a tool of racial oppression. This even goes back to the founding era, because, a lot of slave owners were scared of potential slave uprisings like what they saw what happened in the Haitian Revolution of this early 1790s. Many states made sure to not only disarm slaves, but also recently freed slaves. After the Nat Turner revolt of the 1830s a wave of gun control against blacks spread throughout the south. In the Reconstruction Era there were black codes, which included gun control on recently freed slaves. Blacks weren't the only minorities affected. Part of the internment process of Japanese American internment of the 1940s, was the confiscation of firearms in order to ensure they would comply. To this day, although gun control is not explicitly racist, it does disproportionately hurt minorities who tend to be located in progressive urban centers, such as; Baltimore, Washington, DC, or Chicago, which have very draconian gun control laws.
In the early 20th century, the Sullivan Act in New York, banning the carrying of small arms, was likely aimed at Italian Immigrants.
Most deadly violence committed by private citizens occurs in areas suffering from institutionalized discrimination. Unofficial economic segregation leads to some areas getting the worst schools, the most hostile police forces, the lowest levels of investment, and the largest burden of environmental hazards. These are usually places where minority racial groups, targeted by the bigotry of the powerful, live. The Black Panthers recognized this; their gun-toting swagger was part of their community improvement and empowerment program.
The following information is based on the summary of Larken Rose’s material on self defense and police:
When should you shoot a person? If somebody attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself. If someone is attacking you, you have the right to use whatever level of force it takes to stop him/her if they keep escalating to the level of violence they’re willing to use, you have the right to keep escalating the amount of violence you use to stop them. Even if that requires killing him.
If you have the right to kill a person, it doesn’t matter if the person has a certain clothes or titles. The exact same thing is true if the attacker has a badge. What I mean by killing is defending yourself against continuous violent assault or the threat of lethal force. What is ironic is that cops have classes and have written policies and are taught the concept of when should they shoot a civilian. If you have to protect your life, then do it. If a civilian is attacking the cop, and the cop defends himself and the civilian ups the amount of violence he's using, The cop has the right to up the amount of defensive force that he's using, all the way to the point of killing the person if he has to do to save his own life. If you defend yourself against an aggressor that has a badge, and the one defending himself doesn't, you aren’t breaking the law, you may be breaking man’s law, but that is no law at all. Defending yourself against violence is honorable act of courage and self esteem no matter who the aggressor is. It is not assault and if you kill an aggressor who is trying to kill you or seriously threatens you with lethal force it isn’t murder according to natural law. You may be tried under man’s law however, so be aware. People freak out because they've been trained into the mindset that it is virtuous to do as you're told, obey the police, obey the law, bow to authority, and never resist. People like to make up excuses. They will say cops are people too. They're, they're just doing their job and they need to feed their families. Let's see if that applies rationally to other people. The Hitman who's murdering people because he's paid to. He's a person that has a family and is trying to feed them. He's just doing his job. Don't say you should shoot him. Do you see how absurd this sounds? If a hitman is trying to kill you, kill him if necessary, even if he is dressed nicely and has a badge. Many people literally can't think about this. They fact you can't talk about this in any context where the attacker has a badge shows just how thorough authoritarian indoctrination is. If you look in history, the amount of evil that's been done by aggressors with badges who call themselves law enforcement, is far greater than any of the evil that's been committed by private citizens going against the law. The fact is something is law doesn't make it make it okay. It doesn't make it legitimate unless you think Holocaust and slavery was legitimate. You ultimately have the right to defend yourself against any force that threatens you well being and freedom. Law does not change that and badges do not change that. The mythology about government do not change that. People need to start to asking themselves, at what point will I actually resist aggression that's done in the name of law. If more people had asked themselves that, throughout the last 10,000 years or so, there would have been a whole lot less suffering and injustice in the world.
Supporting gun control laws means giving government more credit than it deserves. Government is an institution run and staffed by people with their own interests and personalities. Are they really any smarter, more competent, or less likely to escalate violence than the average person?
If anything, institutional and corporate interests combine with the difficulty of holding government officials and agents accountable makes them more dangerous. The laws they enforce make them an even bigger threat to public safety. Law enforcement with assault weapons break into people’s homes if they are suspected of having unapproved medicine, haven’t paid off the banker, or happen to live at the wrong address. If those government workers feel threatened during their adrenaline rush they are liable to shoot the terrified residents and their pets — and get away with it. The reason they can get away with it is for several reasons:
1. People don’t have the courage to defend themselves.
2. People don’t have the means (firearms) to defend themselves.
3. People don’t have a community to back up their resistance to tyranny.
Dispersing weapons among peaceful individuals and communities makes life safer by reducing the power of (and the perceived need for) police.
One of the most crucial points missing from the protest was the “well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” mentioned in the Second Amendment. If gun control measures were passed, the same people who would be sent to enforce them are the people who support “Blue Lives Matter”. The purpose of the second amendment is protection against standing armies, police state tyranny, and the security of a free state of existence.
Oddly enough, many of these more radical leftist groups that have allied themselves with March for Our Lives. Aside from calls to disarm state agents such as the police, these movements have contradictory goals. If we disarm the police, who will enforce gun control measures enacted against average citizens? Given this contradiction, much of the politics surrounding gun control in this segment of the left is conflicting, with many of the measures they call for only serving to expand the police state.
Add the following to Police section, maybe police chapter?
The police are not meant to be able to outgun the citizens. American didn’t have police forces until 1838 in Boston. They were famous gangs that abuse people. It's the citizens that are the real police.
Early policing in American history was based on the English common law, which relied heavily on citizen volunteers, watch groups, and militia until the mid 19th century when police departments began to become widespread in the US. It was based in Kin Police in England, which was more involved in helping neighbors with various tasks such as lighting street lamps, running soup kitchens, recovering lost children, capturing runaway animals, they were not involved in crime fighting activities.
According to Samuel Walker a Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Nebraska says that slave patrols as the first publicly funded police agencies in the American South. Slave patrols (know as paddyrollers) were created to manage racial conflict occurring in Southern Colonial America; these patrols were created with the specific intent of maintaining control over slaves.
Herman Goldstein, University of Wisconsin–Madison professor and criminologist states “...the transition from slave patrols to publicly funded police agencies was seamless in the southern region of the United States.”
The Founding Fathers likely would have looked at our modern police forces as standing army. The police should not be allowed to outgun the common citizens. Because the common citizens are supposed to be functioning in the militia. The militia supposed to be a check and balance against standing armies. The police are standing armies, and clearly the militia should have firearms at least as good as what the police have, in case police forces go rogue (which they have).
Here is a picture of real militarized American Police in the streets.
History of Gun Control in other countries
“Throughout the history of the world, there have been despots, tyrants, dictators and kings who have imposed their will over those they conquered. After defeating rival armies in battle, many of these rulers went on to lead cruel, ruthless and abusive regimes largely by keeping the subjugated powerless to resist” -Mike Adams of Natural News
The mass production of the firearms made conquering and controlling entire populations much more difficult, which is why the most brutal dictators in the last 150 years have moved to limit or ban access to guns.
Pre-Soviet Russians had the right to bear arms, only restricting their usage, such as not shooting outdoors in crowded places unless it was necessary. Many Russians owned guns. Soviet Russia put an end to this because they know that if the soviets had all the guns, they could rule them without resistance.
Soviet Russia was established following the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, when ruling Czar Nicholas II sacrificed 11 million Russian peasants in World War I. Frustrated and angered by the loss of life, armed Russians, many current or former Russian soldiers, were led by Marxist Vladimir Lenin to rebel against a regime that was already on the edge of collapse. Firearms were allowed to remain in the hands of Russian citizens until 1929, when private gun ownership was abolished during a time which saw the rise of one of the world's most repressive regimes, that was led by Joseph Stalin during the years 1928-1953. From 1929 to 1953, the year Stalin died, tens of millions of Soviet dissidents or anyone the country's leadership believed were a threat, were rounded up and either murdered or placed in labor camp/prisons and forced to work, often to their deaths. Later, he purged the Communist Party of anyone and everyone he believed was a threat – to implement a total gun ban.
"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves," - Joseph Stalin
Russia still has strict gun laws, only allowing ownership of muskets guns for sports or hunting and weak air guns for self defense.
The Ottoman Empire, implemented full gun control in 1911. From 1915 until 1917, 1.5 million Armenians living within the empire were rounded up and murdered, in what has been called the Armenian genocide. Those who were members of the army (which was currently fighting the Allies in World War I) were disarmed, placed into labor camps, and then killed.
The Wiemar Republic (Germany shortely before the Nazi Party took over) passed various types of gun control legislation, specifically, things like registration of firearms and permits from the police to own and carry guns.
During the era of communist rebellions in the Wiemar Republic (1910-1920s), you could be shot on the spot for possession of a gun, in one instance, Red Cross nurses where killed for carrying guns. In 1928 the situation calmed down and in order to obtain a gun you needed a license. Years later in 1931 registration was being processed. When the Nazis took power, they began revoking the licenses of those who were not political supporters of Nazism. In 1935, the police were told to not issue firearm permits to Jews. In 1938 Jews were disarmed. Because they were registered, the location of the Jews and their weapons were know, the Nazis could easily disarm them. If a Jew was caught possessing a gun, they could be sent to a labor camp for 20 years. In the occupied territories, Germans gave their subjects 24 hours to turn in their guns or face the death penalty. In 1935, France implemented gun registration and the five years later, the Nazis used that registration to find out where the french held their guns when they occupied them. You can see the problem with gun registration isn’t just your own government taking your guns and murdering you, but also other invading countries can do the same. This again proves the method of control is the same for invading a country or governing a country.
The Nazis didn’t want those they occupied to be able to resist, which is what the government does to it’s own citizens. Governments are essentially occupational forces, especially tyrannical ones that implement gun control.
Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938, just prior murderous campaign called the Holocaust to exterminate the Jews. In the end, 13 million Jews and other perceived lesser races were killed the Nazi Party.
The Nationalist Chinese government established gun control in 1935, just two years before Japan invaded in 1937. Japan used this registry to rule in China when they invaded. In the period from 1935 to 1952, some 20 million citizens and political dissidents were murdered. The Chinese Cultural Revolution, took place from 1966-1976, murdered and tortured 300 million people. This numbers are said to be low estimates.
Regarding gun control, Mao, the leader of Communist China, once said: "War can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun." and “Political Power comes out of a barrel of a gun.”
Cambodia issued its total gun control in 1956, but the Cambodian genocide didn’t begin till later.. Between 1975 and 1977, the communist Cambodian regime murdered as many as 1 million "educated" people, religious, and those who wanted to keep their pre-communist Cambodian culture (this plan was called Year Zero).
In all, 250 to 500 million people around the world in the 20th century have been murdered as a result of gun control laws imposed by tyrants who knew that the only way they could continue to brutalize their own people and stay in power was by disarming them.
And now gun controllers, politicians, academics and pundits want our leaders to have the same ability to rule unopposed and unafraid of consequences.
Gun control in other countries
Brazil has some of the most violent cities in the world. Because of this politicians have implemented gun control. To own a firearm, you must be at least 25, have gun license, pay registration fees, pass an extensive background check. Only 3.5% of Brazilians legally owned guns, due to gun control. However, In 2017 Brazil had a homicide rate of 30.8 per 100,000, which is among the highest in the world.
Mexico also has some strict gun control. Mexico only has one legal gun store, in the capital. Law-abiding citizens have a few options for self defense. Those who wish must submit references and demonstrate they earned their income legally. The also must be photographed and finger printed. Because few Mexicans own guns, criminals and drug cartels can easily terrorize them. 94 homicides happen daily in Mexico.
Venezuela has never really had the legal right to bear arms. Hugo Chavez and his successors have basically destroyed legal gun ownership. In 2002, the Venezuelan government passed Control of Arms, Munitions, and Disarmament Law. This gave the Venezuelan government more power over guns. This law was modified in 2012 to allow the Venezuelan armed forces to control, register, and confiscate firearms. Also in 2012, they banned the sale of firearms and ammo. This failed to stop crime. From 2012 to 2016, the murder rate went from 73 per 100,000 to 92 murders per 100,000. Today this number is likely higher.
Democide (Death by Government)
“Once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. Recollect the history of most nations of the world. What havoc, desolation, and destruction, have been perpetrated by standing armies!” -George Mason Co-Author of the 2nd Amendment.
An estimated 262 million have been killed by their own government in the 20th century, according to Hawaii.edu/powerkills. In previous centuries, it was estimated to be 133 million. This would the total for 0AD to 1900. This doesn’t include bc and this a low estimate. An estimated 395,000,000 million.have been killed by their own governmetns in all of world history.
Historic precedents of this kind are depressingly numerous. We cannot open a history textbook and pick even a decade in which genocide and government oppression of civilians were absent. Where most people are defenseless, even small numbers of ill-meaning agents of a government or an organized criminal group have murdered thousands with impunity.
Historic evidence shows clearly what happens when government agencies are permitted to abuse defenseless individuals. We also know that mere ability to resist usually functions as an effective deterrence to gross abuses of human rights.
For some reason, one issue doesn't come up in the discussions of well-meaning people who wish to see lives saved by gun control. Since most murders are committed by governments which have official support, why isn't anyone trying to take away the machine guns and the tanks of the known violators of human rights. Why is a law-abiding American with a rifle viewed as a bigger threat than a confirmed psychopath with access to more serious weapons and a history of using them against innocents?
For some reason, one issue doesn't come up in the discussions of well-meaning people who wish to see lives saved by gun control. Since most murders are committed by governments which have official support, why isn't anyone trying to take away the machine guns and the tanks of the known violators of human rights. Why is a law-abiding American with a rifle viewed as a bigger threat than a confirmed psychopath with access to more serious weapons and a history of using them against innocents?
What happens when self defense is against the law?
What happens when the protectors become the predators?
What happens when innocence are betrayed? Imagine that two thirds of all Americans disappear 170 million people and the countries of Germany, France and Spain are wiped off the map.
In the 20th century, that's how many innocents were slaughtered, tortured, starved. mutilated, work to death, bayoneted, hanged, annihilated the hands of their governments. They had no means to defend themselves.
A government is little more than a group of people who have been able to amass enough power to command and kill dissenters if necessary.
There's always a movement by the part of government, to restrict the liberty of the people to make it easier to control.
When you look at at the excessive persecution of governments throughout history, it really is mind boggling. The vast majority of people, once they believe that they are incapable of resisting government, the will to resist usually follows pretty quickly.
Governments have killed about 262 million citizens in the past century, and mass shooters have killed about 414 citizens in the past century. If these statistics are correct, that means governments have killed about 633,000 times more citizens than mass shooters. So who's the bigger risk armed citizens or tyrannical governments?
When you disarm a population, you leave them open to the worst criminals of all, which are state criminals. There have been more deaths due to the genocide and genocide of governments and the 20th century, then all the wars put together.
When you compare the deaths that have been committed by individual criminals, they do not compare to the carnage, the death, the destruction, the murder that has taken place by governments.
The gun control lobby and the mainstream media always fail to mention is this: citizens that can respond to a mass shooting can also respond to a tyrannical government. Mass murdering psychopaths are in the halls of governments and also public schools.
98% of the mass murders in America take place in gun free zones.
If you think that government can be trusted with powerful weapons, why do you think civilians can’t be? Ask the 100,000s of people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who have been affected by atomic bombs if they trust the US military with nuclear weapons. Ask the millions killed overseas by the US military if they trust them with military weapons. Ask the millions killed by their own governments throughout history. In reality, the average american is less likely to accidental kill someone with a firearm than a cop (2% civilian vs 11% police officer) when using a gun to defend themselves or other innocents. The US government (police and military), their mercenaries, and all the governments in the world kill more than private murders.
Gun free zone is a dangerous place for one to be because theoretically, there's nobody there that's going to be able to defend you or anybody else against a violent criminal who won’t obey the gun free zone sign. Mass murderers love gun free zones because people are vulnerable in gun free zones, which insures they will have more victims. If a violent criminal saw no signs of a gun free zone, they likely would not have entered the place to begin with, because of the possibility they might not be able to commit mass murder.
These zones could theoretically be expanded to encompass the entire nation, if not the world. This is what the global “elite” gun controllers are trying to do.
How Gun Rights can prevent democide and tyranny and how gun control assists it
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Unknown, but often attributed to Thomas Jefferson
“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non (an ingredient) for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” -Adolph Hitler Dinner Talk April 11 1942
Politicians can’t plead ignorance to the crime statistics of their own agencies. So why are they always pushing to disarm the public, yet they say we must save the children. They know full well that the danger to innocent people increases when the good people are disarmed. Psychopaths don’t mind violating laws against assault and murder won't mind violating gun laws either. By definition, gun control only disarms the innocent people, and politicians know this. Gun Control is not about doing away with guns. It's about making it to the only cops and soldiers have guns. Have you ever heard any politician suggesting that his enforcers and protectors be disarmed? Their goal is not to make guns disappear, but to create a huge imbalance of power with government agents remaining heavily armed and everyone else left helpless. The politicians know that would not make people any safer.
So what is their agenda? Government is about control. By way of taxation, you're forced to fund the politician schemes. Whenever they enact a law. They aren't asking you nicely to behave a certain way. They're ordering you to do or not do certain things with a threat that they're hired enforcers will punish you if you disobey. You will pay up or eventually they will send their men with guns to take your property or put you in prison. This is true of so called gun control laws as well. If some peaceful moral person owns a gun for self defense, after the politicians declared that to be illegal, what happens to them? Other men with guns show up and use violence or the threat of violence to take that person hostage. In reality, so called gun control is gun violence. Those in power want their own enforcers to be armed, so they can force you to comply. The last in the controllers would want is for you to possess the means to resist their enforcers. As people get more and more upset about what the government is doing and more inclined to resist, those in government are become more desperate to disarm the people. They don't care if you want in protest, but they do care if you disobey and they know that if they had all the guns, it would be a lot easier to keep you obedient. Politicians representing and serving us, as if we're in charge as if they care about what we think. But deep down, you know, that's a lie. You know that if you don't do as you're told that their armed forces will be you any violence, even lethal force, to make you comply with any law. Don’t pretend that they work for you.
In recent years, those in power have engaged in more fear mongering regarding so called assault weapons. There is no such thing as an assault weapon, a weapon becomes an assault weapon when it it used to assault someone. What you won't hear from the politicians, but what the government's own crime statistics show is that assault weapons are used in only a tiny percentage of crimes. Politicians focus on them because “assault weapons” (semi automatic rifles) are excellent against rebelling against law enforcement agents of the government. Assault Weapons are not at all ideal for the common criminal since they are expensive, heavy, and difficult to conceal, which is why the common criminals hardly ever use them. These weapons are however, idea for resisting government and that is why politicians despise and fear them. They aren't worried about the common criminal who might victimize you. If you doubt this, take a look at how government have recently been characterizing people as potential terrorists merely for objecting to high taxation, or opposing gun control, or protesting other unjust laws. In short, if you value freedom then those who think it's their place to dominate and control you view you as the enemy. Know it makes perfect sense that they would want you to be unarmed?
Keep in mind why the Second Amendment was written. Even with the Constitution in place, the founders still thought it was ultimately the job of the people, not any legislature or court to decide when the government had gone too far and to forcibly resist if necessary. It is no surprise that the Supreme court has ruled that anyone who talks to much about the constitutions is seen as a possible terrorist. If you are a tyrant, how would you view people who are cheering for a document which says that the people have the duty to alter or abolish any government which becomes a violator of individual rights? Some who still celebrate the American Revolution as a noble victory for freedom, argue that oppression in the US today is not bad enough to justify forcible resistance again, but by any objective measure, what the United States ruling class is inflicting upon the American people now, is far worse than anything that Britain ever did in Colonial America. Taxation levels 10 times higher and far more intrusive and unavoidable than they were before the revolution. Government bureaucracies, regulators and enforcers interfering in people's lives in 1000 ways that the British Crown never even dreamed up back then. Yet Americans still celebrate the Fourth of July, while making excuses for why today they wouldn't dream of disobeying the ruling class. Many will insist that as long as we have a constitution, as long as we're allowed to protest, and especially as long as we're alive there will never be a need for people to resort to outright resistance.
Unfortunately, history shows that such an opinion is completely misguided when Communist China, Soviet Russia, and Nazi Germany are regimes which murdered over 250 million people. Their people had a Constitution, which said they had the right to protest and petition and allowed them to vote. Today in North Korea, one of the most brutal oppressive regimes on the planet, their people still have a Constitution, which says they have the right to protest and petition and allows them to vote. What all those other constitutions did not include, however, was the right of the people to arm. The lesson to be learned here is that constitutions and words on paper do not stop tyranny. Being allowed to protest does not stop tyranny. Patrick Henry who gave the famous give me liberty or give me death speech answers that question, saying, “That when it comes to Liberty, nothing will preserve it but downright force, adding that whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.” Interestingly, the three worst mass murderers in history seem to agree: Mao Zedong, the leader of Communist China, declared, “That way no guns could ever be used to command the party.” Joseph Stalin proclaimed, “If the opposition disarms well and good. If it refuses to disarm we shall disarm it ourselves.
“Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them. And these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows or with both.” -Frederick Douglass
History has shown us just how true it is that authoritarian power concedes nothing without a demand.” If government enforcers have “blows” (firearms) and the people don't, only the government will be in any position to demand anything.
Similarly, the school-to-prison pipeline has been rightly condemned by some for its role in mass incarceration. School Zero Tolerance policies are a big part of the problem. These policies insist that schools should resort to suspension, expulsion, and/or legal action against students for potentially violent actions, including bringing weapons or drugs to school. Zero Tolerance policies were in fact implemented in the 90’s in response to growing concerns over school shootings and were meant to target gun violence in schools. Instead, they have led to many kids being expelled over petty fights and other normal youth aggression as well as for things like habitual disruption, disrespect, and playing with fake or imaginary weaponry, which of course facilitates gun are bad propaganda.
Finally, mandatory minimum sentences have long been fought against by those concerned about prisoner rights. Mandatory minimums increase the rates of mass incarceration, resulting in longer sentences for certain types of crimes, including those involving firearms. In most states, there are mandatory minimums for any crimes involving firearms, no matter how petty the crime or how the firearm was used (or not used). There are even mandatory minimum sentences for those caught possessing firearms illegally even if you did not commit a crime with said firearm.
This means that even carrying a firearm on your person can potentially lead to a longer prison sentence if you are caught doing anything else illegal or do not have proper licensing.
When should you shoot a cop? Most will say it is never okay to rebel against law enforcement, even thought the redcoats were law enforcement during the American Revolution and they terrorized, tortured, and murdered Americans. In the ideal world, cops would only be there to protect others, and shooting them wouldn’t be justified. However in the real world, law enforcement in many countries (including modern day America) are the prime causers of violence, theft, injustice, and murder, in the name of enforcing the law. Look at documentaries of people being rounded up in Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany and are about to be fired upon when they should shoot a law enforcer. Human history would have been much more peaceful if these thugs operating under fake law aka man’s law were resisted, even killed if necessary. Many people can easily see the oppression and tyranny of other countries, but not their own. This is the result of nationalism and false patriotism; loyalty to the criminal politicians and law enforcement agencies, which blinds them from the truth. The idea of rebellion against police is literally unthinkable in many. Anyone who resists such as system is called a terrorist or criminal, when in reality anyone who fights against an evil system and it’s enforcers (police), should be called heroes, because they are. Those who have fought for freedom such as the America revolutionaries fought illegally against the British Monarchy.
If politicians think that they have the right to impose any law they want, and cops have the attitude that as long as it's called law, cops will enforce it. Elections or petitions to the politicians do not prevent tyranny. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany had elections and the right to petition and it didn’t stop their law enforcers from murdering the population. What they did they called law. They legislated it, and then they had their law enforcers go out and do it. When tyrants define what counts as law, then by definition, it is up to the law breakers to combat tyranny. Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it's the war on drugs, police brutality, stop and frisk, etc. If it's wrong for cops to do these things, doesn't that imply that the people have a right to resist such actions? Of course cops don't take kindly to being resisted, even non-forcefully. If you question their “right” to do violence to you, you will physically assaulted, kidnapped, and put in a jail or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like slave, you have only two options, submit or kill the cop. You can't resist a cop just a little and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members until you are subdued or dead. You either have an obligation to let law enforcers have their way with you, or you have the right to stop them from doing so which will almost always require killing them. Politely asking law enforcers to stop enforcing the law has a very poor track record of working throughout history.
Consider an Indiana Supreme Court ruling which declared that if a cop tries to illegally enter your home, it's against the law for you to do anything to stop him. It amounts to giving thugs with badges permission to break the law, and makes it a crime for you to defend yourself against a criminal if he has a badge. This is called tyranny.
Even if he/she has a badge and a politician's scribble called law on their side, you have to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist a violent person. That's what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speech, acording to natural law, then if all else fails, you have the right to kill government agents who try to shut you up, disarm you, invaded your privacy, etc.
What’s the alternative? If you do not have the right to forcibly resist so called legal injustice, that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow government agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, your neighbors, and so on. Really, there are only two choices. You are a slave to politicians without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist government attempts to oppress you, there can be no other option.
Of course, on a practical level openly resisting the gang called government is usually very hazardous. But there's a big difference between obeying for the sake of self preservation, which is often necessary and rational, compared to feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane.
Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer never to the question of when should you shoot a cop? The correct answer is when evil is legal, become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as law, become a law breaker. If cops do violence to the innocent, become a cop killer. So the next time you hear of a police officer being killed in the line of duty, take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the law enforcer was the bad guy, and the cop killer was the good guy. That has been the case more often than not throughout human history.
Patrick Hentry said “Give me Liberty or give me death.” When he spoke about liberty he said, “Nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army (police), and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” -Alexander Hamilton
Noah Webster “The United States cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be on any pretense raised in the United States.”
There was a particularity rebellious document called the Deceleration of Independence. It says that whenever a government because destructive to individual liberty, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it. You can’t alter or abolish a government that is “destructive to individual liberty” by asking nicely, you must resist them. The American Revolutionaries shot at law enforcers (redcoats). A great example is the battle of Lexington, where the redcoats said give up your guns, and the revolutionaries didn’t.
Here’s what some American’s believe “Citizens who wanted to use firearms should become law enforcers, because ordinary citizens don't need guns as they're having guns doesn't serve the state.” -Heinrich Himmler, “Architect’ of the Holocaust and Leader of Nazi Secret Police (SS)
The Republican Party and conservatives pretend to care about the Second Amendment. If you cannot enter the discussion of at what point should we resist by force, you don't believe in the Second Amendment (especially if a law enforcement agent is taking away your guns, you will have to resist.) You don't believe what the founders believed. The second amendment wasn't written so that if things get really bad, we can run off. It was written so if things get really bad, the people can kill government agents. If you're too much of a coward, to think or talk about it and you think “I’ll just run away or do what I’m told.” You will be a slave forever.
A few small arms in the hands of Jews could have changed history. If the six million Jews who were murdered had a rifle. would they still have ended up slaughtered so efficiently? If they had mortars and light machine guns typical of the infantry at the time, would they have been murdered at all? Ownership of small arms makes genocides more difficult to commit...but it takes effective weapons to stop genocide entirely.
William Blackstone, A English jurist who had substantial influence on the founding fathers, argued that the right to self defense was meaningless, unless the citizen was able to effectuate that self defense,
The right of self defense is inherent in the natural rights of men. These rights are granted by the Creator. The only way you can maintain your life in this world where there's a lot of evil is engage in vigorous self defense in the protection of yourself, your family, your property, and community when necessary.
The Fear of Rebellion (Mark Passio 2nd amendment pres and duress dissents and deadly force)
Most people are afraid of righteous rebellion because they believe that we couldn’t fight the government and win. They will say things like “You couldn't fight the government with AR-15s.” U.S Army War College analysts have published literature on the effectiveness of small arms in urban asymmetric warfare, the most probable tactic to use against a tyrannical government. These tactics are often ignored by opponents of the 2nd amendment (who are too cowardly to take up arms in the first place). They believe compliance with tyrants will somehow “keep them safe” long term. But that coward’s “strategy” never actually works out, as history has show with those who comply with tyrants live a miserable existence and are often murdered.
People fear the freedom that rebellion would cause if it were to succeed. Freedom means total responsibility, most want do not want to be responsible for their actions even though in reality this is the case. Freedom has not been experience by most which is why it is feared, it is the fear of the unknown. People are also afraid of the sacrifices that may be required to gain freedom.
“If you won’t fight for freedom, you do not love yourself. This is called self loathing. If you won’t fight for freedom, you don’t love your children.” -Mark passio
Most people are too cowardly to stand up to the violence and coercion of Government, no matter how many rights are taken away. Most people have chose “comfortable” slavery over potentially dangerous freedom (though “comfortable slavery” is in fact always dangerous). They’ve done this because their priorities and values are based on false beliefs. There is no value in life without freedom. What value is physical safety is if you are not free. Being free doesn’t always means you will be safe. But being enslaved always means that you are DEFINITELY NOT SAFE. Yet those who value “safety” over freedom seem not to be able to see this contradiction.
Most people love their possessions to much to fight for freedom. Possessions, jobs, property means nothing if you are a slave. If you are a slave you do not own anything anyways. This creates cowardice and inaction. We already have nothing left to lose.
There has to be a line in the sand where we say no, and no further. When no is not enough, that is what defensive use of firearms are for. Life is not worth continuing to live if we are not free.
Protecting rights and freedom is more important than physical safety or even survival. Unfortunately, people love comfort more than freedom. In the face of tyranny, cowards always search for safety, while good people search for freedom, even if death is probable or certain. Cowards choose to embrace evil by joining their forces or appease them insisting they are too powerful and can’t be beaten. Cowards won’t fight for freedom because they discard their principles at the first sign of danger. Cowards see militarized police and the military as unbeatable. The cowards will always choose to remain passive, which as a result, they come complicit in Evil. Good People will always develop the will to fight for their rights and freedom, whatever the odds may be.
Only a completely immoral coward would say “Let slavery continue to reign,” just because death might be the alternative. There are some things that are worse than death, and slavery is one of them. The response of cowards is always we can’t fight tyranny because we might lose. A righteous rebellion is not waged because there is a significant chance of winning. The proper motivation is that slavery is morally wrong and should not be allowed to continue, no matter the cost. Real rebels don’t care if they might die, they don’t fight because they only desire to survive. They fight because they would rather fight and die than accept slavery. That is what “Liberty or Death” means. Liberty or death are options. It means that the instinct for the preservation of freedom overcomes the instinct for the preservation of Life.
“If you fight you might lose, if you don't you have already lost.” -Bertolt Brecht
“Fear is the passion of slaves.” Patrick Henry
The Fear of death is the beginning of every form of slavery. Those who believe in physical, material existence as the only reality generally exist in continual state of the fear of death. Because these individuals hold the material as prime and ignore or downplay any spiritual existence, they are almost always afraid to fight for Freedom. They fear death because they don’t know who they are. They deny the spirituality inherit in freedom and don’t understand anarchy as the intrinsic state of free being. Knowing who you are and stepping in your power the ultimate solution for slavery. True consciousness means knowing who you are and who the enemy is. It means knowing your surroundings and the nature of the situation you exist in. It means understanding you are not just a physical body, but a spiritual being having a physical experience for the purpose of learning and growing spiritually.
One of the main reasons people fear rebellion is that they may be killed. There is no such thing as death. We are all ultimately energy, and energy can never be created nor destroyed, only transferred according to law of conservation. So when someone dies, there energy simple goes somewhere else. Even if this were not true, you simple would cease to exist, and would experience nothingness, similar to being asleep with no dreams. This is not to be feared either.
“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” -Mark Twain
Good people don’t fear rebellion, cowards do. They do not put their life before freedom.
Some believe you're not going to protect yourself from the government because the government has Jets, Tanks, and missiles. They say you're not going to do anything with your ar 15, you idiot.
That actually makes the case for legalization of more military grade weapons. Look at it like some of the cases of asymmetric warfare that the US been involved with, its last wars have been against countries that have significantly less advanced military technology. If you're able to coordinate correctly, it might not guarantee you victory, but it gives you a fighting chance. If you’re disarmed, there's no way you're going to win. Some examples of using small arms like rifles to repel the advanced US military are the wars in Vietnam, Afgahistan, and Iraq.
Pacifists should know that even Gandhi who used nonviolent resistance said that it was important to have the means to defend yourself, because you might have to. If you can defend yourself then you have power. With that power you can prevent the powerless from being overwhelmed by the powerful.
The option of physical rebellion for social change has largely been abandoned. When most speak of revolution now-a-days is “intellectuals” and they help propagate politically correct agendas. Revolutions such as MLK’s and Gandhi’s revolution, which were largely peaceful, are praised in schools and the media, while the revolutionary war is not and is often misrepresented. Gandhi’s revolution was not truly successful until the Indians began to fight the British.
The philosophy of peace has come to include a distaste for self defense. Self Defense is now equated to violence.
Even those who care about liberty often see physical defense as barbaric or pointless. The problem with many libertarians is they get caught up in the philosophies of Ayn Rand or Rothbard, while abandoning the possibility of physical resistance. Some call these people “egg head” libertarians.
For the egghead libertarians, the war against tyranny must be fought only on the intellectual battlefield. They believe that by presenting a logical philosophy, it will win over the soulless and brain damaged cops and soldiers who create tyranny.
They have no experience or respect for self defense and revolution. They cannot even fathom what it would entail. This unknown scenario inspires fear, specifically, the fear of struggle, failure, and death.
While taking actions from a position of love of others is noble, it is sometimes not enough to face pure evil. There are limitations on what peaceful resistance can accomplish, depending on the opponent.
Ironically, pacifists feel morally superior to others and want to force their so called false pacifism on others. They will undermine and attack self defense on the fact they perceive preparation for self defense as aggression. They continue to do this until everyone in the movement is held to their high standard of pacifism.
Many pacifist care more about the feeling of moral superiority over others by being pacifist than they do about peace themselves. This is also called virtue-signaling.
Anyone who makes self defense taboo is delusion and ignores natural law.
Physical self-defense against tyranny is not only necessary, but entirely honorable. When the violence of an individual is thwarted by defense, when a potential thief robs the wrong house, when a rape is prevented by an armed and prepared woman or when a potential murderer is shot dead by a citizen who refused to be a victim, our society cheers. But when someone suggests that the same measures be taken against a violent and corrupt government, people suddenly claim moral hazard.
There is no difference between the act of defending oneself against a common criminal and defending oneself against a criminal government. Self-defense is a moral imperative more vital to the survival of peace and freedom than any other.
Pacifist claim that physical revolution is useless and will only result in tragedy for the participants. This is a product of nihilism, and not rationalism, this is clearly a defeatist mentality that stems from cowardice rather than logic.
Nihilism destroys all hope. It essentially denies success before an action is even done. Nihilist ensure their own failure since every scenario will result in a loss.
Nihilists see others as blind optimists, and themselves are realists. Self Defense advocates are more realistic. When “optimists” see problems, they look for solutions and if they can’t, they continue until they do. There is always a solution to any problem. The odds of success are not relevant where revolution against the absolute evils tyranny is concerned.
Odds don’t matter in a revolution for freedom. You will likely be confronted with two choices, fight and possible die at the hands of tyranny, or surrender, become a slave and probably still die at the hands of tyranny. Either way, we are immortal beings, there is no such thing as death.
“A man who does not have something for which he is willing to die is not fit to live.” -MLK Jr.
The creator doesn’t favor those who let evil run amok
Physical revolution requires adaptability and courage. Fear and nihilism have no place.
Many argue that because our enemies are technologically superior that physical rebellion is useless. That argument could also be make for nonviolent revolution, as the media has technological superiority over grass roots activism of freedom.
Some in the liberty movement say that revolution is a poor option for defeating tyranny because of the cyclical nature of political change. Revolutionaries will fight a tyrannical government then implement their own, often more brutal government. This is often true.
This is not a fault of the idea of revolution. The problem with just revolutions, such as the American Revolution is that they didn’t go far enough. No revolution has removed the elitist cabal that secretly runs their government, often hidden or operating in foreign places. Neither have they completely eliminated the idea of statism and the legitimacy of government. Perhaps that is why revolutions are called revolutions in the first place.
Knowledge of these elites was not always widespread. Because of the internet, most of mankind has access to this knowledge. One can simply look up the roster of organization like Bilderberg, Tavistock, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations, the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, etc.
A revolution being infiltrated (co-option) is only possible if you don’t know the enemy. A revolution to remove a president would be useless because presidents are nothing but puppets. If you are not striking the root of the problem, the problem will grow back.
Co-option of then happens when people become obsessed with top down leadership rather than decentralized resistance. If you wait for the next George Washington, you will eventually get him, but he might not be who hims seems. He might support the revolution, but his true aims are to become a dictator. Revolutionaries such as Lenin, Robespierre, Mao promised great positive change but ended up becoming dictators. Beware of generals and the notion of a military coup. Beware of any revolution that uses political party divisions such as a Conservative Revolution or Liberal Revolution. Beware of financial interest such as central banks wishing to fund your revolution.
Some say revolution will solve nothing because of the corrupt nature of humanity and that if we remove one set of elites, another will be replaced. This is defeatist garbage propagated by nihilists.
We have no idea what life would be like without globalist elites, they have never been removed for a single generation. They have existed for centuries, many of the same bloodlines, such as the monarchies of Europe, still in control. They go back at least the Babylonians and Sumerians. The American Revolution was the closest thing to the removal of the global elite, and it resulted in America becoming the most free and prosperous nation in the world, which is why the global elite are trying to destroy the Bill of Rights which helped this country be so great.
The globalist must be removed. Bad men will still exist, but they will not be as advanced and well-organized to rule covertly or with an iron fist. Their methods of social engineering will not be as advanced and many of their secrets will be exposed.
The fear of rebellion has been bred out of men and women. They have become domesticated. They beat around the bush, they are soft, and most of all cowards. If you say anything about rebellion and how immoral government is and they look at you like a frightened dog, “OMG, he’s talking about this, how can I get out this conversation, I’m too scared to talk about this.” Half of society is cheers on the state and the other is too cowardly to do anything about it. Until people you associate yourself with understand the immorality of government and refuse to associate themselves with the state, you should cut them from your life.
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. “ -Edward Bernays “Father” of propaganda
That’s why people find life so difficult and live in quiet desperation and they are battling against the forces of good in the universe and going against the flow of life.
The universe rewards those will courage. That’s why the global elite and dark occult is winning. Evil people in our world on average have more courage than good people, so the universe rewards them. The global elite don’t do any physically harmful behavior, they get their order-following police and military to do their dirty work. That is why they are able to escape some of the karmic consequences for evil in the physical world. If you align your thoughts, emotions, and actions together effectively, you will get what you want, even if your intent is control and have emotions of hatred.
People are afraid to speak out. They will argue: What will my family and friends think, what will this government agency come after me? The only reason you care about this is that you are a coward who doesn’t ultimately care about freedom and stopping evil. Do not worry too much about who’s listening, tracking your activities, etc. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to prevent tracking, but never let tracking prevent you from speaking the truth. Do not fear these people, they are spirituality dead. If anything, those listening and tracking to your work (such as government agencies and big tech giants) might learn something.
Courage is not the absence of fear, if you are completely fearless, you can be reckless. Courage is moving forward with what you are doing even if you are fearful. Sometimes the fear doesn’t go away, and the only way to get rid of it is to go through the fearful experience with courage.
This fear stops others from taking right action, from learning, from putting information to help others understand. As soon as rebellion is spoken of, they shut down.
People have a total fear of that cuts them off from what they want to be doing, but often what they need to be doing. There are many people who would do a good job with conveying information because they have a mind that can take info and process it and then deliver. I believe all have this capable to an extent. We are put on this Earth for a certain purpose, to learn a lesson, and propaganda the message of true love, freedom, and truth in our own way. Most have been diverted and distracted from this message and purpose.
Fear is also another reason for this, they have been told that this mission is not there true purpose and their true purpose is to serve their designed system.
Many light workers think courage is more important the knowledge. It takes courage to even look into this info and understand what is going on. They are especially afraid to act upon receiving the knowledge of truth. They are afraid of how bad things are and how ugly the truth can be.
Our ancestors worked so hard to teach us about the truth, which they were often killed for. Now people discard their info. One example is the founding fathers, they built a pocket of freedom in total global slavery. Now over the generations tyranny as slowly been increasing at an ever faster rate. America for a time was the freest and most prosperous country on Earth. We are squandering what many men and women fought and died for. The spirits of those who fought for freedom at a state of unrest and cannot rest because people allow tyranny to continue.
People don’t even get angry about the ways the are completely controlled and engineered. They let themselves be influenced by those who don’t care about freedom, because of what they want from them, their employers, spouses, family members, which are fake form in loyalty if they don’t care about truth, freedom, or true love. The worst state to be in is when you know what is going on and you let others keep you in fear and inaction. People in this state shut down, beat up on themselves, and often go into addictions to escape the world such as drugs, alcohol, porn, mindless browsing, video games, watching movies, social media etc.
If you develop true courage the universe and truth will aid you, are your life will improve. People wonder why life is so difficult and encountering so many obstacles. It is because you don’t care about truth and have no courage.
People just love their “comfortable slavery”. They have it too good to actually do something against this system of evil because they believe it benefits them, even though it does the opposite. They would know how evil this system is and how it ruins them if the did an ounce of research. If you are content the current state of humanity you either don’t know what is going on or you are amoral.
People don’t want to speak out because they might lose what they have. The truth is you have nothing, life and property are just temporary. When you die, it will all be taken from you. You never truly own anything. Not only that but if you must pay taxes on your fruits of your labor, property, etc, you do not own it. If those are regulated by government, you do not truly own it.
The idea of being in a comfortable job, relationship, house are the illusion of comfort. You are just attached, that is all. You just want to be with someone else. You just want to have a reliable job that gives you the amount of money you need for your lifestyle. They give up a large portion of their time and energy for a paycheck when their time and energy could be better used elsewhere and still receive enough funds to support themselves (but not necessary they’re extravagant lifestyle). They will say I’m too afraid to stand up to my boss or quit my job. Do we love comfort more than truth and freedom? That is a false form of love. True love is agape, this is the love of all.
There is a war on self defense, the sacred masculine, and testosterone. They want to make people be sedated and not rebel so it will be easier to lead them to the slaughter or the chains of slavery.
The globalist and social engineers want to destroy testosterone in order to remove the spirit of rebellion not only in men but women. Women also need testosterone to be healthy, though not as much as men. They are many estrogen mimicking compounds such as plastic, gmo soy, and alcohol. Gmo soy is in almost all processed meats and packaged foods. By changing the hormonal makeup in a person or animal you can literally turn them into the other sex. This change causes all sorts of chemical imbalances, destroying health, and mostly the will to rebel. That is one of purposes of the transgender movement. Of course as a human being, you have the right to do whatever you wish as long as you do not hurt others. But, largely the transgender movement is propagated by social engineers who do not care about you.
Courage is something that must be built inside. It takes time, especially for those who are cowards.
Men are often raised with no strong paternal or fatherly figure in life, in many cases a single mother who only cares about creature comforts. This is due to high divorce rates because people get married because of lust and financially reasons rather than to raise a family and having a healthy romantic relationship. Biologically mothers and fathers are best at this naturally, since they are genetically related and therefore can care for their children more effecitvely. However many parents abandon or neglect their children, so it may be necessary to find positive father and mother figures in others, such as motivational speakers, philosophers, lecturers, etc. Just make sure you don’t use the state or religion to substitute a father or mother figure.
People are often also unbalanced in both the masculine and feminine ways. There are eggheads who are also cowards. There are those who are willing to obey tyranny. Most men don’t care about anything but money. Women too, when they only wish to find a man who can get them more money.
This is part of the cultural Marxist plan, as well as of corporate fascism. If the founding fathers were still alive they would have called to militia up and would have rebelled against this nightmare.
End Rewrite 2
Militia and Guerrilla Warfare
Examples of successful usage of guerrilla warfare and militias overpowering a technological advanced and more organized military are: Viet Cong in Vietnam War, Mujahedeen in Soviet-Afghanistan war, Revolutionaries in American War of Independence, Scottish war of independence, Peninsular War.
The concept of Guerrilla warfare goes back to Sun Tzu, a Chinese military strategist over 2000 years ago. He believed that all warfare involves using your strengths to exploit the enemies weakness.
The Vietnamese NLF and Vietcong worked in small cells between 3 to 10 soldiers. Guerrilla warfare involves small squads and not large battalions of hundreds which are used in most conventional militaries. These cells worked together but had little knowledge of each other, only what was necessary was know. Therefore if a guerrilla was captured, he couldn’t give out anything to vital to the NLF.
The NLF had a strict code of behavior, to turn them into a force which helped their communities, and not be like an invader, pillaging, raping woman, and looting. This is to gain popular support. They were told the following:
1.Do not damage lands, crops, or spoil houses or belongings of the people.
2.Do not buy or borrow what the people are not willing to sell or lend.
3.To be honest
4.Do not do or speak in a way that will make people believe we are holding them in contempt.
5.To help them in their daily work (Harvesting, fetching firewood, carrying water, sewing, etc.)
Most peasants were extremely poor. The top 2% owned half of the land in vietnam, which they maintained by the brute force of feudalism. The NLF educated the peasants of this fact and liberated villages from the feudal masters, often using force.
The NLF was told not go into combat unless it outnumbered the enemy and was certain of winning. It concentrated attacks on small patrols and poorly guarded military constructs. They often attacked at night. 90% of what the NLF had was American and South Vietnamese weapons.
The NLF had underground bases between villages with everything from print presses, hospitals, weapons factories, etc. The larger American soldiers often couldn't fit inside the small Vietnamese tunnels. These tunnels were great for hiding operations and protection against bombing. The would also mine tunnels underneath American bases and surprise attack them. They would also use this to hide cooking (since fire wasn’t reaching the sky to signal their location), funnel troops and supplies, and scouting.
The goal of guerrilla warfare is to wear the enemy down in a long-drawn out war. They started by taking control of small villages and then expanded to larger villages and then cities, at that point the war was being more conventional once the NLT gained a combat advantage of the American and South Vietnam forces.
The NLF would use traps, such as bouncing betty traps (a mine that was hidden), traps where they would create a hole and put spikes at the bottom with feces to infect soldiers who fell then they would cover the hole in grass. Much of these traps were intended to not kill the invading soldiers, but to injury them. A dead American solider is less of a burden than an injured soldiers, since in the American Military they had a “no soldier left behind” policy, these injured soldiers would use up valuable time and energy to transport them to safety and precious medics and medical resources. The often transported soldiers using multiple men and helicopters, this was a very resource consuming process.
Another trap is creating grenades that were activated by vines. They were often hidden and when you got caught in a sticky vine, the grenade would stick to you while also automatically pulling the pin, which means you were likely dead or severely injured.
One North Vietnamese colonel was asked by Americans who’s wining the war, He said “you are“ Americans asked “Who will win the war” “we are.” “why” he said “because you are going home.” One of the main reasons Americans lost the Vietnam war is because of declining moral support of the war on the ground and at home. Soldiers wanted to come home instead because they were fighting a never ending battle and they missed their home life. Life was hard for American soldiers. Many knew that this war was going nowhere.
In the NLF forces they would have a military and political commander, and they were on the same rank. They would have pep rallies to remind militiamen of their Vietnamese tradition and that they are defending themselves and their family, that if they lose they lose it all. Americans didn’t have that kind of enthusiasm and morale.
American guerrilla warfare troops were called minutemen. They were civilians who would, at minutes notice, be ready to fight a battle. This is an advantage a militia has over a standing traditional army. The citizen becomes a soldier for the time necessary, then goes back to civilian life. In other words they are not spending all or most of their time training. Regular military do this. Massive militaries with advanced technology can’t train endlessly and fund their operation over a long period of time without extorting citizens or conquering other populations.
The American revolutionaries were outgunned, outnumbered, and outrained. They had to use guerrilla warfare tactics to have a chance. They didn’t fight traditional battles where two sides would fight in a line, they would lose if they did this. They fought hidden away from the British.
The French under occupation by Nazi Germany also used guerrilla warfare. A famous example is that they would sabotage railroads and communications stations to disrupt the Germans so that American forces could invade Normandy successfully.
The military and militia were suppose to be of equal power, or greater favoring the militia.
Once a military (and/or police) has superior tactics, technology, and weapons, you are enslaved and are at the whim of your masters. The militia is necessary to ensure that the people possess the required defensive ability to resist government tyranny. In other words, don’t bring a gun to a knife fight.
If a threat requiring military-grade force should arise, it would be the responsibly of the people to bring together the members and weapons of the Militia to fight that force. Afterwards, the weapons should be returned to a safe place. Such weapons should not be kept in the hands of the military. Even the US constitution forbids the continuance of an army for more than 2 years. The idea that people should never wage war against tyranny is in the belief that the military is too advanced to fight, because we and our ancestors allowed the military to become extremely powerful. Government-controlled militaries have no right to exist.
That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided. -George Mason
In typically military engagements, armed forces want to secure Full Spectrum Dominance (FSD) – control over land, sea, and air. The primary purpose of this engagement style is to secure supply lines for your own forces while also preventing movement of supplies to the opposing force (which would allow them to continue to fight). One of the main purposes of militias is to counteract this form of engagement. This is by having supplies and the means of battle already in place (called a distributed fighting force), so if supplies lines are blocked by an enemy, supplies needed for the engagement are already there. Governments do want to dissuade people from forming militias because it is effective in the long term against standing armies which establish FSD. Governments wish to incrementally disarm people to prevent righteous rebellion from a people’s militia against tyranny.
Let’s say a concentrated military force were to invade the united states. The militias would exist everywhere and surround them using swarming tactics (many small and weaker forces attack a greater force with less numbers).
“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” -Elbridge Gerry, 5th vice president of the US
Guerrilla fighters typically do not inhabit large, well-established bases, making it impossible for their enemy to exploit certain technological advantages such as aerial bombardment to destroy personnel and infrastructure, since the guerrillas always fight in close range. Guerrillas often have hidden bases which are small, making artillery and scouting difficult for the enemy. If the guerrillas are in an urban area, their opponents cannot use powerful conventional weapons unless they are willing to inflict large numbers of civilian casualties and risk increasing popular support for the guerrillas. Small guerrilla or insurgent groups also tend to have less hierarchical leadership, meaning that a force cannot be neutralized by the capture or death of a handful of leaders.
Guerrilla warriors rarely follow the laws of international warfare and the Geneva conventions. They will use any means necessary for victory, such as faking surrender or using medical vehicles to stage an ambush.
The revolutionaries traveling to Concord used an urban warfare technique of using buildings along the route as additional cover for snipers, which provoked the logical response from the British force — destruction of the buildings. When revolutionary forces forced their way into Norfolk, Virginia, and used waterfront buildings as cover for shots, many of these shots were accidentally fire at friendly British vessels out in the river. The British responded to this by destroying those buildings. Then the American rebels encouraged the spread of fire throughout the largely Loyalist town, and then the revolutionaries blamed it on the British to gain revolutionary support. This was a genius plan that actually happened and worked.
Guerrillas use hit and run tactics, attacking often at night or in concealed terrain such as hills, jungles, swamps etc. They consist mostly of running or using fast cheap vehicles to attack and when the fight becomes disadvantageous, they retreat. They fight in close range and have no permanent bases, if any bases at all. Their bases are often literally underground or hidden. They also tend to have bases in urban areas hidden under the disguise of civilian activity. They will dress in plain clothing for disguise and to confuse the enemy. They will also often wear clothing that blends in the with the terrain. They often start with crude weapons, but as they salvage weapons from the enemies, they gain more advanced weaponry. They attempt to destroy the logistics of the enemy, such as railroads, which can stop the supply of goods. The may use traps to repel invaders. They kill military captains in order to weaken the moral of their troops in order for the common solider to want to leave, due to lack of leadership. They torture and show off torture to strike fear into the enemies to make them scared to fight. A famous example is when Vlad the Impaler would impale invading ottoman troops, making them afraid of invading. Guerrillas make decoys soldiers and bases to waste ammo and bombs. These decoys also give a false sense of larger numbers to enemy forces, making them more likely to not fight or even surrender.
Guerrillas should fight short and close range battles, this helps them by preventing them being under attack by artillery and bombs. The goal is not to inflict massive causalities, but to drain the enemy of resources. Guerrillas often use children to conduct their operations as well as the old, they have no strict age requirements. They engage in total war, where the whole of a local population supports the war effort, after all, they are fighting for their lives and everything they hold dear.
Some great advantages of a milita over a standing army
The guerrilla fights for their freedom, their lives, families, and well-being rather than money, which gives there forces a morale advantage, since if they lose they will lose everything they know and care for. They are on the defense, which gives them an advantage. They known the terrain better, making fighting in combat that is typically unsuitable for battle such as swamps and jungles advantageous for them. They know the people of their country better, so they are able to recruit from the local population more effectively and receive assistance and supplies from the community faster, making logistics (transportation of goods) much harder to destroy because of the short travel distance. This also makes it easier to gather lintel from the enemy since they have popular support from local populations which can help with spying. They are less susceptible to counter intelligence and propaganda of the enemy, as they can usually see through the manipulation.
In colonial America, shooting rampages almost never happened because a large population of free able bodied people comprise the militia, and was always armed with the latest firearms suitable for military service. Those arms came to include almost any type of arms that you could imagine. What sort of arms might an invader have that a militia would need to defend against? Invaders wouldn't be coming with just rifles. They'd be coming with the most modern military weapons such as tanks, jets, battleships, artillery, drones, etc.
A militia is supposed to be decentralized and not reliant on a few or one leader, since that leader may die. All militia members are trained to be leaders. They are trained to fill multiple combat roles, and are less rigid than in traditional warfare. Every solider should be able to be a scout, medic, sniper, etc. If a leader is lost, they can be replaced with another one and they can train the group and command them.
A true militia system is based on a voluntary system of enlistment, in other words there is no draft or conscription. Conscription is slavery. People are more likely to enlist if they do by choice than by force. They are bound by their comrades and their purpose for fighting. Men join the military in larger numbers and fight harder when it is for defense of their homeland rather than by abstract causes created by politicians such as oil. There is no need for a national army. When people are fighting to protect their loved ones, community, and property, there is little to no need to offer other incentives such as money to fight. Defense is the natural reaction. Militias are incredibly effective at defending against invaders, it is only an invader that needs more reasons.
To suppress insurrections is one of the two purposes a militia is good for, an insurrection might be a coup to establish a dictatorship. The other would be to repelling invasions, the members of the militia need small arms. All of those would be necessary to for the militia to function and the particular types of arms necessary would depend upon what kind of duty we're performing in the militia.
It's not just a right, it's also a duty that you need to fulfill. If you leave that to the “authorities”, you will wind up with a class over you, who eventually will see themselves as separate, as superior to you, and you as a second class citizen. If you are in the militia, the people responsible for your own security, that's much less likely to happen. It's incredibly important for everyone to accept that duty and step up.
If an insurgency is founded on legitimate grievances that a completely corrupt government refuses to recognize, much less amend, then the conflict will not be ended until that government agrees to reach a solution by negotiation, not force. Too many governments, influenced by strong military establishments, have refused to recognize the demands of rebels, seeking instead an short victory by means of military force, which is counter-intuitive and eventually answered by guerrilla warfare.
All guns restriction laws violate universal natural law. People don't believe military and police won't confiscate guns haven't heard about Katrina confiscations, Japanese internment camps, and ATF. If the military or police already enforce a single gun restriction law, they have committed an evil. You can't be pro police and pro guns rights because they are diametrically opposed, time and time again who always takes the guns such as in Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, the military and police. If the military and police is more powerful than the militia, the population can be completely enslaved because all current military and police members follow orders (otherwise they would have left or been discharged)
Mark Passio – True Meaning and Purpose of the 2nd amendment
Mark Passio- True Meaning and Purpose of the 2nd amendment part 2
The right to print arms John Stossel
Gun Rights don’t ultimately depend on statistics
The second amendment meaning and history
Second Amendment History Steven Crowder
Debunking Second Amendment Lies Steven Crowder (True Meaning of the 2nd amendment)
2nd amendment wasn’t just for muskets Steven Crowder
Is Gun Ownership and Rights
The Second amendment and the inalienable right to self defense
Gallup Poll stats on Guns
Pew Research Gun Rights vs Control, highly polarized
Pew Research Stats for Gun Ownership
AMAZING website on gun stats
Accidental Gun deaths and injuries (rare)
http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-control-myths/accidental-deaths/ Guns decrease, no increase crime
Guns are almost never used to kill police and police do a terrible job at stopping crimes. Police have no obligation to protect you
Guns help prevent crime, much better than police and kill less innocents
Gun Registration, not about reducing crimes, more about disarming civilians
THE GOOD GUY WITH A GUN: TOTAL MYTH I SWEAR Freedom Toons
Guns Prevent thousands of crimes everyday Lawrence Reed
Why Good people should be armed Josie Outlaw
Guns in other countries, gun control debunking
Gun saves lives stats gun owners.org
When should you shoot a civilian? Larken Rose
The Gun is Civilization
America doesn’t have the most homicide in the world 94h out of 219th, despite having the most guns
More Gun Laws Will Not Prevent Mass Killings
Mass Shootings Prevented by Armed Citizens
Long Version: DNC Delegate Mary Bayer Describes "Common Sense Gun Legislation"
Using a crisis (or the appearance of one) to justify gun confiscation and celebrity and politicians support
How to survive a mass shooting
Gun sales surge after mass shootings, Trump Gun Control Promise
Shooting clubs, used to be commonplace and safe
Mass Shooting Debunking Steven Crowder
If It Bleeds It Leads: How the American Media Perpetuates and Profits from Mass Shootings
The Mind Of A Mass Shooter Or Why Gun Control Won't Work
It’s not a gun problem, it’s a culture problem
The Role of Mental Illness in Mass Shootings, Suicides
Mental Illness, Firearms, And violence
Fusion Center Study Fins 79% of Recent Mass Shootings Attributable to History of Mental Illness
Mass Shootings and Psychotropic Drugs
Psychiatric drugs mass shootings Rick Thomas
Antidepressants are a prescription for mass shootings
From Prozac To Parkland: Are Psychiatric Drugs Causing Mass Shootings?
Pharmaceutical Murder – Mass Shootings Caused By Drugs!
Violent Video Games and Aggression (potentially)
Study confirms link between violent video games and physical aggression
False Flags, Guns, Democide, and Purges (Suspicious mass shootings used to justify gun control, innocents were killed for gun control, or perhaps the event didn’t even happen, or atleast as it was reported to be.)
MKULTRA and Mind control possibly used to make patsies assassinate targets
Fatherless Homes and Mass Shooters
https://thefederalist.com/2015/07/14/guess-which-mass-murderers-came-from-a-fatherless-home/ The myths of gun control Tom Woods
Gun Control DEBUNKED With FACTS- SHARE THIS VIDEO! World Alternative Media
A human right: Gun control (debunking)
He Believes In Conspiracies, So Police Confiscate All of His Guns
Common Sense Gun Laws are a Trojan Horse Tenth Amendment Center
The argument beneath the surface of gun control
What gun control advocates really are trying to say, but say euphemistically- Guns: Say What You Mean Larken Rose
Marijuana rights used to deny gun rights (but not alcohol, not suggestion it should though but it effects people more negatively than marijuana)
Truthstream Media Like Clockwork, Every Stupid Argument for Destroying the 2nd Amendment
Gun Control Nonsense
How easy it is to trick people into supporting gun control
Just Facts: Gun Control
Difficulties in getting guns in NY John Stossel
Gun Laws Create Gun Violence
The “do something” disease (of Gun Control after mass shootings, mostly)
Eric Swalwell threatens nuking Americans and confiscating guns (He says American’s can’t resist military with small arms, which is false; examples: Vietnam, American Revolution, Afghanistan, and other conflicts)
Gun Confiscation Katrina
Red Flag laws don’t work, Gun confiscation is real in America 1.700 in just one year
Reasons to be against red flag gun laws
“Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Laws Are Even Worse Than You Think
Unconstitutional and Tyrannical Red Flag Gun Confiscation Laws Are Coming FAST
The Dangers of Red Flag Laws Carey Wedler
Medical Tyranny Soviet of Psychiatry Lisa Haven (often used for gun control)
New York requires search of social media (and can demand accounts and passwords) and search engines searches to buy gun or renew license and then deny them if they find “hateful speech” and if the officer just feels like it
Trump Administration Considers Social Credit Score System for Gun Ownership
Republicans in California supported gun control and the Racism of Gun Control
More info on gun control and racism
Gun control but for who (not police)?
Being pro guns and pro cop is incompatible
When should you shoot a cop? Larken Rose Video
When should you shoot a cop? Larken Rose Article
Shooting Cops Larken Rose Video (continuing from when you should shoot a cop)
Mass incarceration and the War on Guns
History of gun control- timeline Natural News
Wiemar Republic, Gun Registration, the confiscation after Nazis took power
How Russia did Gun Confiscation
The Dirty Secret about Gun Control in Latin America
Gun Control…The True Story of Innocents Betrayed (and murdered)
Death By Government (in just the 20th century)
Murder by Government (in previous centuries, total for human history is a low estimate of half a billion)
Democide stats, graphs, and books hawaii.edu powerkills
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE5.HTM A human right: Keeping the “Necessary evil” in check
EPIC!!! ARMED Citizens/Militia Vs. Cops/FEDs!! 2015
Good Guys with Guns- How an Armed Citizenry deters tyranny and atrocities
Molon Labe- How the second amendment guarantee a free state James Jaeger
A human right: Media Bias
http://www.a-human-right.com/government.html Why Most Men (and Women) Are Scared Cowards
Understanding the fear of self defense and revolution
https://personalliberty.com/understanding-fear-self-defense-revolution/ Cia document, a method to conduct guerrilla warfare
GUERRILLA WARFARE AND SPECIAL FORCES OPERATIONS
Why decentralized militias matter
Decentralize military- why we need independent militias
Guerrilla Warfare- Some history Infographics show
Vietnam Guerrilla War Tactics
Vietnam Guerrilla (Vietnam War)
Militia Concepts: Guerrilla Warfare
Battlefield 101: Guerrilla Warfare Military.com
Mao Zedong- Guerrilla Warfare
Spartacus guerrilla warfare
Guerrilla Warfare Che
Britannica encyclopedia Guerrilla Warfare strategy and tactics
What is guerrilla warfare?
Asymmetric warfare (examples)
Empire vs Populist ASYMMETRIC WARFARE Black Pigeon Speaks