Why Gun Control Doesn't Work

The gun control debate in our country is in full swing as Democrats and Republicans use the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting for their own political purposes. Diane Feinstein has already proposed a bill which will ban certain “firearm characteristics” such as semi-automatics, certain rifles, and even some hand guns. The purpose of which is to try to lower the amount of violent gun crimes. 

Of course this has the right-wingers up in arms, who believe that in order to stop events like Sandy Hook from happening again we need to place armed guards in our schools to protect our children.

Both sides are showing their claws on this one, with Republicans claiming that Democrats are attacking the constitution and the Second Amendment. Whereas Democrats are saying that those guns are killing people and they must be regulated more heavily.

Both sides are on TV as well, debating whether or not armed guards are the answer or gun bans. This is sort of interesting seeing as how the fiscal cliff is looming over our heads like a soggy diaper full of economic slavery and the media is focused on gun control, so my guess is Sandy Hook happened at just the right time so politicians can distract us from the real issues at hand.

I don’t think armed guards are the answer, nor do I think gun control is the answer. But with this new proposal being made I just have to get up and say something about this. As Americans we really need to focus on the real issues at hand, and whereas this issue of school shootings is a real thing that needs focus we must never forget what else is going on in our country.

So buckle up people, because I’m going to smash the gun control argument and talk about the violent over throw of the United States government, Reno style.

First off, let’s talk about the Second Amendment and the right to bare arms. There seems to be a lot of confusion over this amendment, both sides claiming that it actually means this or actually means that. But why is it we can’t understand this amendment? It’s all over one little comma. Let’s take a look at the Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

OK, a militia to protect the state…so a military, that makes sense. And let’s see here…the right of the people to bare arms shall not be infringed. Seems to be pretty straight forward to me, but the debate that gun control proponents try to use lies within that little comma that’s separating the militia part from the people part, saying it’s just a slight…pause…to catch your breath. Let’s read the amendment one more time.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

You see it’s not the right of the militia to keep and bare arms that shall not be infringed; it’s the right of the people. That’s the PEOPLE as opposed to the MILITIA, two completely separate things which are clearly worded in this amendment. That’s really all there is to the Second Amendment. There aren’t many words at all, just very specific ones.

And why would the Founding Fathers put this in the Bill of Rights? Because the PEOPLE just got done fighting a war, for two years, against a tyrannical state MILITIA that tried to disarm them and make them submit. They knew that the time would come again for the America people to rise against the government, and they wanted the PEOPLE to be prepared for the next revolution by arming themselves. This idea is still very real today, as we are Americans and it is our duty as Americans to pick up our guns and revolt against the government when it’s not doing what we want it to...but unfortunately it’s a duty we have seemed to forgotten. A democracy can only be a true democracy when the PEOPLE have the power to overthrow their rulers and their MILITIA when it’s needed.

Funny, these gun control proponents can’t seem to point out any other places where these hack framers fucked up the wording.

All gun control really does is take the gun out of the law abiding citizens hand and put it into the criminal’s hands. Criminals, who have no regard for the law, will go out and buy these illegal weapons for the specific intent of committing a crime and hurting someone. A law abiding citizen, someone who does have respect for the laws, would not be buying these weapons to commit crimes or hurt people on purpose. So why are we taking the guns out of the good guys hands, essentially disarming the law abiding public?

A lot of people make the argument that there are millions of guns and that everyone has to have a gun because there are so many of them. So if that’s the case then why don’t we see these types of events all the time in the news? No, not everyone owns a gun, but a lot of people do, and if guns make people crazy and do bad things then why haven’t we wiped ourselves off the face of the planet yet? It’s because most people are good hearted folks and they don’t want to break the law or hurt anyone else.

Many pro-gun control folks say it’s because we don’t need these types of weapons, as if we may never have to rise up against a despotic government ever again. Many want guns completely banned, so no one can legally own a gun, believing that true law abiding citizens don’t arm themselves, they call the police. But disarming the public and allowing only the police and military to have firearms is a terrible idea. Think about it, who are you going to call against the police? Better yet how can you rise against your despotic government when the military has all of the power? You can’t, and that’s why we have the Second Amendment.

Let’s talk about school shootings…again. One of the ideas is that gun control will help prevent future school shootings from ever happening, but this can’t be further from the truth. Take Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold for example. According to gun control proponents the shooting at Columbine high school could have never happened. Colorado had an assault weapons ban law on the books, a law that was meant to prevent bad people from getting a hold of powerful firearms and using them to commit crimes. Harris and Klebold both had illegal high powered assault weapons that used to commit their terrible act, killing a dozen and injuring more than twenty.

Crazy People 1 : Gun Control 0

The very idea that banning guns or limiting guns or any of that bullshit is to stop violent crimes from occurring, but when a crazy person wants to do something crazy he will find a way to do it, and no law will be able to stop him. Even if you were to outlaw guns completely they are still a very easy weapon to make, and if I can’t find one on the black market then I’m sure my pro-gun buddy who owns the metal shop could fashion one for me. Then I’ll go right up to you with it and shoot you in the face and you’re the only one who has paid the price.

Crazy People 2 : Gun Control 0

The fact is that these people have already broken gun control laws that were already in place. Gun Control laws with the specific intent to prevent these kinds of violent crimes from happening. That worked well, didn’t it? The odds of getting killed in a school shooting are 1/3,000,000. Holy shit, you have a better chance of being stuck by lightening for Christ’s sake!

Let’s talk about armed guards now. I don’t think we need them, because the whole idea of us having to place armed guards in our schools to protect our kids against gun violence when the odds are 1/3,000,000 is just alarmist bullshit. Your kids are just as safe in school today as they were before Columbine happened and before school shootings became a media hit.

But I do think that more states should allow conceal and carry laws so that the average citizen can own and carry their gun (hidden on their body) in public. I think this will in fact make violent crime rates go down, because you won’t know who’s packing.

Little experiment I got from Penn & Teller’s Bullshit show about gun control; let’s say every woman in the United States is issued a gun. They can do whatever they want with it, leave it at home, take it shopping with them, sell it, or give it away. Let’s say that only 50% of woman decide to keep their gun with them, are you really still going to risk mugging or raping a woman when you know there is a 50% chance that she’s got a gun?

So no we don’t need armed guards, we just need more people who are gun enthusiasts, and good law abiding people who have conceal and carry permits. It’s our duty to protect each other, and how can we do that when we aren’t armed and the criminals are?

I have to say that with these new gun control proposals I’m not really sure what the right to bare arms means any more. “You have the right to bare arms, but only the ones that we say you can have.” That does not sound like freedom to me at all. That sounds like the government telling me once again that I have the freedom to do something only if they like it. Is it right to allow the government to mandate that shit? Isn’t that kind of like the government telling you who you can or can’t marry, or forcing you to immunize your kids?

This is the exact reason the Second Amendment exists, to stop the government doing exactly this type of thing.

Think rationally folks, we don’t need armed guards in our schools, we don’t need more bullshit gun control laws, we just need more guns in the right hands, because when we make gun control laws we take guns out of the right hands and put them into the wrong hands. We can’t count on the government or the police or the military to get things done right, we can only count on ourselves.

The government says it is trying to make us safer by limiting our rights, and the scary part is that we are letting them. We allow email spying, wire tapping, freedom of speech violations, unlawful detentions, all kinds of crazy shit. Those were rights that people died fighting for so that we can have them and we’re just going to give them all away? We need to get back on the right track now. 

Piers Morgan Deportation Petition

Ah, the shit has really hit the fan now! People are pissed and they want Piers Morgan out of the country. His constant and reckless concern for this nation’s bill of rights is what is forcing the American people’s hand to creating a petition to have him deported from the United States of America.

So what did he do? He must have told people they can’t sing Christmas Carols, or maybe he broke up a tea party rally and violated their free speech, or maybe he wants to get rid of the second amendment completely and have all of our guns taken away. Wait…he doesn’t?

Piers Morgan is under fire by the right-wing because of comments he made on his show about gun control. Morgan has always been a proponent of gun control and is verbal about it on his CNN news show. He had a guest on his show who made some good points about guns, those being that guns are here, they are an 18^th century technology, and they last several human life times with minimal maintenance. And that is why he believes that guns should be in schools…

OK I’m not all about this idea to put armed guards in our schools because it’s alarmist bullshit. School shootings happen, yes, and they will continue to happen. Think of it as 7-11; more 7-11’s get robbed than schools get shot up in America each year. Do we need an armed guard in every god damn 7-11? I understand this is to protect the children, and their lives are worth more then whatever a cash register holds at a convenience mart. But really, do we need to be putting armed guards in every school to make sure our kids our safe?

I’m also not for what Piers Morgan says either. Doing the exact opposite and limiting the amount of guns or banning certain guns, or banning certain ammunition clips, is not going to solve the problem.

But this petition bullshit is just straight right-winged non-sense. Basically the petition was created because of comments Morgan made about gun control, so the right-wing blasted him saying that he has “engaged in a hostile attack against the US Constitution by targeting the second amendment.”  

I’m still not sure as to how asking for gun control is a hostile attack against the US, I certainly don’t think gun control does shit, but is asking for gun control an attack against the Constitution? Nah, I don’t think so.

It will become an attack when politicians work to repeal the second amendment. If an all out ban on guns is ever conceived then that should be when we rise up to say ‘Oh hell no’.

Now if Morgan had his way would the whole world be gun free? Yes. And why the fuck not, if you could enlighten every fucking human on earth, and we all got rid of our weapons that would be awesome. To bad it’s a pipe dream, but hey, is it really that bad of an idea? Is it really such a dangerous idea that someone should be deported for it?

I think Americans need to start thinking a little more rationally then be on the party lines, if you know what I mean. Sure, there are a lot of parts of life that really are black and white, but there is a whole lot of gray in between.

It’s like pro-life or pro-choice; EVERYBODY is for pro-life AND pro-choice, but the issue is whether you are for or against abortion. But when you think along party lines it is very easy for these distinctions to get blurred. Gun control doesn’t exactly mean the ban of all firearms to the public just like the Constitution doesn’t say that everyone needs to own a gun.

Just because Morgan shares a completely different view on gun control than I do doesn’t mean he is attacking my rights. No, he won’t be doing that until he tries to forcefully take my guns away by either making it law or trying to physically take it (the latter of which is not a bright idea).

So calm down you Mitt Romney voting, right-winged gun-nuts. Morgan may have a different opinion than you, one that you may completely disagree with and think he is a moron for even having, but he has a right to say it, and it would be really bad if you took away his Constitutional right to say it because you assumed he was trying to take away your Constitutional right to fire it.

Using Newtown Shooting for Political Purposes? You don’t say!

(Any comments would be much appreciated.)

We are now two days away from Christmas and the people of Newtown Connecticut and the entire nation are still reeling from the horrible tragedies that took place at the Sandy Hook Elementary school. So much has unraveled since that terrifying day when dam Lanza killed twenty-six people before doing himself in, many of those things I have covered here in this blog. But one thing I haven’t been covering as much is the use of the tragedy by politicians for their own purposes. I did say in an earlier blog that we shouldn’t expect too much from politicians as they will only offer us sympathy and promises with no real solutions.

The political tension in the wake of Sandy Hook is rising as Democrats and Republicans are both coming up with their own ideas as to how these tragedies can be prevented and how their own agenda can be furthered. Republicans are saying that armed guards should be present in all schools for protection, while Democrats are saying that gun control laws are too lax and that further regulation of firearms and ammunition is needed.

But this is the perfect time for either party to take a shot at one another as well. In an article I found on Yahoo! News Grover Norquist accuses President Obama and Democrats of using the Newtown tragedy to push their gun control agenda. 

Grover Norquist on ABC accusing Obama and Dems of using Sandy Hook for political purposes

 FROM THE ARTICLE:

"We ought to calm down and not take tragedies like this, crimes like this, and use them for political purposes," Norquist told me on "This Week." "President Obama has been president for four years. If he thought some gun control could solve this problem, he should have been pushing it years ago."

I love that first part of the sentence, "We ought to calm down and not take tragedies like this, crimes like this, and use them for political purposes”, as Norquist himself is actually endorsing an NRA recommendation to place armed guards in our public schools for protection. So who should be calming down? The guys who want to regulate guns more, or the guys who think armed guards should be in every school? In my opinion, both. 

NRA recommends all schools have armed guards.

When you’re anti-something, there is always going to be another side to the issue, a pro-something side, like anti-gun/pro-gun, and people who are anti-gun will call for the amount of guns to be reduced while pro-gun people will call for a proliferation of guns. And after an event like the Sandy Hook shooting the anti-gun folks are going try to make you believe this happened because there are so many guns in the country and they are easily obtainable, while the pro-gun people will try to get you to believe the tragedy happened because there aren’t enough guns.

And now it’s time to point the fingers in the political world and blame each other for taking political advantage of a horrible occurrence even though both sides are doing the same exact thing.

How can Norqusit come out and accuse Obama and other Democrats for using the Sandy Hook event to push gun control laws when he and Republicans are using the event to push gun proliferation? Norqusit says he thinks Democrats should “calm down” and not turn this into a political hot button and at the same time saying that we need to put armed guards in every school to protect our children. 

Retired marine Staff SGT standing guard at local school

Don’t both of those ideas sound the least bit alarmist to you? I mean, how can we be so fearful as to put armed guards in our schools yet tell others they need to clam down about the ease in which guns are available?  Or vise versa.

The gun control debate itself doesn’t seem to be centered around a all out ban of hand guns or assault weapons, although those ideas are being vocalized by politicians, but rather on the ban of extended magazines and high capacity ammunition clips.

One writer believes that giving up these extended clips is the real solution and that focusing on mental health is just a distraction.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan said that LaPierre's suggestion that the effect of a violent culture on the mentally ill has contributed to increased gun violence, but she believes that Congress should pursue some gun control measures.

"I am for the banning of the extended magazines and extended clips," Noonan said.

Editor and Publisher of The Nation Katrina vanden Heuvel said that focusing on the mentally ill is a distraction from the issue of gun violence.

"The mental illness argument has been used to evade action," vanden Huevel said. "More guns and bullets, more dead children."

The idea that more bullets and more guns equal more dead children is absolute horse shit. According to this writer the ban of extended mags and high cap clips will reduce the amount of children being shot up in school violence. I hate this argument, because if I was out of my mind and wanted to hurt somebody I DO NOT need either of those extended capacity ammunition clips, PERIOD.

When we look at these shooting incidences we see that they all have one major thing in common; they are all suffering from some type of mental issue or some case of extreme anger in which case therapy or any other type of help was not sought or was not successful. These events don’t just happen at schools either, as proved by the recent shootings at malls and movie theaters by deranged psychopaths who have no sense of wrong or right and simply put are deluded individuals. The excuses, “I wanted to see what would happen” or “I wanted to kill all the phonies” or “I was upset with the way my life was going” or the excuses of people who have little to no moral compass or little to no understanding of the consequences of their actions (unless of course they do understand their consequences in which case they just don’t care or are planning to off themselves anyway at the end of their deed).

I guess what I am saying here is that we shouldn’t get caught up in thinking that only one side of the political spectrum is using this event for political gain. They both are, and it is quite evident that they are.

Norquist was right about one thing though, we do need to calm down, all of us. Those who want guns in our schools for protection and those who wanted to place regulations on firearms. The presences of armed guards in schools won’t limit tragedies, and neither will a ban on high capacity ammunition clips.

If we have armed guards in school surely they may not be able to react quickly enough to each and every instance. The idea that a bad guy with a gun can only be thwarted by a good guy with a gun is pretty accurate, but what if the good guys couldn’t react in time and a few people died?

The ban of high caps won’t do shit. As I said, if I truly wanted to hurt someone I can do it without a lot of ammunition. If Adam Lanza forced his way into Sandy Hook with only one hand gun and a regular capacity ammunition clip he would have STILL KILLED PEOPLE. Sure it may not have been as many, but the deed would still have been done, nothing can stop that. And if an armed guard was on the premises maybe he would have gotten to Adam sooner and only a few people were injured or killed, but still the act was accomplished, people died.

Adam Lanza was in fact a troubled young man. According to reports he hardly spoke to anyone and would rarely if ever look them in the eyes. He was hiding from the world, descending into his basement room where he would hide every day and immerse himself in the fantasies he created that he was more able to cope with. He was truly a young man who was in need of some serious therapy, which his mother tried to provide for him.

There are many people who knew Nancy Lanza that are being quoted in news articles saying that Nancy was trying to find help or Adam, and a conflicting report that she had considered to commit him to a mental institution.

With that being said, why are people trying to say that the mental health argument is just a distraction from the real cause? The real cause IS mental health, and this needs to be addressed in our country.

What I do find funny is that the Republicans are the ones who are really saying that this is an issue of mental health rather than firearms regulation, yet the Republicans are responsible for 4.3 billion dollars worth in cuts for mental health programs.

So yes, this is very much a matter of mental health and it should be treated as such. No need to go into a fear mongering campaign by either trying to reduced or increase the amount of weapons available to the general population. The more people who have healthy minds the less senseless violence will occur. 

SOURCES: 

Yahoo! News Article

Sandy Hook Copycats Arrested

The police are in full force; they’re responding to all types of copycat threats of school violence across America. Once again proving my point that guns don’t kill people, crazy people do, and no matter what the laws say these assholes who are just begging for attention will do what they want when they want and break how ever many laws they need to.

Police in Indiana have responded to threats at three different schools where people made threats about shooting up the schools. One individual was a high school student, who had 6 guns at his house which police confiscated. Two other high school students posted their intentions to want to shoot up their schools as well in a Sandy Hook/Adam Lanza fashion. One other teen was arrested after making bomb threats to one elementary school in Tennessee.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

In the 50 days after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, more than 350 threats were reported at Pennsylvania schools, skyrocketing from the one or two threats reported in the same period a year earlier. A study, published in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine in 1999, determined that the publicity Columbine received led to a spike in bomb and other threats on schools. A similar shooting a year earlier in Jonesboro, Ark., received a fraction of the media attention that Columbine did, and attracted many fewer copycat threats in the days following.

This type of shit happens all the time. And people wonder why tragic events like this shooting in Newtown, Connecticut occur. It’s simply because they are crazy, and these kids are either crazy or serious about committing the same acts or they are just stupid and looking for some attention or want to see what kind of ruckus they can create by doing this.

Either way, authorities are cracking down on these cases, as they should. For one it’s taking up valuable time for police who can be arresting real criminals and for two these kids might actually do it and the people need to be safe, and for three these ‘copycat’ reports are just juvenile and those doing them should be punished for trying to create panic in their communities.

When we think about it more deeply we actually discover that a lot of these crimes are perpetrated because the media really does in a way inspire sick nuts to go out and do these things. A paper published in 1999 shows that a ripple effect was found with this type of behavior and that individuals go out and attempts to commit their own type of crime after watching media coverage of a similar one.

Let’s remember folks that this is exactly why we should step away from the TV every now and then. We need to make our own decision and not listen to the constant coverage of talking heads on the boob tube.

And if you’re crazy and thinking, “Hmm a great way to get attention would be to shoot up a school”, my advice would be, “Don’t even do it you sick fuck.” There is good attention and bad attention and the bad kind only makes things worse for everyone.

SOURCES:

Yahoo! News Report

Obama Demands Gun Control Debate

(What do you think about the gun control debate after the events in Newtown, Connecticut? Comment below with your thoughts.)

So the war against the Westboro Baptist Church is raging on. The victims of the Sandy Hook shooting are trying to bury their loved ones but are being harassed by the church. Anonymous has been putting on the pressure as their Operation Westboro (#OpWestboro, #OpWBC) is in full swing.

The shootings occurred last Friday in Newtown Connecticut when a crazed gun man named Adam Lanza forced his way into an elementary school where he opened fire and killed twenty children and six adults. Lanza acquired the guns through his mother, who was an avid gun enthusiast, by stealing them from her and killing her with one.

This terrible tragedy has invoked the gun control debate by politicians of course, and President Obama himself is demanding action on gun control by creating a task force. Yes, a task force…but what does that mean exactly?

From the Article:

"This time, the words need to lead to action," said Obama, who set a January deadline for the recommendations. He vowed to push for their implementation without delay.

I’m not surprised by this at all. It was my first thought when the shootings occurred that the politicians would be offering us empty promises and sympathy with no solution other than to debate and enact new gun laws. Being an avid proponent of firearms and the 2^nd Amendment I am against this.

Obama says that he is for the 2^nd Amendment, but he does believe that certain gun control laws/restrictions would decrease the amount of shooting deaths in the United States. Even some congress members who are pro gun rights are starting to consider legislation to control firearms. But aren’t firearms already being controlled?

Obama plans to create new gun control policies such as stricter background checks and limit high capacity ammunition clips, but also says that he wants improved focus on mental health as well. Which will actually happen, or come first? I’m sure it will be the stricter gun control laws. Obama’s ‘deadline’ for gun control proposals is January 2013.

The President says he encourages all people from all types of political backgrounds to come together and have these discussions about what type of control should be enacted.

From the Article:

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

I have to say that I’m tired of politicians using every chance they can at furthering their own agenda and not the American citizens who voted them into office

Guns do not kill people, people kill people. And the very fact that politicians are using this event to try to take or curb our usage of firearms just goes to show how afraid they are of the American citizens being armed.

The 2^nd Amendment has some very specific wording:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

A well regulated MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It’s the Militia Vs. The People. It’s not saying “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It says THE PEOPLE. And why did the founding fathers write this? Because THE PEOPLE just got done fighting a war, for two years, against a tyrannical state MILITIA, who tried to take their rights and disarm them.

If we are going to talk about things that people kill with lets talk about knives and cars and doctors. I can kill someone just as easily with a car. “But Reno, the government regulates cars and doctors!” Pssh…what’s going to stop me? I don’t have a license or a car, but what’s stopping me from stealing someone else’s car and waiting for children to get out of school so I can run them down? Not some law, that’s for sure.

The fact is that when we talk about these types of tragedies we wonder about how we could have prevented it and the number one thing that comes up all the time is more gun control. But the truth is that these shooters break the laws anyway. In the case of Columbine the shooters, and the person who sold them the guns and ammo, broke the laws already in place. Adam Lanza also broke the law when he STOLE his mother’s guns. Guns which did not belong to him in the first place, and of course maybe if Nancy Lanza kept her guns locked up this would have never happened. But Nancy was an older woman who had an older son, one that should have been able to tell right from wrong and know that it would not be wise of him to touch his mother’s weapons.

Really though, this is just what politicians were waiting for, a moment to bring up the gun control debate again so they can disarm the American people and have nothing to fear anymore. In fact when you think about it by limited guns of banning guns they are actually involving fear within the people of the USA. When ordinary law abiding citizens cannot obtain fire arms that doesn’t mean criminals, people who break the laws, won’t be able to get their hands on them. And when they do they can unleash terror upon ordinary people who will not be packing because they are good citizens who obey the law. The fact is that you can’t stop an insane person from doing insane things with insane laws…that’s insane!

Many people from other countries scoff at us because we Americans clutch our guns so tightly. They scratch their heads and wonder why we cling to such destructive weapons. But they don’t understand simply because they are not Americans. We Americans are rebellious spirits who want our government to know they can’t fuck with us, and the way we do that is by arming ourselves. We fought a war against the British (yeah so what it was over two-hundred years ago) because they tried to force us to borrow money from the British national banking establishment and when we revolted they tried to take our weapons so that we could not put up a fight.

Now yes, that was a long time ago, but that spirit still remains and the idea still remains. We may one day have to do our duty as Americans and arm ourselves to stand up to our own government.

Thomas Jefferson once said that for there to be true freedom an armed rebellion against the government should take place once every twenty years. He also wrote, “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms; let’s signify a few lives lost in a century or two. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants; it is its natural manure.”  

Guns don’t have a brain. They cannot pick themselves up and pull the trigger. Humans do have a brain however, and it is our choices that shape the world around us. Thankfully most of us are sane people and we know right from wrong, but unfortunately some of us are not. It doesn’t take a gun to hurt someone; it takes someone who wants to hurt someone, regardless of how they do it.

A lot of us don’t have much experience with guns. A lot of the exposure to guns we get comes from negative exposure from TV and movie. They strike fear into us, make us think how scary shit is and that any moment now some armed gun man can break into your home and kill you.

Fear is the politician’s companion, with enough fear legislators can walk right into congress and pass all kinds of crazy laws with the necessary steps. Politicians even create the hysteria themselves by passing gun control laws, such as the Brady Bill, which has actually been rather ineffective in keeping guns in the wrong hands.  

One of these crazy laws is the creation of the gun free zone. The gun free zone has to be the biggest pile of shit law I have heard of. Basically if you get caught with a gun while in a gun free zone your fines and punishments are increased. But we look at all of the shootings that have occurred and they all happen in ‘gun free zones’. Sandy Hook Elementary is a gun free zone, so how can this type of tragic event happen in a gun free zone?

If the number of guns in the hands of citizens truly is the problem then why don’t we see this type of violence at NRA conventions or gun shows? Surely, a place like that where tons of people are in possession of tons of guns, there must be hundreds of tragedies at these events, right? Wrong. The number of guns in the hands of the people doesn’t increase the number of violent crimes. The number of guns in the wrong hands DOES increase crime.

So how do we keep the guns out of the wrong hands? Well with all the gun laws on the books (which exceed over 20,000) you would think that criminals wouldn’t be able to get there hands on firearms. But alas, just like the war one drugs if there is a law against something there is a black market for it.

None of these gun control laws on the books prevented Columbine, and none of them prevented Sandy Hook, and none of the existing laws or future laws will prevent terrible tragedies like this from occurring.

Don’t let the government fool you into giving up your rights because of some crazy kid who misused them. The government can only take away from us what we allow them to. 

(What do you think about the gun control debate after the events in Newtown, Connecticut? Comment below with your thoughts.)

SOURCE:

Yahoo! News Report

Obama Yahoo! News Video

Twitter Tags: #Guncontrol #Obama #Sandyhook #Columbine #WBC #OpWBC #Anonymous

The War Rages On

Day two of the all out assault on the Westboro Baptist Church continues today as the WBC headed to the funerals of Sandy Hook victims to protest. Firefights from Fairfield County, Connecticut as well as other activists were there to form a human wall to block the WBC protesters from the scene of the funeral.

On the ground was a man named Jake Esker, who with his iPhone documented the counter-protest until his phone unfortunately died. While back at his car to charge the phone up he saw a camera man which he stopped to ask what was happening.

The camera man informed Jake that the WBC would not be protesting today, only because the funerals would not be taking place. I’m still unsure if the funeral was postponed or if it was even meant to happen today.

This isn’t stopping WBC, however. In an email intercepted by the group Anonymous from WBC members which indicates they may in fact leave Connecticut to protest something back in Kansas, their home state. Although @YourAnonNews has reported that #OccupyNewtown is still in effect because the WBC will not leave Connecticut until the funerals have passed. Below is a copy of the email that was intercepted. 

So if this is any indication that WBC is leaving to go home then does that mean Anonymous won? Of course, but the war isn’t over yet. The group as vowed to destroy the organization, and with their strike planned for this Friday all bets are open to what will happen. So far Anonymous has attacked the WBC in many ways. They have hacked Shirley Phelps-Roper’s Twitter account @DearShirley, changed her desktop background to gay porn, disclosed the WBC members contact information, ordered tons of pizzas to known WBC member’s homes, prank calls, hacking WBC member’s email accounts and more.

However, last nights confusion over where the WBC members were staying was up in the air. Many thought that the members were staying at a Motel 6 in Southington, but according to a tweet by Fred Phelps JR that was not so. 

Either way it doesn’t matter where they stayed. It does matter I guess who allows them to lodge seeing as how I wouldn’t want to support a company that allows these types of people to stay in there establishment. They still got to the cemetery to protest, but they were thwarted not only by the firefighters and other people building the human wall, but by Anonymous themselves.

But what of the funerals that were suppose to take place today? Were they postponed or were they even supposed to have happen? How long will WBC stay in Connecticut? They spent the money to get there so will they even make due with their threats to protest at this point, or have the good samaritans scared them off? Only time will tell.

I will continue to be on the front lines reporting what happens next in this. In the mean time follow me on Twitter @Turk_Reno and add me as a friend on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/reno.erde as I will be constantly updating my feed and what’s going with in Connecticut.

SOURCES:

Jake Esker’s Streaming Video

TWITTER TAGS: #OpWBC #OpWestboro #Anonymous #Sandyhook #Newtown #OccupyNewtown #godhatesfags.com #Renosblog  

From the Front Lines: #OPWBC

It’s been a very crazy couple of days now here, and the all out offensive from the group known as Anonymous against the Westboro Baptist Church is still in full swing. The continuing DSOSing of their site www.godhatesfags.com as well as an all out full frontal attack against the church by ‘rallying’ at each place the WBC twits are lodging. People have been making calls to Motel 6’s all across Fairfield County in Connecticut right now to not only find out where the members are staying but to verbally express their distaste for Motel 6 to allow them to lodge in their establishments.

I’m currently reporting from the front lines…I guess you could say. The truth is I’m safely at home in Washington, but I have been following Anonymous and the others who are against the WBC. They formed an IRC chat which I joined to watch the war unfold and report what was happening as I got it.

All day and night there were people working hard to find out exactly where the WBC folks were hiding, and of course, what they were tweeting. The group also had a firm grip on the website godhatesfags.com, but have let up on their attack recently to prepare for something bigger.

Fred Phelps JR himself was retweeting everything on Twitter.com that had a #WBC tag. When hackers and activists alike found out where they were staying they posted it on Twitter.com. Fred Phelps himself retweeted the same tweet which gave away his location. Either a ploy to lead people in the wrong direction or seeking attention, I don’t know but it’s still pretty dumb.

Anonymous’ main goal here in this first part of the war seems to be to get the WBC people banned from every hotel and motel in Fairfield County, Connecticut. This way they will be forced to spend the night in their van(s) before they protest victims of the Sandy Hook shooting tomorrow.

On top of calling every hotel and motel in the area (including Motel 6) they also were successful in issuing Shirley Phelps a death certificate, changing the background to her desk top to gay porn, and locating the motels they are staying at and ordering a ton of pizza to known WBC members homes.

Anonymous would like to see people rally to the motels WBC members stay at and peacefully ask them to leave. And rumor had it that a biker club would be attending the funerals to protect the victims’ family members, most likely by creating a hybrid wall of humans and motorcycles. However, when I looked online to see if there was any truth to this I could not find any. I did find the website to the Patriot Guard Riders, and they had this message on their website regarding the shooting in Newtown:

*** Connecticut Elementary Shootings ***

The recent, tragic shootings in Connecticut weigh heavy on us all. The Patriot Guard understands the anguish caused by such a calamity as this and our hearts go out to the family and friends of those affected by this horrific event. 

We (PGR) receive hundreds of emails a day requesting the PGR to stand in honor at the planned services. However, the PGR is not a counter protest group. Our mission statement is clear and regrettably the circumstances surrounding this tragic event do not fall within our mission statement. For more details on our missions statement, please go to www.PatriotGuard.org and review the information located in the “About Us” section in the Site Navigation section. 

Again, our hearts go out to all of the families of the affected families, and to the community as a whole, for this tremendous loss.

Patriot Guard Riders, Inc.

  

That is understandable and all, but it does kind of suck to know that a biker club won’t be there.

The big news was when we all found out that WBC was lodging at a Motel 6 in Southington, Connecticut. People had taken photos of a van in the parking lot with Kansas plates, Kansas being where these asshats originate. There were also photos taken of police cruisers in the parking lot of a Motel 6 that hit the web as well.

But it was very possible that after Motel 6 tweeted about not allowing the WBC members to stay at their motel that they stayed anyway. But it is still very possible that they left the motel after the corporate office made that statement via Twitter. Either way, there is an article that I discovered while in the IRC chat. The link was placed into the chat feed so I clicked on it and found this:

FROM THE ARTICLE:

“I can't put you through to those rooms,” a desk clerk at a Motel 6, who refused to give their name, said over the phone. “I wish those people weren't staying here. I hate them and what they stand for.”

If in fact Motel 6 did not turn down the members of WBC it wouldn’t matter too much because they’ll still protest tomorrow. But even after the protests Anonymous will still wage the war on this sick group of fucks.

While I was inside the IRC room I noticed some text on the top of the chat room:

[Welcome to #OpWestboro] Targets [Godhatesfags.com – 199.59.163.38 -] No DDoS for now. Strike time is 6pm EST 12/21

As well as that text I also found a link which guided to the Anonymous war plan. For now it would seem they are going to halt most DDoS attacks until the time of strike. It said that phone and fax attacks would also cease for a short time but that prank calls would be conducted and that the ordering of pizza to known addresses of WBC members would continue.

The time of strike will include such attacks as listed above; mail spam, twitter attacks, prank calls and deliveries, and DDoS.

The war is not over. Anonymous vowed to destroy the WBC completely and they are working around the clock to do so. The WBC believes that no one can silence their message of hate and that the internet was created by God for them to be able to spread their message. Anonymous and others want to show them that they can be silenced, and that if there is a God he would truly find them deplorable. 

Follow me on Twitter for Updates. @Turk_Reno

SOURCES:

Examiner Article

Patriot Guard

IRC 

Twitter Tags: #WBC, #OpWBC, #OpWestboro, #Anonymous 


UPDATE!

12/19/2012 12:30PM PST

Back on the front lines here, @YourAnonNews posted a link directing me to a streaming video of a person at the Sandy Hook victim's funeral, where firemen and women formed a human wall to protect the mourners from the WBC. 

During the video, which was presented by Jake Esker, you can see hundreds of people lined up to show support for the victims families and to block the WBC's protest from being seen.

Unfortunately, Jake's IPhone was about to die and he couldn't give us a full streaming account of what was happening. He returned to his car to charge up the battery when he noticed a camera man walking by. He stopped him to ask him what was happening. 

It was there that Jake learned that the WBC members would not be coming out to protest today because there would be no burial today. Still unsure if the burial was just postponed or if was even suppose to happen today. Camera man said, "They never came out. They say they're going to show up at everything, but they almost never do."

But what happens when the funeral plans are back on track? Will WBC stay to protest? Did the amount of people that showed up today, including the firefighters, deter the WBC from wanting to protest? 

Most likely not, but it doesn't matter. The war is still raging on as the Twitter account of @WBCFredJr was hacked just moments ago by Anonymous members.