Gun Con­trol

The global elite has worked pri­marily through the left-wing polit­ical appa­ratus to remove guns from society. Con­sti­tu­tion­al­ists from the both the left (yes, there are some) and right tend to pro­vide the resis­tance to such efforts because the Second Amend­ment is a key part of the U.S. Constitution.

The gun con­trol lobby appears always ready to launch for­ward when­ever a gun-related crisis hits, such as was the case with the Sandy Hook school shooting. Their strategy is under­stand­able because without an emo­tional event, the Amer­ican public quickly repu­di­ates any attempt to degrade the Second Amendment.

In this post-Sandy Hook attack on gun own­er­ship, the person leading the leg­isla­tive attack against gun own­er­ship is ultra-liberal Sen­ator Dianne Fein­stein (D-CA). Notably, Fein­stein is also a member of the elite Tri­lat­eral Com­mis­sion! Another Tri­lat­eral member, Sen. John D. “Jay” Rock­e­feller (D-WV), is a co-sponsor on the bill.

Since the Sandy Hook shooting on December 14, 2012 and the intro­duc­tion of Feinstein’s leg­is­la­tion on Jan­uary 24, 2013, a mas­sive media cam­paign was launched against firearms, and par­tic­u­larly against  “assault rifles.” In fact, almost 100 per­cent of the “public discussion” – carefully orches­trated by major media – has focused directly on military-style rifles such as the M-4 and AR-15. Demands have ranged from an out­right ban on such rifles, to lim­iting the mag­a­zine capacity to 5 or 10 rounds.

The manic irra­tionality over assault rifles has led to a mass decep­tion that such a rifle was used to kill  20 inno­cent chil­dren at the Sandy Hook school. In fact, the shooter had stolen such a rifle from his mother, but left it in the trunk of the car that he drove to the school. It was not taken out of the trunk until police offi­cers did so after the inci­dent. It had not been recently fired. It was not used in the shootings.

The fol­lowing clip shows that all the major news ser­vices ini­tially reported that the shooter used only hand­guns and that the Bush­master rifle was dis­cov­ered – unused – in the trunk of his car.

Given the facts, why did the sub­se­quent dis­cus­sion demo­nize assault rifles like the Bush­master? The answer is: Agenda #2. Simply put, the global elite want to extract these military-style weapons because they are a hin­drance to their plans for global gov­er­nance. There are at least 4 mil­lion of these weapons, along with mil­lions of rounds of ammu­ni­tion, scat­tered throughout the Amer­ican pop­u­la­tion. Many owners, if not most, have mil­i­tary training with sim­ilar weapons, the only dif­fer­ences being fully auto­matic cycling and per­haps more advanced sighting systems.

Weapons in the hands of a large cit­i­zenry is a potent deter­rent to any would-be usurper, much as “mutu­ally assured destruc­tion” thinking was a deter­rent to nuclear war during the cold war with the former USSR.

But, aren’t guns already con­trolled to a large degree? While there might be sev­eral thou­sand local, state and fed­eral laws affecting firearms, there are likely only a few hun­dred that are cur­rent and rel­e­vant; that is, older laws have been super­seded by more recent leg­is­la­tion. Nev­er­the­less, a Con­gres­sional Research Ser­vice report notes that it is already illegal to own a firearm for

This means that valid laws have been in place for vir­tu­ally every shooting inci­dent in modern his­tory. Enforce­ment has obvi­ously been lacking, but adding addi­tional laws on top of unen­forced laws is totally irra­tional. Why would we expect better enforce­ment on new laws?

There must be another reason for Sen. Feinstein’s Senate bill that bans assault rifles and pro­hibits the sale of 157 spe­cific weapons while lim­iting mag­a­zine capac­i­ties to 10 rounds. Pro­po­nents say that the bill does not pro­mote con­fis­ca­tion, and yet the text clearly says that if you pur­chased a banned gun before the law takes effect, you will not be able to transfer, sell or gift (even to your own chil­dren) your firearm without first sur­ren­dering it to a Fed­eral Firearm Licensed dealer. The FFL dealer will con­fis­cate any­thing that is banned, including high-capacity mag­a­zines or specif­i­cally banned firearm models.

Agenda #1: Fur­ther­more, Obama is in process of syn­chro­nizing the national gun reg­istry data­base, whereby every person involved in the transfer of a firearm must be fin­ger­printed and undergo a renewed back­ground check; records will be kept indef­i­nitely and will be enhanced with data from other public and pri­vate sources. In par­tic­ular, health records will be matched for signs of mental ill­ness, drug pre­scrip­tions for anti-depressants or anx­iety, or other drugs that have neg­a­tive psy­chotropic side-effects.

Within a few years, the gov­ern­ment will know the pre­cise own­er­ship and loca­tion of every firearm in America. Even if out­right con­fis­ca­tion is not attempted, levying taxes against your firearms would be straight­for­ward and would quickly con­vince many to sell their firearms to gov­ern­ment col­lec­tion centers.

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

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.