portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts united states

government | human & civil rights

How The Post-Sandy Hook Gun Control Push Spectacularly Backfired In America

The push for gun control in the aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting has spectacularly backfired.

In reality, it has hardened the positions of gun rights advocates while massively increasing the number of AR-15s and other firearms sold across the country.
 http://www.naturalnews.com/038970_gun_control_backfired_America.html

How the post-Sandy Hook gun control push spectacularly backfired in America

Wednesday, February 06, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com

(NaturalNews) In the aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, the gun grabbers across America unleashed a full court press to try to wholly disarm American citizens. With the help of the incessantly anti-gun mainstream media, people like Biden, Bloomberg, Cuomo, Feinstein and Obama managed to stir up a frenzy of fabricated fear that promised all our children would be violently gunned down if we didn't immediately agree to turn in all our guns and ammo magazines.

The push for gun control, however, has spectacularly backfired. In reality, it has hardened the positions of gun rights advocates while massively increasing the number of AR-15s and other firearms sold across the country.

The backfire is far worse than the gun grabbers could have possibly imagined when they launched their efforts on the graves of the dead Sandy Hook children. Here's my analysis of what has factually happened on the gun control front since Sandy Hook.

Analysis of ways in which the gun grab backfired
• Instead of reducing sales of AR-15s and other firearms in America, the gun grab dramatically increased sales of nearly all firearms beyond any previous record. In essence, the American people bought nearly every gun available anywhere in the country, leaving gun store shelves empty. The upshot of all this? 10+ million new firearms in the hands of citizens and a one-year backlog of gun orders with manufacturers.

• Instead of shrinking the influence of the NRA, the gun grab vastly expanded NRA membership. More than 300,000 new members have been added to the NRA's roster in just the last few months, and the association has become more steeled in its position than ever before. The NRA has shifted even more dramatically against gun restrictions than ever before, even reversing itself on the issue of "gun free school zones" after learning that such zones don't work. Gun Owners of America has also seen its membership numbers soar.

• The backlash against Obama, Biden, Piers Morgan and others has been so powerful and persistent that Obama had to stage a photo op of himself shooting a shotgun in order to create the impression that he was "pro gun." Similarly, anti-gun CNN host Piers Morgan has now broadcast a video of himself shooting an AR-15 in Katy, Texas, while softening his position and saying he was never against the Second Amendment in the first place. (Yeah, right...)

How big of a deal is all this? It's huge! Imagine Piers Morgan picking up an AR-15 the day after the Sandy Hook shooting. Never would have happened, right? Or imagine Obama allowing himself to be photographed shooting a shotgun. These images would have been unimaginable mere weeks ago, but the gun grab push has backfired so completely that even the Second Amendment's most outspoken critics are practically lining up to be photographed or filmed shooting guns.

• Instead of silencing all the gun advocates and owners across the nation, the effort has actually caused people to break their silence on the issue and go vocal with their true beliefs on the topic. I'm a perfect example of this: before Sandy Hook, I hardly ever mentioned firearms. After Sandy Hook, I've been one of the most outspoken voices of gun rights and the Second Amendment, and I've actually found that instead of losing an audience, I've gained a huge number of new subscribers who agree with me on this issue. Check the Alexa stats; Natural News is steadily gaining in web traffic even as we cover this issue.

Other people have done much the same thing. My friend Daniel Vitalis, best known for longevity supplements and preparedness know-how, has even gone public with his own pro-gun column, and the feedback from his health-oriented audience has been mostly positive.

• The emotionally-loaded "Demand A Plan" Hollywood video, featuring dozens of top stars trying to convince us we need to disarm ourselves, was very quickly turned into a laughing stock due to the release of far more informative video showing most of those stars using guns to commit bloody murder on the big screen. The hypocrisy was inescapable: Hollywood people want to claim they are against guns, but much of their income is based on movies that feature horrific scenes of violent shootings.

• While the gun grabbers wanted sheriffs and cops to jump on board the gun disarmament bandwagon, what actually happened is that sheriffs began speaking out AGAINST gun control and encouraging their local constituents to arm themselves. Sheriffs across the country -- in huge numbers -- publicly proclaimed they would not allow federal agents to enforce gun restrictions in their counties.

• While gun grabbers wanted states to fall in line and surrender to federal authority on the issue of gun control, what actually happened is that the Firearms Protection Act began to be introduced in state legislatures such as Wyoming and Texas. This act, which is now being considered in more than a dozen other states, would make it a felony crime for anyone to enforce new federal gun restrictions in their states.

• While gun grabbers hoped the U.S. military would agree to fire upon American citizens who refused to turn in their guns, what really happened is that huge numbers of active duty soldiers announced they would never participate in military action against their own countrymen. In fact, inside the military there is rising talk of shooting commanding officers in the head if they order troops to fire on American citizens over gun rights issues.

• While the gun grabbers hoped to demonize gun owners and "shame" them into somehow feeling guilty about Sandy Hook, what actually happened is that gun owners found new courage and American pride, and they have loudly voiced their intention to wage a war of resistance against any government that attempts to take their guns.

• In New York state, where Mayor Cuomo managed to quickly shove through an illegal, unconstitutional gun control law, there is now open talk of armed resistance against the state government. Elsewhere, there is even talk that U.S. Senators who vote for gun control may see their own staffers and families targeted for assassination. As Stewart Rhodes said on InfoWars Nightly News on December 31st, 2012:

"They will be targeted. I think that if they pass this bill, legislators who vote for it will be assassinated... they're going to be military targets, too, and they're going to be killed. They think they're immune, but they're not. They cannot walk around with enough security to keep from being shot by a sniper." - Stewart Rhodes, OathKeepers.org

(For the record, Stewart Rhodes is not calling for this action. He is merely stating the obvious: that this is likely to take place if gun confiscation comes up for a vote in the U.S. Senate.)

It's not just Stewart Rhodes saying this, either. Robbie Cooper from UrbanUndergrounds.com says much the same thing:

"We all quickly agreed a violent revolution and rebellion would occur almost immediately [following a federal gun ban]. Most, if not all, members of Congress who voted for the ban / confiscation would be assassinated. And the very first prey that would find themselves in the scopes of the rebels would be the members of Congress who passed this ban and the members of the media who have been their willing mouthpieces and agents of propaganda."

Bob Owens from Bob-Owens.com paints a similar picture:

"The 535 members of the House and Senate in both parties that allowed such a law to pass would largely be on their own; the Secret Service is too small to protect all of them and their families, the Capitol Police too unskilled, and competent private security not particularly interested in working against their own best interests at any price. The elites will be steadily whittled down, and if they cannot be reached directly, the targets will become their staffers, spouses, children, and grandchildren. Grandstanding media figures loyal to the regime would die in droves, executed as enemies of the Republic."

For the record once again, these people are not calling for such actions, they are merely predicting what is likely to take place. A government that attempts to disarm the citizenry at gunpoint is essentially declaring war on the People and should expect to be treated like an occupying enemy of America. On top of that, the real power in all this is that there is no central leader of any such rebellion. These actions would organically rise out of the population in the form of independent, self-initiated teams of armed defenders who are willing to risk their lives to save America from tyranny.

Veteran firearms instructor Paul Howe even penned a popular piece called 2nd Amendment and the Kool-Aid Drinkers in which he explains one popular solution for handling those who attempt to engage in gun confiscation:

Should firearm confiscation begin, solutions are simple. If they cannot live in a community, they cannot work in a community. If their house goes away while they are at work confiscating guns, so be it. Allow them to leave with their family and what possessions they can pack in their car.

Howe also explains, in other interviews, that gun confiscation teams -- "tac teams" -- should expect to be attacked without warning and take huge casualties, reducing the effectiveness of those teams and effectively ending gun confiscation activities.

Thank you, Obama, Biden, Cuomo and Feinstein
In all, the gun grabbers in America have become the single most effective gun rights recruitment team in U.S. history.

They have awakened people to the truth about the need for a Second Amendment and the ever-present risk of tyrannical government trying to dominate a free people. They have encouraged the sale of 10+ million firearms which are now held in the hands of private citizens. They have swelled the ranks of the NRA and Gun Owners of America. They have proven all the so-called "conspiracy theorists" right about claims that the government is coming for our guns.

The post-Sandy Hook actions of the gun grabbers have actually set back the gun control agenda by at least a decade. Americans are on high alert now, and they realize there is more than enough critical mass of resistance to stand up against any gun registration or confiscation scheme that might be attempted by an arrogant, unconstitutional and lawless government.

Obama has effectively declared himself King
Remember, the Obama administration openly claims the right to order the execution of American citizens without trial, without evidence and without any due process. A President who would justify those actions could justify anything, including nationwide gun confiscation, forced FEMA camp round-ups of citizens, military troops on the streets of U.S. cities and so on. Obama believes there is NO LIMIT to his power, and as a result he is, by definition, a totalitarianistic tyrant.

But Obama does not have the loyalty of the military, nor the sheriffs, nor most police departments. He is absolutely hated by gun owners and political conservatives. His circle of followers is weak and shrinking by the day. His political supporters are largely inner city welfare recipients who, as history has shown, matter little in the equation of human history.

Liberty is winning in America, and it will continue to win as long as you remain ever vigilant, knowing that the federal government is constantly scheming and conspiring to dream up ways to blame gun owners for tragic events and thereby invoke a false justification for disarming the citizens and creating a "monopoly of violence" of government.

Warning: How the gun grabbers could still win
Do not allow the victory of the moment to cloud your vision for the future, however. The gun grabbers are, right now, scheming up new ways to blame gun owners and pass gun confiscation in America.

Operation Fast and Furious, for example, was designed from the very start (and at the highest levels) to cause runaway gun violence near the U.S. - Mexico border, providing an excuse to try to ban guns everywhere across America. It failed because they got caught, but it shows that if they will stage Fast and Furious, they will stage anything.

You can bet your bottom dollar that high-level operatives inside the Obama administration are right now plotting another mass murder event to be blamed on gun owners. These are called "false flag" attacks, and the most likely scenarios that may be carried out include:

• A staged mass shooting at an airport security checkpoint where TSA officers are gunned down. The federal response will be to demand that the TSA be armed, and this is how Obama will create his "domestic security force" much like Hitler's brownshirts.

• Another bombing of a federal building or local police station. Expect the patsy to be a drugged-up military veteran who owns lots of guns and whose computer just happens to have a history of visiting websites like InfoWars.com. Expect Alex Jones to be blamed for everything.

• A repeat of Sandy Hook with lots and lots of dead children. Schools still remain "gun free zones" which means they are wide-open shooting galleries for psychos who don't want anyone to shoot back. The more children die, the more political power the gun grabbers can squeeze out of the tragedy while somehow blaming the NRA.

• A dirty bomb released in a major U.S. city and blamed on "patriots" or some anti-government group. Of course, as we already know, a group within the FBI masterminds many of these domestic terror plots -- this is openly admitted by the FBI and was even published in the New York Times, believe it or not.

• A mass shooting at a sports stadium in order to terrorize sports crowds. This is why it's smart to avoid sports crowds for the foreseeable future.

In all these theoretical events, you can expect high-capacity magazines, AR-15 rifles and possibly even silencers (suppressors) to be planted on the scene in order to provide justification for those items to be banned. Whatever the government wants to take away from the citizens, it simply arranges to have them dropped off at the next staged mass murder scene. Want an example? There was no AR-15 rifle used in the Sandy Hook shooting. That narrative is a total hoax.

Five years ago, all this would have sounded like a kooky conspiracy theory. Today, gun owners all across America have come to realize this is fact. The government really does stage mass killings in order to forward its political agenda. They really are coming after your guns. And yes, they really did stage Fast and Furious for the purpose of causing enough mass death near the border to justify new gun control laws.

Thank you, Obama and Feinstein, for showing your cards and proving us right. America is now more awake, more vigilant and far better armed than before Sandy Hook. You have managed to achieve precisely the opposite of what you had hoped, and the spirit of liberty in America is stronger than ever.

homepage: homepage: http://www.naturalnews.com/038970_gun_control_backfired_America.html
address: address: Natural News


Complete "Hooker" garbage 07.Feb.2013 01:32

make your own prophecy

"Gun grabbers across America" didn't "unleash" anything. It was GUN RIGHTS NUTS who unleashed a torrent of conspiracy propaganda, including the Sandy Hook Truther bullshit:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/01/421524.shtml

All to rally their base, which you're now trying to call a "backlash". That fake "backlash" revealed some White Power connections with the "guns rights" loons:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/01/421451.shtml#408948


Which, btw, turn off responsible gun owners:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2013/01/421345.shtml#408720

"That does not, however, mean I jump on every "oh god Obama is a nazi gun-grabber" bandwagon I see. Those are cheap and sloppy comparisons to make, and they do nothing to advance the cause of gun ownership. What they DO accomplish, is to make gun owners look like idiots with poor critical thinking skills. Unfortunately, gun advocates do a lot of that. "

Stop being a drama queen.

Now can you source this statement: " a full court press to try to wholly disarm American citizens. "

Where the fuck did anyone try to "wholly disarm American citizens"? NEVER heard it. Is this some kinda right wing mental breakdown, where you lose touch with reality and start imagining all those conspiracy theories are real?

Prove where there was an attempt to "wholly disarm American citizens". Or GTFO.

You're the drama queen 07.Feb.2013 11:57

Fidelity

@make your own prophecy - Oh goddamn't your being ridiculous. You sound like the same sort of moron who says that there is no attempt to "undermine the Bill of Rights" or "destroy the American Constitution" without some specific policy to point to. Obviously there's never been a specific policy in which one person introduced a bill to disable the 4th Amendment, yet we can all plainly see that so many of our constitutionally protected rights are constantly degraded. Would you @"make your own prophecy" reject that the 4th Amendment has been under attack, and that there is a general movement to disable it? If you think it has been under attack, then point to the policy or GTFO.

But, don't be so damn foolish to think that the complete prohibition of private firearm ownership is not the goal. Look no further than the New York Times:
 http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/why-gun-control-is-not-enough/

Folks like Jeff McMahan are authoritarian fascists, he makes this entirely clear in his philosophy, for gods-sakes he wrote a book titled "The Morality of Nationalism" that celebrates nation-states and war! That's the people who ultimately want to ban private firearm ownership, and it's been this way throughout history. This argument is very influential to urban elites in particular, like the bankers and industrialists, these are the people who pick our government representatives, and they pick people who will disarm the general masses for the Elite's own safety. Our elites are trying to reduce us to slavery through every means: burden us with debt, restrict our rights, and create a police state. One central element of this plan is to prohibit firearms, because free people own guns, slaves do not. And when the slaves are disarmed, it is no longer the "Free People" who are armed, but the "Authority" who carries a gun.

Obviously no politician is going to step out there and run on a platform of banning firearms, not right now, but if enough legal precedents are set, then in several years we could see that. There is already a fairly noticeable chunk of the delusional, ignorant and surrender-happy population that want to prohibit private firearm ownership, and although they are marginalized right now, it is not because Elites do not support their position, it is because the legal system continually recognizes the Right of Self Defense, and has not yet invalidated the Second Amendment. Just look around you in Portland, take a walk down Belmont or Hawthorne, and I'd bet my whole paycheck that 2 out of 3 think all guns should be banned.

Like boiling frogs, you turn the heat up slowly. In this sense, small egregious and outrageous injustices are less known and less noticed. For example, a highly decorated combat veteran, Nathan Haddad, was recently arrested for possessing 5 30-round magazines for his AR-15, and now is facing 35 years in prison for this "crime." The magazines were unloaded, and this Mr. Haddad is not a criminal, but a man who volunteers his time to helping other veterans.

Just like the Drug War, or even the War on Terror, a War on Guns makes things illegal when there is no victim. It is the prospect of a crime that becomes illegal, not the crime it's self - and this is just one crucial precedent towards absolute government domination of the individual. Owning a plant is a crime, not because the plant is dangerous by itself, but because it's immoral to society. Substitute "plant" with "assault rifle."

The most important and accurate debate I've heard about this subject of guns was just released this morning:
 http://youtu.be/cxHvHi-MdIM

You wrote: "Is this some kinda right wing mental breakdown" - Gun ownership has never had anything to do with "Left vs Right" politics. As an example: if you're a Marxists, then you pretty much have to own a gun for your People's Glorious Revolution. If you're an Anarchist (or otherwise believe in the Non-Aggression Principal) then you have to own a gun to protect your body if you do not count on the State. If you simply study the history of organized labor in this country, you'll come across multiple examples of non-government actors (like Pinkertons) using their private guns against private citizens, and this wasn't something that happened back in the 1880's, it is still going on today. Go ask a Longshoremen. Please stop painting things in "Left vs Right": that's a tool to create divisiveness and only makes you look like a stupid pawn.

Also, gun ownership is not a "White Power" issue, go look up why open carry of guns was first banned in California. It was the Panthers saying "Black Power" with a rifle on their back. This made White people shake in their boots, so the elites banned open carry for everyone, specifically to target Blacks, who were using firearms to advance their own civil rights. Do you wonder why the Representative from San Francisco is such a gun-grabbing asshole? It's because she's right across the bay from Oakland. Or, go read Frederick Douglas, or Martin Luther King - perhaps the two most inspirational African Americans of all time, and they both advocated for private ownership of guns. Tell you what, tomorrow is another Open Carry rally in Salem, put on by the same groups you think are racists, round up all your Black friends and other minorities (I'm sure you got plenty) and head on down, you'll be welcome there, I guarantee it. I can guarantee it as there was Blacks, Hispanics, and all sorts of people of color there last time. So please, STFU.

I rather agree with the sentiment of this article: a number of people who were careless about liberty have suddenly been awoken - a line was crossed. As an example of this, the other day I sat down with a newly forming militia group in Portland who met at Lucky Lab in SE, and this group was entirely self-described "right-wing" folks who decided to unite around the issues of firearms. These guys were old, ignorant, and completely lacked political education. They wanted a community of security-minded folks to do the dirty business if it was needed - but out of this something very interesting happened: they were not talking about just guns or Obama, but about the Drug War, SWAT invasions and Drone Strikes. They talked about resistance from a naοve and myopic perspective, but now we share a common enemy. Imagine that, the genesis of this meeting was guns, and now they're talking about civil rights and broad unconstitutional actions. These fools probably cheered on the Patriot Act under Bush, and now they see it as a threat. They hated Occupy, but now also hate the banks. Anarchists were the enemy, but now they see the utility of young militants. They are starting to see the links of oppression that I and so many others have seen for so long. I explained to the most militant person that, if shooting comes someday, we'll either be shooting side by side or shooting at each other. I'm always on the side of Liberty and anti-oppression, and that this is never the side of the government, I hope he will be on my side too.

I agree with the OP, this really backfired against the government - however, I don't think misinformation is necessarily a conspiracy (i.e. Sandy Hook and Assault Rifles), but I know that our government (and sometimes private actors) will manufacture events in order to sway public opinion.

*Ignores crazy person post* 08.Feb.2013 13:26

source please

Can op share with us where there was a plan to "wholly disarm American citizens"?

Am I your google? 08.Feb.2013 14:17

Fidelity

1)  link to www.huffingtonpost.com
Huffington Post - written by Rabbi Michael Lerner - Long time political activist, academic, and publisher.

2)  http://www.newrepublic.com/blog/plank/105337/yes-really-ban-all-the-guns#
New Republic - written by Noam Scheiber - Long time journalist, Obama-insider, and academic.

3)  http://metrotimes.com/columns/ban-all-guns-now-1.1418281
Detroit Metro Times - Jack Lessenberry - Long time academic, journalist, and media producer.

For 4, 5, and 6, you can fucking Google it yourself. Tell you what - how about YOU fucking prove that there is NOT a plan to disarm society. Post that link, dipshit, or GTFO.

Or you can just keep your head in the sand about a long time plan to disarm the people of this country. There's a small portion of Americans who want to ban all firearms, demonstrably by the links I've provided you. Even more importantly though, it's not the great masses who want it or don't want it: it's the small number of elites who control our society and what they want. If they want gun control, which they do, they will manufacture events and control the public's information to make gun control an easy pill to swallow.

Not the same 09.Feb.2013 13:46

??

"There's a small portion of Americans who want to ban all firearms"

is not the same as an official plan to

"wholly disarm American citizens"

More tea bagger conspiracy lies I see

Yes it IS THE SAME. 09.Feb.2013 14:34

-

you can call it "tea bagger conspiracy"

But your friend, up above, provided you with direct evidence of persons who have gone on record/publicly stated that

OUTRIGHT

BANNING

OF

ALL

FIREARMS

is indeed their ultimate goal. As it is, for example, of legislators such as Sen. Feinstein.

Baby steps is the key. (This was also clearly explained in the previous post)

Obviously it would be impractical and/or presently unenforceable, tomorrow -- in February 2013 -- to issue a Federal ban on firearms ownership i.e. confiscation and/or registration.

The steps being taken by such nonsense (in terms of public safety, if that really was the goal - no, we have proven IT IS NOT) as the 'assault weapons' ban and 'high capacity magazine' bans.

These

ARE

incremental steps towards firearms registration and confiscation in the current regime. (Registration ---------------------> confiscation)

(Which we already know, has impunity to kill U.S. citizens anywhere using drones... and why really should they stop there?)

Oh one more thing.

Assignment for you, who believe it's merely "conspiracy" rhetoric.


Next time you're hanging out with you're Academic friends -- i.e. those with college academic professorships/teaching positions, particularly in Liberal Arts -- ask them this specific question:


"Do you support an _eventual_ ban on all types of firearms ownership in the U.S.?"


i.e. should gun ownership be (eventually) banned among U.S. citizens.



You may? be surprised at the answers your friends/colleagues provide.

These people were making legistation? 09.Feb.2013 16:00

??

"with direct evidence of persons"

Don't think the question was about random persons or anyone's opinion on the Internet. The question was in response to this statement:

"In the aftermath of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting, the gun grabbers across America unleashed a full court press to try to wholly disarm American citizens. "

A handful of bloggers are not a "full court press", whatever that means. The author implies it means the MSM was calling for it, and political figures in press releases? Be nice for OP to return and clarify. If he does mean random bloggers it's silly because random bloggers don't have the power to do anything.

But IMO it's clear is OP does NOT mean a handful of lefty bloggers here and there. Instead of another wall of text comment, just post a link to whichever politician(s) were trying to "wholly disarm" people.

Why is that so difficult?

" Instead of another wall of text comment " 09.Feb.2013 16:57

-

You are incapable of reading the English language.


Biden: Government Clearly Has RIGHT To Determine Weapons Citizen Can Own 09.Feb.2013 17:13

-

"It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public."


Sorry, not the point 09.Feb.2013 17:34

??

@-

"It is clearly within the right of the government to determine what type of weapons can be owned by the public."


is not the same as

"a full court press to try to wholly disarm American citizens"

Saying the government COULD do something doesn't prove they PLANNED to do it after Sandy Hook.

But thanks for your concise attempt. I think we just have to admit OP got carried away and exaggerated. It happens. Just be honest about it.

Absolutely "the point". 09.Feb.2013 18:45

-

If the above evidence (only partial)

of 'full court press' -- at both the federal and state levels (NY was not even mentioned, for example) -- to disarm U.S. citizens is not "apparent" to such as yourself,

then that is wholly your problem.

End discussion.

Wow 09.Feb.2013 20:56

-

Someone really has a horse in this race. If readers misunderstood some of the author's gibberish, that could have been explained a long time ago, without passive aggressive know it all acting out.

Unfortunately it looks like more unsourced rightwing spam...and that's the real reason fanboy Fidelity lost his temper. He doesn't want to explain his political views, because when he tries he starts to see they don't make sense. Worse when he does try to explain, it's clear to any reader it's disjointed garbage.

Much better to act aggrieved and misunderstood by the liburls.

Someone really has a Bridge to sell. 09.Feb.2013 22:53

-

" fanboy Fidelity lost his temper. He doesn't want to explain his political views "


How about,


YOU

explain YOUR 'political views' (read: gibberish) ?


You have been directed above, and below (see NY) to national and state policy initiatives -- i.e. ALREADY-DRAFTED LAWS PENDING LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL AT THIS MOMENT -- which are aimed precisely at restricting American citizens' 2nd Amendment rights.

even in the face of such evidence, you continue with the "passive aggressive" ad hominems and ad infinitum ignorance and glossing over specific evidence and reality which stares you in the face, in the English language, right here on this thread.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans have already written/contacted their government representatives, and hit the streets, in this movement over the past couple of months... while keyboard commandos like yourself pollute this web site and the internet more widely with your inane, irrelevant distractive trolling.


But don't bother us with further spew-age. (as ever) It'll merely amount to: 'worse when he does try to explain' ....


that's one 09.Feb.2013 23:42

pulling teeth

Still isn't a case of "wholly disarming American citizens".

Dentist 09.Feb.2013 23:59

-

Wholesale disarmament of U.S. citizens is indeed the goal.
( this was clearly explained in some detail by prev. posts above, which you continuously ignore. Governor Cuomo recently stated: "Confiscation is on the table." and California has just this week proposed an even stricter laws than what recently passed in New York )




Next you're going to tell us that the NDAA isn't stripping away our civil rights, or that drone targeted-killing/assassination of U.S. civilians is not happening

( but whoops, that's right, you're a government troll ... )

Please KYS. and stop wasting valuable oxygen for the rest of us.

Source? 10.Feb.2013 11:22

??

>>Wholesale disarmament of U.S. citizens is indeed the goal.

Source please?

>>Governor Cuomo recently stated: "Confiscation is on the table."

Was wodering why you didn't link to a complete quote. Maybe because the actual quote clearly is talking about assault rifles NOT all firearms:
 link to townhall.com

**********************************************************************

In the interview, Mr. Cuomo did not offer specifics about the measures he might propose, but, while discussing assault weapons, he said: "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option — keep your gun but permit it."

***********************************************************************

"Confiscation could be an option."

IS NOT

"Confiscation is on the table"

Basically hysterical gun rights bloggers mistook the tittle of an article called "New York Governor: Gun Confiscation on the Table" and conflated it with Cuomo's quote.

This says so much about the mental and emotional stability of gun rights fanatics.

And this MISquote still ONLY refers to assault rifles, NOT all firearms.

This says so much about the mental and emotional stability of gun grab fanatics. 10.Feb.2013 12:47

-

"Confiscation could be an option."

IS ABSOLUTELY EQUIVALENT IN EVERY CONCEIVABLE WAY

to

"Confiscation is on the table"





( Why you bothered raising a point which was already so obviously clear in the English language and needed no further explanation, none of us will ever know ....



oh yeah, we do know. You're a paid shill troll. )






























" And this ONLY refers to assault rifles, NOT all firearms. "


And,

rifles -- of ________________________ALL________________________ TYPES (including semi-automatic action rifles)



are used in less than 7 PERCENT of all gun crimes in the U.S.

(with LESS THAN 1 PERCENT in the instance of the dreaded semi-automatic military-pattern rifle)




















Wholesale disarmament of U.S. citizens DOES indeed remain the ultimate goal.














If, that is, the gun-grabbing politicians in many of the U.S.'s 50 states get their way..... Vice President Biden's 'commission' has any sway on the national politicians in the upcoming votes ...... et cetera.



Lawsuits have already been filed against the State of New York.

And they do have to reckon with the hundreds of thousands of active U.S. citizens who have turned out in the streets and contacted congresspersons on these new initiatives.


Law abiding U.S. citizens are not taking this lying down. But it requires constant vigilance - as for example Sen. Feinstein with the 'revived' version of her national Assault Weapons Ban, pre-drafted and ready to go at a moment's notice over 7 years after expiration

These pieces of legislation, nationwide, are ALWAYS -- just like the USA Patriot Act -- ready to be implemented instantaneously to capitalize on public fears and mass media frenzy.

New York Governor: Gun Confiscation on the Table 10.Feb.2013 12:54

-

Yes, the remarks of the Governor of New York essentially unmask the great desire of


Statists


to remove guns from the general population by force of overall law.


(of course an illusory goal, as criminals and/or whoever else wants or needs a gun to commit crimes or perform other harmful tasks with one, will always be able to do so no matter what the law is)


Confiscation is for certain 'on the table', 'an option', is being considered, etc. but ...

also (even if Gov. Cuomo hadn't ever happened to have mentioned the word "Confiscation" in his press conference the other day )


Registration of firearms

is the first step to eventual Confiscation of them.



Registration ----------------------------------------------------------------> Confiscation






















Don't forget your assignment, either:


be sure to ask one of your Academic, teaching-professor at a college friends the question -


"Do you support an _eventual_ ban on all types of firearms ownership in the U.S.?"


i.e. should gun ownership be (eventually) banned among U.S. citizens.



You may? be surprised at the answers your friends/colleagues provide.

mistook the tittle 10.Feb.2013 12:55

-

Time to wipe the spittle off the corner of your mouth.


(don't forget to KYS either)

mmkaybye 10.Feb.2013 14:33

??

"Confiscation could be an option."

IS NOT

"Confiscation is on the table"

If gun "rights" lunatics want to be taken seriously, they need to do honest journalism, which means being honest about quotes. Fine, you might think or feel those two statements are the same, but the FACT is they are not; that is your personal interpretation. When QUOTING a source, you use the EXACT WORDS. That's what a QUOTE means.

This is called journalistic integrity.

And it still is ONLY in reference to ASSAULT RIFLES, not ALL FIREARMS. Op is being hysterical and so are his supporters.

Enjoy political kindergarten hour. Bye.

ONLY in reference to ALL FIREARMS 10.Feb.2013 16:27

-

RE: State of New York's new laws -


7-round magazine limit applies to

ALL FIREARMS.


(not just semi-automatic rifles)'


That means, all semi-automatic handguns (aka pistols), and any revolvers which are of 8-round or higher cylinder capacity.



"Confiscation could be an option."

IS

EXACTLY

* * * * * THE SAME * * * * *

MEANING



AS

"Confiscation is on the table"


IT IS BEING CONSIDERED = IT IS 'ON THE TABLE' = IT IS A (POSSIBLE) OPTION


SAME

MEANING

EXACTLY

NO

MATTER

WHAT

THE

CHOSEN

WORDING.


------------------------------------
Random House Unabridged Dictionary

"on the table", adjective : able to be negotiated or arranged by compromise; "negotiable demands"; "the proposal is still on the table" [syn: negotiable]
------------------------------------



Table (parliamentary procedure)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

In parliamentary procedure, a motion to table has two different and contradictory meanings:

In the United States, to table usually means the to lay [the topic] on the table or to move for postponement of consideration; a proposal to suspend consideration of a pending motion. Much less often, it means a motion to "put on the table": a proposal to begin consideration (or reconsideration), a usage consistent with the rest of the English-speaking world.
In the rest of the English-speaking world such as the United Kingdom, to table means to move to place [the topic] upon the table (or to move to place on the table): a proposal to begin consideration (or reconsideration) of a proposal.

Both the American and the British dialects have the sense of "to table" as to lay [the topic] on the table or to cause [the topic] to lie on the table. The difference is the idea of what the table is for, that of a shelf off to the side, or an active work bench.

The British meaning has the sense of the table as being an active work bench, with the topic being the center of attention, considered and discussed by all until it can be resolved, at which point it is taken off the 'table'.

The American sense is that the table is like that of a shelf, archive, or long-term storage device, where the topic has been disposed of by sending it to the 'table' and leaving it there.


" mmkaybye " 10.Feb.2013 16:28

-

You keep forgetting to KYS


please stop stealing our precious oxygen.... we implore you.

" Journalistic integrity " 10.Feb.2013 16:29

-

Don't forget your assignment, either:


be sure to ask one of your Academic, college-professor / college teacher friends the question -


"Do you support an _eventual_ ban on all types of firearms ownership in the U.S.?"


i.e. should gun ownership be (eventually) banned among U.S. citizens.



You may? be surprised at the answers your friends/colleagues provide.

" ONLY in reference to ASSAULT RIFLES " 10.Feb.2013 16:53

journalistic integrity

"ONLY in reference to ASSAULT RIFLES"


umm ...


Assault rifles -- i.e. semi-automatic rifles WITH A SELECTOR SWITCH FOR FULLY AUTOMATIC OPERATION --

are already banned from civilian ownership.

1986, the Reagan administration passed a law called the Hughes Amendment (subset of that year's Firearm Owners Protection Act) which banned the future manufacturing and sale to civilians of fully automatic firearms -- which includes __selective fire__ firearms, such as military issue assault rifles i.e. the M16, AK-47 etc., which have the selector switch that allows them to be fired either in semi-automatic (1 shot per trigger pull) or fully automatic (many shots per single pull of trigger).


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act








So assault rifles __HAVE ALREADY__ been banned among American civilians for almost three decades.







Selective fire capability (the switch which selects single shot vs. full automatic operation) is one of the


DEFINING


CHARACTERISTICS


of the post-World War II military issue assault rifle.


 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_fire

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle










the illusory/meaningless/propagandistic term 'assault weapon', does not refer to any particular _functional_ characteristic of firearms.

True, look it up. The current 'Assault Weapons Ban', as with its 1994 predecessor (sunsetted in 2005) only refers to a bunch of _cosmetic_ (NON-FUNCTIONALLY RELATED) features of certain firearms, which 'tag' said firearms as being 'scary looking' and thus being part of this illusory and arbitrary so-called 'category' of 'assault weapons'.

"assault weapon" ?????????????????????????????????????????

Fist; foot; knife; baseball bat; broken bottle; lead pipe; etc.



Prior to opening your cakehole and commencing the blab/touching keyboard,

you _really_ need to understand WIIYARTA (what it is you are really talking about).


tl;dr 11.Feb.2013 15:35

Fidelity

It's pretty clear that the unnamed commentator has no idea how public policy is written. Editorials and journalists are a cornerstone of the process. Without media buy-in, there's basically no imperative to write public policy, for the newspapers and public temperament are the genesis of all public policy.

I do not know how my political views are at all related to this article - which you're clearly trying to use as a weak-ass ad hominem attack. Would it matter if I was tea-partier, anarchists, marxist, or neocon if I can clearly explain my ideas and you can't/won't refute them? Is it hard to live in a world where you automatically reject opposing views based upon preconceived bias of political affiliation? How could you possibly have friends? Do you simply circle-jerk with middle-class kids down at PSU if, and only if, they meet your criteria of political awareness?

I was merely answering your questions, and you have failed to answer my simple request:

"how about YOU fucking prove that there is NOT a plan to disarm society. Post that link, dipshit, or GTFO."

But anyways, you're clearly just trolling, and this is contributing nothing to the market of ideas. I don't care if you answer, you've demonstrated, using your own words and inability to refute statements, you are a close-minded moron. Have a fun lonely life dude.

@Fidelity 11.Feb.2013 23:37

?

"It's pretty clear that the unnamed commentator "

Which unnamed commenter? How can you possibly know from over 20 comments (that appear to be at least 3, possibly 4 people) who any *one* commenter is? That's complete bullshit.

" That's complete bullshit. " 12.Feb.2013 00:18

-

The only BS I've seen lately on this web site,

are all the AntiFa posers posting with " @ " in their 'I Know You Are But What Am I ?' responses/comments


what's hilarious is that they are among the first to be rendered 100% ineffective (as if they weren't close enough to that already) by NDAA

More paranoia on IMC 12.Feb.2013 09:57

rex

"are all the AntiFa posers posting with " @ " in their 'I Know You Are But What Am I ?' responses/comments "

Everyone who uses @ to reply is part of Antifa?

That's your logic?

@? 12.Feb.2013 13:51

Fidelity

"Which unnamed commenter?"

Thanks for contributing to the problem, ass hat.

PICK A HANDLE and roll with it, it does no disservice to you, it does not jeopardize you to the NSA/CIA/FBI/PPB, and it greatly aides the communication on PIMC. I don't know why some people insist upon not picking an "author", as even while posting under a handle regularly an actual identity is fairly anonymous, and at least as anonymous as changing your handle from time-to-time. I honestly believe that some people choose not to pick a handle because they do not want a reputation, the commentator knows how ignorant they are, and rather than having their stupidity tally against them, they try to be anonymous. Newsflash: you're not anonymous on the internet unless you go through great lengths that I've explained before.

It's pretty clear looking at the formatting and use of language and grammar that there are primarily 3 or perhaps 4 commentators in the above string, including myself and the person who uses too much white/green-space between lines. I was referring to the (likely) one commentator who insisted upon an explanation from the OP and evidence of a rather trivial accusation. An accusation that false on its face as stupid when posed against my question/request. An accusation that is minor to the whole article, and useless in proving a point. An accusation clearly levied because of their personal grievances with the author and the thesis of the piece. I'm almost positive that this is one person because their vapid stupidity seems so unique... but, I've been wrong before, and this is Portland.

@Fidelity 12.Feb.2013 16:35

rex

Your own comment tributes to a different problem: the belief in mind reading.

These statements:

"it does not jeopardize you to the NSA/CIA/FBI/PPB" assumes poster is worried about security agencies(wtf is PPB?)
"as even while posting under a handle regularly an actual identity is fairly anonymous, and at least as anonymous as changing your handle from time-to-time. "
completely contradicts "Newsflash: you're not anonymous on the internet unless you go through great lengths that I've explained before."

(and actually it's easy if you know what you're doing)

"An accusation clearly levied because of their personal grievances with the author and the thesis of the piece." You cannot read minds. If someone posts it, everyone reading has a right to critique the article, author or source.

"I'm almost positive that this is one person because their vapid stupidity seems so unique... but, I've been wrong before, and this is Portland. "

Another contradiction: if their stupidity is unique it makes no sense to imply stupidity is endemic to Portland.

Again, logic does not seem to be in effect. This is the Portland IMC. If you are not a Portlander and think they're all stupid, why are you commenting on Portland IMC?

hahaha 12.Feb.2013 21:26

Fidelity

Oh rex,

1) Portland Police Bureau
2) It's entirely different to not pick a regular handle (or "author" name) on PIMC and actually try to publish things anonymously. I'm "speculating" - not "mind reading" - several reasons why a person might not want to use a Author/Handle regularly.
3) It's actually not easy to be totally anonymous, though hackers constantly innovate technologies to do this, but I'm really interested in your thoughts on computer security. I figured paranoia was at least a contributing factor to a person deciding to post without an author name, and I was attempting to point out that A) it's difficult to be anonymous on the internet B) picking or not picking a handle is not a factor in privacy.
4) It's not that easy to be anonymous, and I actually know what I'm talking about, but I'm interested in your thoughts on computer security and improving it. See my guide here:  http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2011/09/410219.shtml - Even if you're running the most advanced architected solutions, which would include a Linux box connected to a open-source VPN through SSL and Tor with a Mac spoofer, you can easily be busted by digital signatures, your own behavior, and software on your own computer. There's plenty of hacking conventions that discuss this in detail, if you're so inclined to investigate. Currently, there is not a open source VPN through SSL to Tor solution on the marketplace (as discussed in the winter issue of 2600), and if you've designed such a system, people would pay a hefty fee for your designs.
5) Regular stupidity is common place, just look at yourself, uniquely stupid people are...by definition, unique. Yeah, I think there's a lot of dumb-asses in Portland, but some are uniquely dumb.

"Your own comment tributes to a different problem": the futile exercise of ad hominem attacks rather than contributing to the article or contributing ideas. What exactly did you hope to achieve by failing to point out my circular logic? Did you want me to cry, or call you daddy? Get a life.

I was going to be civil but... 13.Feb.2013 00:09

rex

...This changed my mind:

"Did you want me to cry, or call you daddy? Get a life."

Instead I'll throw statements back at you in no particular order according to whim:

At no point did I say it was easy to be totally anonymous. It is easy to be relatively anonymous.

You don't say what you mean by anonymity or privacy. 90% of the time the concern is security vis-a-vis Internet interactions with other users. Like this convo. In such a case it is very easy to remain anonymous to other IMC users, your main tool being common sense.


IMC sysadmins: different kettle of fish. They can(though IMC has stated they chose not to) track posts by IP. To hide that requires a proxy. Or two. There are several types, Tor being on the more secure end, glype proxies on the less secure end. But security is relative to need and context.

Do you trust IMC? Do you have a reason to think a bee is out to get you? Are the consequences you imagine worth the hassle of longer loading times?

Going to a questionable site? Don't. Or preview it safely and look up their history(I'm sure you know how to do this.:) )

You mentioned Facebook. Far be it from me to encourage it, but they only have the information you give them. The real problem is people brainwashed into surrendering their information willy nilly. Facebook is a great tool--if you're promoting a brand, business or other networking project. Sharing every aspect of your personal life? Not so much. Don't use your real birth date to register(duh). Or your complete real name(duh). Unfortunately, you almost need to be a Facebook sysadmin to check and double check your security settings....which may change whenever Facebook wants. For the novice, I agree Facebook should be avoided.

I admit I skimmed towards the end; too much fear mongering in the text. I don't think you mentioned Google. NEVER do searches logged into a Google account. There is a way to stay logged into services(ones Google acquired) and be unlogged from Google. But you should already know how to do that since you're so Internet savvy.

Doing sirus bizness? Always use a proxy condom. If you're worried about picking up nasty cookies, dump your history, selectively or en mass. Better yet, don't pick them up in the first place.

It depends what you mean by anonymity, the degree you want and what your concerns are(observe how I avoid mind-reading by admitting I don't know what you mean by privacy concerns). Do you want no one to know who you are all the time and still use the Internet? It's possible, but a serious pain in the ass. It's not a technique, but it's a pain in the ass. Underline, bold pain in the ass. Unless you have the bandwidth of God himself. That's not what most people mean. Relative anonymity is good enough 95% of the time.

Your attitude towards security reminds me of someone who learned relatively recently the risks and how to cope, and hasn't settled down to get some distance and perspective. You're still alarmed at all the negative possibilities. I know people who've forgotten more about computer security that we've both ever know, who...get this...never use an ATM. Others with similar knowledge and experience, judge the minor risk to be worth the convenience. Even security isn't black and white. Give people the knowledge and tools and let them decide based on need. And what they don't need is fear mongering. People in an alarmed, fearful state are less likely to be receptive to knew information(learning).

The biggest danger to your privacy is social engineering. I know no one who got a visit from a Party Van because of Internet habits or security settings. But talking to the wrong person will nail you every time.

And that's why I support readers who chose to rotate or randomize nicks. By your own advice, picking a nick is a habit, as such it's risky. Not much, but depends what they're here for. If you can't reply reasonably to what someone says without "knowing"(or thinking you know) who they are, you're probably not up for natural conversation.

And if you want to discuss a subject with someone you should reconsider your attitude, Mr "get a life".

I hope you enjoyed this wall of text.