I think along with your right to keep and bear arms, You're gonna have to fight to get a free and open press back too. The Goebellian anti-gun propagandists went into high gear after the tragedy.

Mainstream Media Declares War on 2nd Amendment

December 17th, 2012

Melissa Melton: 

When an armed man opened fire on a crowded shopping mall in Oregon last week, 22-year-old Nick Meli pulled out his concealed carry permitted gun, and took cover in a store before taking aim.
“I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself,” Meli reported of the gunman’s suicide that followed toKGW News Channel 8. Two people died at the hands of the shooter before the man took his own life, but many more could have lost their lives in Oregon that day had Meli not been there.

Yesterday in San Antonio, Texas, two people were wounded in another movie theater shooting before an off-duty officer took the gunman down, wounding him and effectively ending the murder spree before anyone else could get hurt.

As with other shootings stopped by lawfully armed citizens, news about these two incidents has been widely limited to local media outlets and seemingly ignored otherwise. Why the mainstream blackout?
Even though the media has struggled with reporting the actual facts of the Connecticut shooting, all the national news outlets seem to have time to publish are propaganda pieces pushing gun control.
In Reuters this morning, one headline reads, “In Newtown, an Anguished Debate over Gun Rights, Controls,” and the subhead reads, “Two days after a gunman opened fire in a Connecticut elementary school, killing 26 people, several dozen parents and children gathered in a circle at Newtown’s public library to draw something positive from the town’s sudden, tragic notoriety” (emphasis added).
CNN’s Don Lemon used his airtime this morning to go on an anti-gun tirade, claiming mental health issues are secondary to gun availability.

News outlet Salon went to task posting gun control stories and targeting preppers on its site andofficial Twitter account all weekend, even writing a hit piece on Alex Jones. In “What’s a Prepper?,” Salon’s Katie McDonough notes, “Preppers believe having weapons is just as important as having enough water. They are also deeply suspicious of government overreach, sounding Tea Party-like…”

The Atlantic‘s Senior Editor Robert Wright offered, “A Gun Control Law that Would Actually Work,” going beyond the assault weapons ban Senator Dianne Feinstein has promised she will introduce during Congress’ first 2013 session. Wright calls for a ban on any gun that can hold more than six bullets. Feinstein is not alone, either; USA Today is reporting “the most prominent pro-gun member of Congress” with an NRA “A” rating, Senator Joe Manchin has announced the horrific mass shootings have “changed” him. Manchin is now calling for more control on public firearm purchasing power.

MSNBC asked, “Is the American Public Ready for Gun Control?” Politico gave us, “The Price of the Second Amendment,” presenting the argument that the lives of the children in Connecticut are what we must pay to have the right to keep and bear arms. The Christian Science Monitor declared, “Madison Never Meant Second Amendment to Allow Guns of Sandy Hook Shooting.”

Anti-gun op-eds abound. The Huffington Post published, “Gun Control and Mental Health Funding—If Not Now, When?” and “The Real 2nd Amendment Isn’t the NRA Version.” The Washington Postposted, “Now Is the Time for Meaningful Gun Control.” Following an outcry on social media sites this weekend, the Discovery Channel announced its show “American Guns” was also canceled.

In the wake of the Connecticut tragedy, a White House.gov citizen petition for “legislation that limits access to guns” put up the day of the school shooting already garnered over 150,000 signatures in just three days, breaking the record for the most-signed petition on the government’s site. People across the nation have also flocked to gun buyback programs to willingly turn their guns in.

Even the National Rifle Association has fallen silent on social media sites, reportedly taking down its Facebook page and not responding on Twitter since the shooting.

As Alex Jones reported on his radio show today, “Here’s the real newsflash folks—they’re coming for our guns. Make no mistake.”

Although our government is responsible for the Fast and Furious gunwalking scandal that put guns in Mexican drug cartel hands that have since resulted in thousands of deaths, and Obama’s drone strike kill list is reportedly responsible for the murders of nearly 200 children among thousands of dead innocents in the Middle East, the president somehow found the ability to wipe away fake tearsat a press conference following the Connecticut school shooting.

In the Newtown massacre fallout, an all-out war has been declared on We the People’s right to keep and bear arms.

The mainstream media has politicized the Connecticut school shooting to the point that using the tragedy to demonize the 2nd Amendment has seemingly become an Olympic event. Where is the supposedly objective media now to report on the other examples of guns in the hands of properly permitted American citizens saving people’s lives?

Declaring we need stricter gun laws and to repeal the 2nd Amendment is synonymous with saying, “We want criminals and the government to be the only ones armed in America.” Because if our legal arms are stripped from law-abiding citizens, the only people who will have guns will be the government and the criminals.

The problem is, the line between the two is so blurry, it’s nearly impossible to tell who is who anymore.

“The lessons of history are numerous, clear and bloody. A disarmed population inevitably becomes an enslaved population. A disarmed population is without power, reduced to childlike obedience to—and dependence upon—the organs of a parental state. A disarmed population will lose—either piecemeal or in one sweeping act—those basic rights for which the citizens of America risked their lives and fortunes over two hundred years ago.” — Brian Puckett

http://marketdailynews.com/2012/12/17/mainstream-media-declares-war-on-2nd-amendment/

Declaring we need stricter gun laws and to repeal the 2nd Amendment is synonymous with saying, “We want criminals and the government to be the only ones armed in America.” Because if our legal arms are stripped from law-abiding citizens, the only people who will have guns will be the government and the criminals.



ONLY If

'Declaring we need less strict gun laws and to unconditionally enforce the 2nd Amendment is synonymous with saying, “We want criminals and the government and the mentally ill and unstable and anyone else american and older than 18 to be armed in America.” Because if our legal arms are stripped from law-abiding citizens, the only people who will have guns will be the government and the criminals.


id imagine the number who wish 'law abiding' citizens to not have any access to guns is few


but this blurring of the lines by refuting one extreme with another gets boring,,,

The blurring comes from conflating the right of self defence with the intention of the constitution.

The constitution doesn't say " in order to hunt or defend yourself, you should have a gun", it says (in essense) that the people should be armed and ready to defeat a tyrannic government. This implies not that you should have a derringer for self defense, or a hunting rifle holding no more than a few rounds, but that you should have the armaments necessary to revolt and defeat the government itself if it should become necessary.

I suppose in the extreme, that would mean that every state should have the right to have and maintain nukes to use on Washington if it became necessary, and every city or township should probably have some tanks & artillery, but as I say, that's probably slightly extreme, though I would argue that if a citizen should feel it necessary to have military grade equipment equivalent to a modern soldier's, he should have that right, and i believe under your constitution, he does.

People forget that Japan would not attack America because they said "behind every blade of grass there is a gun"

it also says a 'well trained militia' , what part of 'well trained' is so easy for gun advocates to understand

any numbskull who feels like a cowboy shouldnt be able to own a tool of death disguised as 'self defense' against the government

whatever the constitution meant when it was written, IM sure, was limited to the knowledge and experiences of those writing it and their culture and times

Im sure that is why it was written with the ability to be AMENDED,,,,

The right to keep and bear arms was just such an amendment. I do think it should be amended yet again however, to make it the DUTY of every citizen to belong to an organized civil militia and undergo combat & firearms training. In effect, the new amendment should ensure that a proprtly trained & armed militia will always be available to step up to the plate and overthrow a tyrannical government.

However, with all governments having a propensity to tyranny, I seriously doubt that such an amendment could ever be passed now in your country...It isn't in your corrupt and greedy government's interest to do it.

so let me understand

our constitution should be amended so that the government forces all citizens to be part of an organized militia with militia training in order that they might be prepared if that same GOVERNMENT enforcing that law decides to become tyrannical?

wow,,,Im kind of speechless right now

Sounds paradoxical eh? It's all about a peoples' duty to itself.

It really amounts to the choice of the people. They can go one of two ways. They can choose to let the government be their nanny and hope nanny will always be good to them (fat chance of that with the self-serving crooks that get elected by a selfish, apathetic people), OR the people can PARTICIPATE and stand OVER their government (which really should only be administering their affairs as public servants anyway) and thus keep it honest and working in the public interest.

People will always get the government they (collectively) deserve. If they deserve a government that works in their interest, that's what they will get. If they deserve a corrupt tyranny, then that also is what they will get.

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/1997-mi-school-principal-captures-mass-murderer-with-his-45-colt/

This story is a little different than the normal self defense stories we publish here. This one is over 14 years old. However, I feel that it’s important that we not lose track of the older stories that often times provide prime examples of what guns in the hands of law abiding citizens are capable of. I know many people that have followed the gun rights community for any amount of time may have seen this story, but I encourage you to share it now, in the age of social media so that more may understand.

This story focuses on the Pearl High School Shooting of 1997, possibly one of the earliest mass murders committed by a student at a school in the US.

Sixteen year old Luke Woodham was distraught due to the fact that his girlfriend of the time had broken up with him, so he started by beating and stabbing his mother to death at their home. Woodham then took a lever action .30-30 hunting rifle with him to his school, Pearl High. He made no attempt to hide or conceal the rifle. He entered the school and began shooting students. Two people were killed and seven others wounded. The first person killed was Woodham’s ex-girlfriend. After she was shot Woodham began shooting indiscriminately at anyone in the area.

Woodham knew that the police would soon be on their way, but he had no plans to allow himself to be captured or kill himself (as is popular with many mass murderers). Woodham had planned to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and continue his shooting spree while police were occupied with the confusion at Pearl High.

Woodham successfully made his way to his car well before police arrived. However, Woodham would never make it to Pearl Junior High.

Assistant Princiapl Joel Myrick heard the shooting when it began and immediately went into action. After getting several students to safety and figuring out what was going on Myrick knew what he had to do. Myrick had a Colt .45 handgun in his truck. Due to gun laws Myrick was not allowed to carry his gun on his person. Myrick ran to his vehicle, retrieved the gun, loaded it, and headed back to the school.

Woodham was already in the parking lot, getting into his car. Myrick confronted Woodham in the parking lot, held his gun to the boy’s head and managed to subdue Woodham until police arrived.

There is simply no telling how many lives were saved by this educator who took steps to make sure that he was prepared for any situation and to use a weapon when it was necessary to save the lives of others.

this happened after that Insanity of "Gunfree-Zones" was implemented!


http://www.therightscoop.com/nypd-detective-we-need-to-repeal-gun-free-school-zones/

as mass murderers have happened BEFORE gun free zones as well

Im not sure if that really proves much

sad that lives were lost at the hands of yet another disgruntled man with a tool of death accessible to him,,,

albeit one with less damage than what the ones we have now make,,,

'glad' (if there is anything to be truly glad for), that he was subdued before more life was taken

The more guns the more gun crimes...

Doesn't that tell anyone anything?

and people were buying food before there were supermarkets too…Where do you go to get your groceries?



A baseball bat is a tool of death too…which can also come in handy for baseball games.



Me too.

USA is the Best Country in the World.

Yeah...that more people who SHOULD have guns should have guns.

Your patriotism is appreciated, but I think it might be blinding you just a bit.

The best country in the world is Iceland...I wish I lived there.

the neigbhor hood mart, or the albertsons, or the savons,, wherever IM closest to , thats where I Get groceries

which I need to SURVIVE (eat)

are guns needed for survival, will we die in a matter of days without one?

,,point being,, people have always 'protected' themself, people have not always had access to weaponry that allows them to take SO muchj life with so little effort in so little time


so a 'gun free zone' doesnt necessarily change anything in terms of mass murders,,,


but yeah, people that can have proper training and havent been brain washed with the wild west, cowboy, shoot em up, us v them, propoganda,, should be able to have guns

So you go to supermarkets because it's convenient, probably has what you want and nobody stops you from shopping.

Don't you think a mass murderer would like to go to a place that's convenient, has all the victims he wants and nobody to stop him from killing them?

It just makes common sense to me…a mass murderer, as crazy as he might be, is probably not so crazy as to want to go where he might be stopped before he finishes.

Gun free zones are deadly hazards and I wouldn't be caught dead in one, because if I went to one, odds are that I could be.

lol

After reading this thread, I'm thinking everyone is blurring the lines to reflect personal feelings...
The second amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted in 1791 and contains ONLY two clauses, both are pretty easy to understand...The first, "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"
and..The second, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon"

According to CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, the second clause is "controlled" by the first clause...This is something many overlook...Because the Constitution was written to serve as a "Living document" the use of structuralism was necessary...Structuralism, or its interpretation, is based on what is good for society "as a whole" as opposed to what is good "for each individual"...How these two opposing approaches are interpreted is what fuels the problem of gun control ... Even the courts confuse interpretation...

A lot has changed since 1791...Gun control legislation is an ongoing process....As society changes so does the need for more effective gun control....Taking individual rights away from responsible, law abiding citizens is certainly not the answer, but how do you justify preserving individual rights once those rights reach a point of monumental abuse?...I wish I knew...

I think I know...every right comes with a corresponding obligation (duty). There is no escaping that; it is simply true. I hear a LOT of talk about "rights", but seldom hear so much as a peep about that right's corresponding duty.

In my view, the two clauses of the second amendment go hand-in-hand. IT was never intended that the people should relinquish control of the nation to its government. What was intended was that the government was there to SERVE the people. The "well regulated militia" isn't a state militia, or the army, it is the people....ALL of them. THAT is why their right to bear arms can never be (lawfully) infringed. The people themselves must be ready at all times to fight all enemies both foreign and domestic. That is not a job to be left to the public servants.

Your right to keep and bear arms is a sacred right and your last defence against the tyranny of your own government when it commits treason against the people. I assure you, if you fail in your DUTY to BE the militia that protects your nation, your RIGHT to bear the arms necessary to that duty WILL be infringed and you will inevitably have fallen under a well deserved tyranny as a consequence of your dereliction of duty.

What does a good civilian militia look like?...Look at Switzerland.