Gun Control and the Second Amendment
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
-
- Tags
- complete bullshit
So how come they are only trying to get rid of them now? What stopped them for so long?
And do you believe the guns are actually helping prevent world domination?
Its been a gradual process
The colonialists threw off the bankers, so the bankers then had to slowly work their way back into the country through various industries. This saw the rise of the notorious 'robber barons'.
The Rothschilds were well known so they had to act through agents like J.P.Morgan
The they had to create a central bank which they achieved a number of times over Us history but each time the people wrestled control back of the ability to print money (ie the treasury did it instead of the central bankers)
But finally they got the federal reserve bill passed and have been controlling the money supply ever since. Becuase of the incredible power this gives them they had untold wealth to use to buy up newspapers, radio station, tv, hollywood and to buy political support, bribe judges etc
They also operate through secret societies so that is a further channel of influence that is very hard for the public to get a view into...its unaccountable
They have also been increasing their scope globally setting up organisations like the IMF, the 'world bank' and the UN. It is through these that they have pushed a neoliberal agenda onto many countries at the point of a gun
So now all this aparatus is in place it is time to disarm the public to pave the way for the global government
I just feel that we have a right to have a say in all this, but the harsh reality is that these elites, who grow up in a very different world to the one the guy on the street knows see us as little more than peasants or cattle. In occult circles they call the masses the 'profane'
The US is the biggest arms dealer in the world...they are literally flooding the world with guns to destabilise it....but they don't want their own population to have guns....they want an easily controllable population
It really boils down to whether you want to be a slave or whether you believe in having a democratic say
I have to go for a while now man, but i'll be happy to take up the chat soon if thats cool with you
Peace to you
So... Why not pass a law that forces people to pass tests (reasonable ones) in order for them to keep their weapon, so that most psychopaths will not have fire arms? Together with kids and gangsters?
That way you get to keep a lot of your guns..
Because the people who want to take the guns away are also the samepeople who control the field of psychiatry. they are the ones behind the DSM and they are the ones who define what 'normal' is. See for example [MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION] s thread also in the news section of the forum about this
They will simply decide who gets the guns and will be able to prevent anyone they don't want having guns from having them under any pretext. You answered a question strangly, you were acting strangly when you took the test etc
In the UK the police decide if you get a licence but if you are a freemason then you will get one (see the post i posted above about the freemason who carried out the Dunblane school massacre in the UK that then got guns banned here)
We cannot let the elite decide who gets guns. The elites are the psychopaths....what we need to be asking ourselvesis how we the people can take the power off these guys....and we won't do that by giving up our guns (no matter how many positive vibes people put out there)
you make it so simple.... resistance is futile.
The second amendment is firmly entrenched into our legal and cultural code. in no small part because of our suspicion of a too powerful central government. Using psychological testing to keep guns out of the hands of mentally deranged killers will run afoul of our first amendment.
I am a fairly liberal, voting american and i support the rights of my fellow citizens to own firearms. I do not support the idea of a centralized database of those owners but feel that each municipality has the right to require gun owners to register their weapons if they live in that municipality.
I believe only licensed dealers should be allowed to sell fire arms and only to individuals who pass a basic background check for criminal activity. Those individuals who have been convicted of a certain crimes should have their rights to own weapons restricted. If an individual in possession of a fire arm wishes to sell it, he or she should have to go through a dealer.
Our laws should be set up to protect the rights and privacy of our citizens but once they are laid down any violations should be prosecuted to the fullest.
http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2013/01/15/breaking-new-york-creates-psychiatric-police-state/
Breaking: New York creates a psychiatric police state
by Jon Rappoport
January 16, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com
It’s a done deal.
Governor Cuomo, along with Democrat and Republican legislators, is ramming through a bill to restrict gun ownership, re-classify weapons in order to ban them—and, in a far-reaching move, create psychiatrists as cops who must report patients to law-enforcement, in order to keep the patients from owning a weapon.
Psychiatrists must report patients “who could potentially harm themselves or others.” If such a patient owns a gun, it will be confiscated.
This means a comprehensive data base, accessible by law-enforcement personnel and anyone else involved in doing background checks These “problematic” patients will be kept from buying a new weapon, too. Otherwise, the law would have no teeth.
As usual, the devil is in the details. Psychiatrists will err on the side of caution and report many patients. No shrink wants to blink into television cameras after one of his patients has just shot his father.
Patients who want to own weapons will lie to psychiatrists about their thoughts and feelings, never admitting they’re considering suicide or murder.
After such a murder, a psychiatrist will say: “He never said anything about killing anybody. Here, look at my notes. There’s nothing there.”
For this and other reasons, such as the existence of the data base, doctor-patient confidentiality will go out the window.
Therefore, the practice of psychiatry, which already minimizes talk therapy and merely dispenses drugs, will move even further in that direction. Tight-lipped patients, who don’t want to go on a police list, will seek an office visit with the sole motive of obtaining a drug.
Since all the emphasis is now on “mentally ill patients who are prone to violence,” the possibility of indicting the drugs in violence will recede over the horizon.
SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) and other brain drugs do, in fact, cause people to go crazy and commit violent crimes, including murder. This is an open secret in the psychiatric profession, and the public is becoming more aware of it every day.
But it will be swept under the carpet.
Under the new law, a psychiatrist can’t be prosecuted for failing to report a patient who later commits murder, as long as the psychiatrist “acted in good faith.” The meaning of that phrase is broad enough to automatically cast blanket exoneration on most shrinks, which closes off the chance a psychiatrist will be pilloried for prescribing a drug he knows can induce violence in the patient.
This New York law will be copied and passed by other states, and in the end, we will see a national data base of psychiatric patients.
The official attitude will be: anyone who sees a psychiatrist is a potential killer.
This will give rise to protests on behalf of “a new underclass”: psychiatric patients. Advocates will arise to take up their cause. Court cases will abound. The whole business will devolve into a complete mess.
But out of it will come a hands-on partnership between cops and shrinks, who’ll march should to shoulder into their version of a psychiatric police state.
Seventy-two hour mandatory holds in psych wards for “observation” will expand. During this period of incarceration, shrinks will dose inmates hard with drugs, in order to make them more docile, because no psych ward wants to be accused of releasing a patient who then goes on to kill people.
Drugs to subdue the mind in that way are very powerful. They are called anti-psychotics, or major tranquilizers. As has been shown, they induce tremors, which are signals of motor brain damage.
We can expect to see hundreds of thousands more people, perhaps millions, who are damaged, permanently, by these drugs.
The motto will become: destroy the patient, before he can destroy others.
As the crown on all this, people who have ever professed political ideas outside the mainstream, and so end up in a database of “potential threats to the State,” can be kept from owning a weapon, merely by finding a way to get them into a psychiatrist’s office, on any pretext. Once there, the psychiatrist can report them as prone to harming themselves or others, and that will function as a bar to possessing a gun.
New York has just created a door that swings in both directions. A huge number of people who are seeing psychiatrists can be kept from gun ownership. And people who can see with their eyes what this country has turned into can be turned, on cooked-up technicalities, into psychiatric patients. Once in the system, they, too, can be denied all 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment rights.
It will undoubtedly be called “The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment Exclusion.”
Coming to your neighborhood.
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29[SUP]th[/SUP] District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
Breaking: New York creates a psychiatric police state
by Jon Rappoport
January 16, 2013
www.nomorefakenews.com
It’s a done deal.
Governor Cuomo, along with Democrat and Republican legislators, is ramming through a bill to restrict gun ownership, re-classify weapons in order to ban them—and, in a far-reaching move, create psychiatrists as cops who must report patients to law-enforcement, in order to keep the patients from owning a weapon.
Psychiatrists must report patients “who could potentially harm themselves or others.” If such a patient owns a gun, it will be confiscated.
This means a comprehensive data base, accessible by law-enforcement personnel and anyone else involved in doing background checks These “problematic” patients will be kept from buying a new weapon, too. Otherwise, the law would have no teeth.
As usual, the devil is in the details. Psychiatrists will err on the side of caution and report many patients. No shrink wants to blink into television cameras after one of his patients has just shot his father.
Patients who want to own weapons will lie to psychiatrists about their thoughts and feelings, never admitting they’re considering suicide or murder.
After such a murder, a psychiatrist will say: “He never said anything about killing anybody. Here, look at my notes. There’s nothing there.”
For this and other reasons, such as the existence of the data base, doctor-patient confidentiality will go out the window.
Therefore, the practice of psychiatry, which already minimizes talk therapy and merely dispenses drugs, will move even further in that direction. Tight-lipped patients, who don’t want to go on a police list, will seek an office visit with the sole motive of obtaining a drug.
Since all the emphasis is now on “mentally ill patients who are prone to violence,” the possibility of indicting the drugs in violence will recede over the horizon.
SSRI antidepressants (Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, etc.) and other brain drugs do, in fact, cause people to go crazy and commit violent crimes, including murder. This is an open secret in the psychiatric profession, and the public is becoming more aware of it every day.
But it will be swept under the carpet.
Under the new law, a psychiatrist can’t be prosecuted for failing to report a patient who later commits murder, as long as the psychiatrist “acted in good faith.” The meaning of that phrase is broad enough to automatically cast blanket exoneration on most shrinks, which closes off the chance a psychiatrist will be pilloried for prescribing a drug he knows can induce violence in the patient.
This New York law will be copied and passed by other states, and in the end, we will see a national data base of psychiatric patients.
The official attitude will be: anyone who sees a psychiatrist is a potential killer.
This will give rise to protests on behalf of “a new underclass”: psychiatric patients. Advocates will arise to take up their cause. Court cases will abound. The whole business will devolve into a complete mess.
But out of it will come a hands-on partnership between cops and shrinks, who’ll march should to shoulder into their version of a psychiatric police state.
Seventy-two hour mandatory holds in psych wards for “observation” will expand. During this period of incarceration, shrinks will dose inmates hard with drugs, in order to make them more docile, because no psych ward wants to be accused of releasing a patient who then goes on to kill people.
Drugs to subdue the mind in that way are very powerful. They are called anti-psychotics, or major tranquilizers. As has been shown, they induce tremors, which are signals of motor brain damage.
We can expect to see hundreds of thousands more people, perhaps millions, who are damaged, permanently, by these drugs.
The motto will become: destroy the patient, before he can destroy others.
As the crown on all this, people who have ever professed political ideas outside the mainstream, and so end up in a database of “potential threats to the State,” can be kept from owning a weapon, merely by finding a way to get them into a psychiatrist’s office, on any pretext. Once there, the psychiatrist can report them as prone to harming themselves or others, and that will function as a bar to possessing a gun.
New York has just created a door that swings in both directions. A huge number of people who are seeing psychiatrists can be kept from gun ownership. And people who can see with their eyes what this country has turned into can be turned, on cooked-up technicalities, into psychiatric patients. Once in the system, they, too, can be denied all 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment rights.
It will undoubtedly be called “The 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment Exclusion.”
Coming to your neighborhood.
Jon Rappoport
The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29[SUP]th[/SUP] District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at www.nomorefakenews.com
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION] for an anarcho-communist you sure do seem to enjoy right wing propaganda.
How is confirming that people aren't violently insane before they can buy guns not a good thing?
How is training police to be able to deal with shooters a bad thing?
Are you saying that there are no mentally ill people in the US?
You're complaining about a new law because it isn't perfect-- you think that they should just keep on giving guns to people with mental issues?
Here's an unbiased article about it:
http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-gun-co...-ammo-restrictions-mental-health-push-1019838
And here's a list of the executive actions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...sals/GunViolenceReductionExecutiveActions.pdf
How is confirming that people aren't violently insane before they can buy guns not a good thing?
How is training police to be able to deal with shooters a bad thing?
Are you saying that there are no mentally ill people in the US?
You're complaining about a new law because it isn't perfect-- you think that they should just keep on giving guns to people with mental issues?
Here's an unbiased article about it:
http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-gun-co...-ammo-restrictions-mental-health-push-1019838
And here's a list of the executive actions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-sr...sals/GunViolenceReductionExecutiveActions.pdf
I live in Vermont, right next to New York. The average violent crime rate per capita in the USA is just over 4% according to the research I have found. In Vermont, where we have no guns laws and never have, our crime rate per capita is less than 1%. Here, almost everyone owns a gun, and just as often we have it on our person, in our car, etc. We can carry concealed guns without a permit. We can keep a loaded pistol in our glovebox... perfectly legal. It levels the playing field. I don't go anywhere without a gun in my car or on me. It is like remembering your chapstick. Hell, i can sit down at the local restaurant for lunch with my .45 in my thigh holster, and while I may get a few looks from the tourista and transplants, it is not considered out of place or threatening here.
Bottom line: criminals will get guns, no matter what laws we imposed on law abiding citizens. If they can't get a gun, they will use a hammer, a kinfe, a baseball bat... are we going to ban those too? We have the enviroment we do here in Vermont because criminals know they are just as likely to encounter an armed person. My kids have been shooting since they were able to hold the gun. They are 5 and 10.
Now, with all that said, I do support some of these changes: the background checks being more stringent, same to get ammo. More services and reporting for mentally ill who pose a danger to themselves and others. Increasing the penalty for murder, using guns in the commision of crimes, etc. Felons not being able to have guns... all these are important and necessary.
Bottom line: criminals will get guns, no matter what laws we imposed on law abiding citizens. If they can't get a gun, they will use a hammer, a kinfe, a baseball bat... are we going to ban those too? We have the enviroment we do here in Vermont because criminals know they are just as likely to encounter an armed person. My kids have been shooting since they were able to hold the gun. They are 5 and 10.
Now, with all that said, I do support some of these changes: the background checks being more stringent, same to get ammo. More services and reporting for mentally ill who pose a danger to themselves and others. Increasing the penalty for murder, using guns in the commision of crimes, etc. Felons not being able to have guns... all these are important and necessary.
No need to ban those... It's relatively easy to defend against, and very hard to mass murder with... For example, that guy that stabbed twenty something kids in china last month, did not kill even one. With a gun, he would've probably killed a few dosens.
You can't compare states to countries-- the national statistic accounts for urban areas with huge populations, gangs, the drug trade, etc... your state apparently has the second lowest population in the country, and there are no major urban areas-- Burlington is slightly over 100,000 people. New York City has over 8 million people.
And yes, other things can be used to kill people-- but guns can kill a lot of people very quickly.
And the guns that 'criminals' get illegally mostly come from the US-- I think the idea is that clamping down on the problem nationally will mean that it's harder for them to go to your state and bring a gun back into a more populated state with stricter gun controls.
Last edited:
He didn't kill anyone because he was incompetent. Also, what experience do you have with knives, or fighting in general? Have you ever been in a fistfight? Have you ever been in a situation where someone tried to cause you significant bodily harm? Because I have, and I can tell you that knives are far scarier weapons than guns, and no amount of armchair-melee-expert advice will ever change that. It is going to be easier for someone with no experience and a head full of mad to take a machete to a classroom of children than it is for the same guy to go in with an AR-15 and pepper them with rounds.
I already posted this video way back in the thread, but I'll post it again just for you.
[video=youtube;S_mIKRmEWyw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_mIKRmEWyw[/video]
Are you kidding me? Yeah i have combat experience, and shooting experience, and i can 100% confidently say guns are way more lethal than knives, and from more than a meter or two away from the shooter, it is impossible to disarm him. This is just plain stupid of an argument of your side i'm sorry but this is an important subject and i feel like it's my responsibility to be blatant.
I must add it's relatively easy to take down a guy with a knife with a club with some basic training.
Edit: Plus a machete is much harder to hide than a gun. You really love your guns and don't feel like giving them away do you?
P.S Usually people who go crazy and go on a kill rampage don't have any combat experience and can be relatively easily neutralized.
You are the one posting 'right wing propaganda' and here's why:
The corporate forces i'm speaking out against have taken over the levers of power. When corporate power and government power merge that is FASCISM. So the people i'm speaking out against are EXTREMELY RIGHT WING
Their plan as i've outlined to you a number of times is to centralise power more and more under their control. They want a centrally controlled planned economy that they will run. there's no room for democracy there, there's no room for free trade there, there's no room for individual freedoms there
The reason i like anarchist communism is because it gets the best of both worlds ie taking care of the whole whilst allowing freedoms to the individual. I don't expect this to happen anytime soon however so in the meantime i recognise that centralisation needs to be combated within capitalism
Concerning the psychiatric angle of the guns thing i have already explained it and the article i posted above explains it but i'll explain it again. For such a thing to work you would need to have unbiased testing, but the testing will not be unbiased, it will be conducted by the forces i'm speaking out against who will simply use these new laws to take guns off people bit by bit
They are trying to sucker the public into losing their guns quietly
We need to hang onto our guns for now and we need to drag the elites kicking and screaming to the negotiation table and tell them how its going to be
Last edited:
[MENTION=6650]SealHammer[/MENTION] : Watch this if you wanna grow up.
From minute 14:00.
[video=youtube;Y7rn1zhFKhQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7rn1zhFKhQ[/video]
From minute 14:00.
[video=youtube;Y7rn1zhFKhQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7rn1zhFKhQ[/video]
Enigma has made a really good pioint that even if you take guns off law abiding citizens the criminals will still have them and get them.....all thats being done is to disarm the law abiding public
You say there are no heavily populated areas there but it doesn't matter how populated an area is the only people who the government will leave with guns if they gget their way are criminals and the government
Guns aren't the problem here, the cabal and the society they are creating is the problem; the massed druggings of people with psycoactive drugs that make peopleviolent are the problem, the violent culture created by a constantly warring government and their violent media is the problem
Ill even go further and say that i believe it is the cabal themselves who are carrying out the attacks in order to demonise semi autos
This is a pointless debate you are having with sealhammer here
Martial arts are only really effective when they are practiced. How many teachers around the country are well practiced in martial arts and more specifically with moves to disarm someone of a weapon whether one that fires bullets or is a sharp or blunt instrument?
Very few so guys forget it
The issue is what is going to happen to the US if the guns are taken away? What is going to happen is that the state is going to become more and more of a police state. Political dissenters like swartz will be persecuted and everyobne will be under constant surveillance. The corporations will call the shots and if you don't like anything they do they will lock you up under psychiatry laws and drug you with powerful tranquilisers and anti-psychotics that will kill your brain
I can't believe how short sighted some people are being about this....its like they can't look beyond tomorrow
These fascist corporate powers are of the same school of thought as the nazis
That's my point -- Usually when someone goes on a kill rampage he's not a martial artist, and thus can be easily taken down.
Why would a well-armed military and police fear law-abiding citizens with ARs, AKs, high capacity magazines, and the likes? We, the people, are the government I thought. I want to know what they are planning NEXT and using this as a stepping stone for. This is all bull. They cannot enforce a law forbidding criminals the firearms, and the guns can be bought on the street. Not giving up any of my rights willingly, but they can try to figure how to deal with the problem they created when they started allowing murderers to live ten and fifteen years before going to trial. Gun owners know to keep guns away from crazy cousin Eddie.