VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Print This Article Print This Article Email This Article Email This Article

Findings & Forecasts 01/16/2013

Share

Gun Con­trol: What Obama Should Have Said

First, Obama should have sur­rounded him­self with pic­tures of the chil­dren who have died at the hands of madmen Marxist leaders like Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, Idi Amin and others. His­tory is lit­tered with them, both crazed rulers and dead children.

Sec­ondly, Obama should have recited the Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, the Bill of Rights and the Con­sti­tu­tion, and recom­mitted his admin­is­tra­tion to fol­lowing the the Con­sti­tu­tion and the rule of law.

Thirdly, he should have said “Never again will chil­dren such as these be slaugh­tered because they, or their par­ents, were unable to defend them­selves against a tyran­nical gov­ern­ment or any other person bent on their destruction.”

Fourthly, he should have said, “The brain­washing and twisting of our children’s minds must stop! Hence­forth, I am calling for a ces­sa­tion of vio­lence in movies, tele­vi­sion and video games that are twisting young minds.”

Fifthly, he should have said, “I put every vio­lent crim­inal in our nation on notice — you killers, rob­bers, thugs, bur­glars and rapists — that every law-abiding cit­izen in this nation is hereby given the right to self-defense by what­ever means they choose, including firearms of any type. I hereby encourage every cit­izen of our nation to become respon­sibly armed, to take self-defense and safety training to learn how to use your weapons effec­tively and safely, and to pro­tect your family and other inno­cents in your sphere of influence. The era of crim­inal vio­lence in America is over!”

How­ever, the pres­i­dent can say none of this because his admin­is­tra­tion is already an adver­sary of the people. People can debate Marxism as a phi­los­ophy as long as they want, but when it comes down to prac­tice, Marxism has always pro­duced a mur­derous dic­tator in the end… and Obama appears to be headed that way, and if not Obama, then some future pres­i­dent who picks up where he will leave off.

The public hys­teria sur­rounding the gun con­trol issue is simply amazing. I heard one female politi­cian state that we have to do away with guns that can hold “hun­dreds of bul­lets.” Yet, there is no such weapon in America.

The irra­tional claim, even by mil­i­tary offi­cials, that “We don’t need weapons in America that are used only in war zones” is equally ridicu­lous. All of the AR-style rifles in America are semi-automatic, meaning that you must pull the trigger each time to fire a round. By con­trast, all AR-style weapons car­ried by mil­i­tary troops are fully auto­matic, meaning you pull and hold the trigger to empty the entire mag­a­zine. Fur­ther­more, the mil­i­tary car­ries armor piercing ammu­ni­tion that is illegal for civilian ownership.

Oth­er­wise, a civilian AR-style rifle is no dif­ferent than any other rifle — one trigger-pull equals one round fired. If you have ever seen how fast (under one second) one can switch mag­a­zines you would know that it doesn’t matter if that mag­a­zine holds 5, 20 or 50 rounds.

Now that “assault rifles” are thor­oughly dis­cred­ited and thrashed by the pres­i­dent and the vig­i­lante mob of gun-haters, what will happen when they wake up and realize that 98 per­cent of all deaths-by-firearm are caused by hand­guns and NOT rifles of any sort?

That’s right, the rhetoric will re-focus and the drive will be on to outlaw semi-automatic pis­tols and revolvers.

And this gets us down to the real crux of the matter: The state wants all the guns — pis­tols, revolvers, rifles, shot­guns, all cal­ibers, all ammu­ni­tion, etc.

An unarmed cit­i­zenry is unable to resist a tyran­nical gov­ern­ment and thus is no threat to it.

The Hidden Prize: National gun owner registry

The pre­con­di­tion to out­right gun con­fis­ca­tion is a uni­fied and com­pre­hen­sive national gun owner and gun-owned reg­istry. By requiring the owner and receiver of all trans­fers of any weapon to be reg­is­tered, the existing data­base will swell to hun­dreds of mil­lions within a few years.

Until 1968, there was no require­ment nor reg­is­tra­tion for gun own­er­ship. There­after, suc­ces­sive Admin­is­tra­tions ramped up data col­lec­tion pro­ce­dures and cre­ated sophis­ti­cated data­bases on gun owners. How­ever, guns owned prior to 1968 have not been reg­is­tered, nor have pri­vate sales or inter-family gifts; many col­lec­tions of unreg­is­tered firearms have been qui­etly passed to heirs upon death of a parent or close relative.

There are no accu­rate sta­tis­tics on how many gun owners reside in the U.S., nor on the total quan­tity of guns owned. A Gallup poll from 2010 showed that 47 per­cent of American’s admitted to owning a firearm, but experts con­cluded that the actual per­centage might be as high as 60 percent.

Sta­tis­ti­cians believe that there are between 240 and 280 mil­lion firearms in America, but that cannot accu­rately include pre-1968 pur­chases so the figure could be con­sid­er­ably higher. Most gun owners whom I have met typ­i­cally have at least 2 firearms, and many have several.

A national reg­istry data­base would thus cover at least 150 mil­lion people and 300 mil­lion firearms — with all the “trim­mings” like pho­to­graph, fin­ger­prints, ques­tion­naires and other per­sonal information.

Mean­while, Obama has ordered other Fed­eral agen­cies to pro­vide com­pli­men­tary data to the FBI as these data­bases are built. Med­ical per­sonnel will be expected to submit psycho-graphic analysis. Finan­cial his­tory, crim­inal his­tory, med­ical his­tory, social his­tory, etc., etc., will be com­bined. Soft­ware algo­rithms will then ana­lyze the pro­files for “red flags.” Pre­dictability soft­ware will deter­mine which people are most likely to cause trouble in the future.

Any sol­dier who has been diag­nosed with PTSD (Post Trau­matic Stress Dis­order) will be auto­mat­i­cally banned from owning or pos­sessing a firearm. That amounts to as much as 16 per­cent of all veterans.

Have you ever taken drugs for depres­sion or anx­iety? That could be a trou­bling warning sign that you are unfit to own a firearm.

Thus, once all this data is in place, future back­ground checks take on a whole new look. Just as the TSA’s “No Fly” data­base yields very unpre­dictable results, so too will the gun owner’s database.

The final con­sid­er­a­tion is that if, as and when out­right gun con­fis­ca­tion becomes a reality, the Feds will know exactly who to call on with a spe­cific list of your guns in hand.

Tech­noc­racy implemented

Two of the early require­ments listed for the cre­ation of a Tech­no­cratic society were

  • “Pro­vide a spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the type, kind, etc., of all goods and ser­vices, where pro­duced and where used
  • “Pro­vide spe­cific reg­is­tra­tion of the con­sump­tion of each indi­vidual, plus a record and descrip­tion of the indi­vidual.” [Scott, Howard et al, Tech­noc­racy Study Course, p. 232]

Gun con­trol mania offers the per­fect crisis to imple­ment just such a system.

New bat­tles start

States are threat­ening leg­is­la­tion that will block fed­eral man­dates on gun con­trol. They will likely fail, even if they take their cases to the Supreme Court.

One con­sumer group, Freedom Watch, just released news of their lawsuit:

The con­ser­v­a­tive group Free­domWatch is suing the White House task force that led to the gun con­trol pro­posals offered by Pres­i­dent Barack Obama Wednesday.

FreedomWatch’s suit is based on the argu­ment that the White House group con­ducted illegal meet­ings with lob­by­ists without public notice that’s required. The suit, which was filed in Florida fed­eral court, seeks to elim­i­nate the task force and pre­vent any of its pro­posals from becoming law, The Hill reports.

The 1972 Fed­eral Advi­sory Com­mittee Act requires pres­i­den­tial task forces that include non-federal gov­ern­ment offi­cials to meet in public and pub­lish notice of meet­ings in the Fed­eral Reg­ister 15 days ahead of time.

“Pres­i­dent Obama and Vice Pres­i­dent Biden have thumbed their nose at the law and instead been holding closed door meet­ings with spe­cial interest lob­by­ists on both sides of the issue,” Free­domWatch founder Larry Klayman said in a written state­ment. “The Amer­ican people, whose rights to gun own­er­ship stem from colo­nial times and are enshrined in the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, are being ille­gally shut out of the process.”

The twists and turns that lie ahead will be cer­tain to inflame already over­heated tem­pers between the polit­ical par­ties and their respec­tive constituents.

Con­clu­sion

A good per­centage of F&F readers will dis­agree with my analysis. That’s your right, to be sure. How­ever, if you have not read America’s founding doc­u­ments (Dec­la­ra­tion of Inde­pen­dence, Bill of Rights, Con­sti­tu­tion), and are unaware of the polit­ical his­tory our nation and of applied Marxism, then you have little to con­tribute to this debate. If you are simply under-informed, I encourage you start reading and learning today — your future is at stake. If you are will­fully unin­formed, then I sug­gest you are part of the problem, not the solution.

— —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  —  — –  Note: Addi­tional con­tent on this page is avail­able only to Pre­mium sub­scribers of Find­ings & Fore­casts.
To sub­scribe, please click here.

16 Responses to “Findings & Forecasts 01/16/2013”

  1. Evan says:

    A Pres­i­dent “calling for a ces­sa­tion of vio­lence in movies, tele­vi­sion and video games that are twisting young minds” is not com­pat­ible with the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.

    You can urge par­ents to do a better job of mon­i­toring and cur­tailing their children’s enter­tain­ment habits, but you can’t man­date it through government.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 5 votes)
  2. Patrick Wood says:

    I didn’t say “man­date”, but rather “calling for”. He can jaw­bone the industry just as easily as he can jaw­bone parents.

    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +4 (from 4 votes)
  3. Lily says:

    Someone’s missing the entire point! He’s man­dating every­thing else, why not set about making ppl take respon­si­bility? Out of a great article, your only sticking point is a red herring.

    For anyone that doesn’t under­stand the con­cept of his­tory repeating, they should view this: The His­tory of Gun Con­trol: http://youtu.be/1pKasF6l3y0

    Anyway, super job, Mr. Wood — thank you.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Pablo Conroy says:

    People need to stop talking about guns being for fighting the some tyran­nical gov­ern­ment. The first and fore­most reason to cit­i­zens to be able to have firearms is to defend against armed crim­i­nals. When mas­sive infla­tion hits or cur­ren­cies crash there will be mobs of hungry folks wanting to take your stash. This hap­pened when the 3rd best economy crashed in Argentina, and when looting took place after the Chilean earth­quake in nice neigh­bor­hoods and the looters were upper middle class Chileans. 99% of Amer­i­cans don’t even have bars on their windows.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  5. Lily says:

    OIY!! If one breaks down the 2nd amend­ment without taking any­thing out of con­text, it is abun­dantly clear and pre­cise what the intent was.

    From an article by Jacob G. Horn­berger, “Gun own­er­ship is an insur­ance policy, one that guar­an­tees the ability of the cit­i­zenry to pro­tect them­selves and others from tyranny or even to alter or abolish tyran­nical gov­ern­ment through force of arms.”

    I reit­erate from an ear­lier com­ment, please see this: The His­tory of Gun Con­trol: http://youtu.be/1pKasF6l3y0

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 4.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  6. Lorna McLaughlin says:

    I believe that the cit­i­zenry has the right to bear arms. I also per­son­ally believe that should I need to defend myself against the gov­ern­ment using a rifle or hand gun, that his­tory, at least in the last thirty years, tells me I would not be suc­cessful. The mil­i­tary is much better armed than I can ever be. They will be able to wipe me out in short order, armed or not, how­ever, my being armed will give them a more defen­sible excuse.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  7. Earl Lee Swagger says:

    The Supreme Court is not the final authority ……….. Because “Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Mao Tse-Tung

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  8. Earl Lee Swagger says:

    Who’s side will the “mil­i­tary’ be on? Lorna. The people are in the mil­i­tary. The people are the police. The people are the sher­iffs. The people are the National Guard.
    “If ye love wealth better than lib­erty, the tran­quility of servi­tude than the ani­mating con­test of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your coun­sels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may pos­terity forget that ye were our coun­trymen!”
    ~Samuel Adams

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  9. Rick says:

    Nei­ther is calling for uni­lat­eral erad­i­ca­tions of the 2nd amendment!

    In CT mas­sacre there still has been no video footage released con­firming that shoot­ings were com­mitted so called “auto­matic” rifles.

    Hiding some­thing?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  10. David Whetsell says:

    There are two sets of laws. Gods law and mans law. Which ever one you follow you will suffer from the other. You must make the choice and except the others con­se­quences. Man has turned his back on God and let evil take over this country. What are you going to do?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  11. Patricia says:

    Christ said, Sell your cloak and buy a sword.

    It’s our right to defend ourselves.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  12. Matt Sweet says:

    “The brain­washing and twisting of our children’s minds must stop! Hence­forth, I am calling for a ces­sa­tion of vio­lence in movies, tele­vi­sion and video games that are twisting young minds.”

    EXACTLY, we need to fully enforce sep­a­ra­tion of church and state and remove all that reli­gious pro­pa­ganda that is poi­soning our minds against sci­ence, rational thinking and progress of the human race.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: -1 (from 3 votes)
  13. nathan says:

    Surely, the most amount of com­ment post­ings I’ve ever seen.… this is a big issue in America

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  14. Mark says:

    The topic of “change for the better” is so much more a bigger part of our talk cir­cles these days. As I con­sider all the dif­ferent places that change can take place or come from, the only one that I believe will have the ben­efit of an out­come that will profit the change we so desire the most, is the change that needs to take place within the heart of the people. We have turned away from that which is Right­eous and True and are headed down a path of destruc­tion. This is true, just look around with eyes that see. Take courage may friend, change is pos­sible. It just needs to start with me and you.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  15. Mark says:

    So true David. Also see my post below.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Globalization of California Forum

Globalization of California

Premium Subscriber Access

Email:
Password:
Remember   

Forgot Password

News & Analysis

  • Transhumanism, Technocracy, Total Surveillance Society

    Tran­shu­manism, Tech­noc­racy and Total Sur­veil­lance Society are show­cased in this 3 hour radio pre­sen­ta­tion with Patrick Wood, Carl Teichrib and Kaye Beach. It is a good primer and helpful to bring the lis­tener to a solid basic under­standing of what it … Con­tinue reading

  • Is Trayvon Sparking a Communist Revolution?

    Are you puz­zled by the over-reaction and civil unrest over the George Zim­merman trial? Con­sider this: Com­mu­nist front groups are throwing every­thing they have at fomenting and con­tin­uing the protests for their own agenda. Many of these groups have no … Con­tinue reading

  • Risk of Global Financial Freeze-up Rising

    If you thought it couldn’t happen again, get ready: A new global finan­cial freeze-up could be straight ahead. It’s too bad that eco­nomics, trade, finance, etc., are such boring topics to most people. Well, they actu­ally are boring because they … Con­tinue reading

People want to know…

faq

What is Globalization?

It is the col­lective effect of pur­poseful and amoral manip­u­la­tion that seeks to cen­tralize eco­nomic, polit­ical, tech­no­log­ical and soci­etal forces in order to accrue max­imum profit and polit­ical power to global banks, global cor­po­ra­tions and the elit­ists who run them. It is rapidly moving toward an full and final imple­men­ta­tion of Technocracy.

Posted in: faq

What is the Tri­lat­eral Commission?

Founded in 1973 by David Rock­e­feller and Zbig­niew Brzezinski, the Com­mis­sion set out to create a “New Inter­na­tional Eco­nomic Order”, namely, Tech­noc­racy. The orig­inal mem­ber­ship con­sisted of elit­ists (bankers, politi­cians, aca­d­e­mics, indus­tri­al­ists) from Japan, North America and Europe. Col­lec­tively, they have dom­i­nated and con­trolled trade and eco­nomic policy in their respec­tive coun­tries since at least 1974.

Posted in: faq

What is Technocracy?

Tech­noc­racy is a move­ment started in the 1930’s by engi­neers, sci­en­tists and tech­ni­cians that pro­posed the replace­ment of cap­i­talism with an energy-based economy. Orig­i­nally envi­sioned for North America only, it is now being applied on a global basis. Authors Aldous Huxley and George Orwell believed that Tech­noc­racy would result in a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship, as reflected in their books, “Brave New World” and “1984″.

Posted in: faq

What is Smart Grid?

Smart Grid is the national and global imple­men­ta­tion of dig­ital and Wi-fi enabled power meters that enable com­mu­ni­ca­tion between the appli­ances in your home or busi­ness, with the power provider. This pro­vides con­trol over your appli­ances and your usage of elec­tricity, gas and water.

Posted in: faq

Who is M. King Hubbert?

Hub­bert was a geo-physicist who co-founded Tech­noc­racy, Inc. in 1932 and authored its Tech­noc­racy Study Course. In 1954, he became the cre­ator of the “Peak Oil Theory”, or “Hubbert’s Peak” which the­o­rized that the world was rapidly run­ning out of carbon-based fuels. Hub­bert is widely con­sid­ered as a “founding father” of the global warming and green movements.

Posted in: faq

Who is R. Buck­min­ster Fuller?

A pio­neer in global eco­log­ical theory, Fuller (1895 – 1984) was the first to sug­gest the devel­op­ment of a Global Energy Grid that is today known as the Global Smart Grid. Fuller is widely con­sid­ered to be a “founding father” of the global green move­ment, including global warming, Sus­tain­able Devel­op­ment, Agenda 21, etc.

Posted in: faq

Is the Venus Project like Technocracy?

The Venus Project, founded by Jacque Fresco, is a utopian, modern-day iter­a­tion of Tech­noc­racy. Like Tech­noc­racy, it scraps cap­i­talism and pro­poses that “a resource-based economy all of the world’s resources are held as the common her­itage of all of Earth’s people, thus even­tu­ally out­growing the need for the arti­fi­cial bound­aries that sep­a­rate people.” The appli­ca­tion of tech­nology is the answer to all of the world’s prob­lems, including war, famine and poverty.

Posted in: faq