RSS Feed
April 8th, 2013 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda 
Gun control zealots currently think they are winning.
Connecticut has just passed a wildly unconstitutional new gun control
law, and it was preceded by New York’s similarly-outrageous assault on
private gun ownership liberties.
~ Mike Adams
Colorado, Maryland and California are
all either working on gun control bills or have already passed various
measures that are blatantly illegal in America.
What gun grabbers do not yet realize is that there are three powerful reasons why their gun control laws will soon be null and void:
** Reason #1) Many laws will be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court
The
U.S. Supreme Court already has a track record of striking down the
several key gun control laws that have been put in place by cities or
states.
For example, in District of Columbia v Heller,
the Supreme Court struck down a D.C. law that criminalized the
possession of guns in the home for the purpose of self defense.
In McDonald v. City of Chicago,
the Supreme Court further confirmed that the Second Amendment right to
“keep and bear arms” is guaranteed to individuals under the Due Process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In other words, any law that denies
a citizen the right to keep and bear arms is simultaneously a denial of
their Fourteenth Amendment rights… and is therefore unconstitutional
and illegal in America.
These two landmark decisions, if correctly interpreted by the Supreme Court when challenges rise from recent gun restrictions in New York, Connecticut and elsewhere, will cause those laws to also be struck down as unconstitutional.
** Reason
#2) A Supreme Court decision would expose the illegitimacy of the court
and reveal the outright criminality of the federal government
If,
somehow, the U.S. Supreme Court finds these new state gun restrictions
laws to be “constitutional,” such a decision would be equivalent to a
declaration that the court has openly abandoned its only real duty, which is to halt overreaching laws that violate the individual rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and its Bill of Rights.
At this point, there would be widespread realization that the judiciary is an occupying enemy force acting in violation of their sworn oaths of office.
If such a scenario unfolds, I theoretically predict, but do not condone,
the likelihood that disgruntled individuals, having been stripped of
their freedoms by a clearly illegal and unconstitutional judiciary,
would take it upon themselves to assassinate U.S. Supreme Court justices
who violated the Constitution as well as key high-level members of the
federal government.
Again, I’m not condoning this nor advocating it,
because I do not believe violence is the appropriate path to a long-term
solution in all this. However, I cannot deny the possibility of a
decentralized, spontaneous armed response to the “long train of abuses”
that liberty-loving Americans continue to suffer under today.
Any
decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify the Second Amendment
would be seen by millions of Americans as nothing less than an outright
declaration of war… and may spark an armed revolt against the tyranny.
This may be precisely why DHS has purchased over 2 billion rounds of
ammunition, many of which are hollow point rounds intended solely to
cause maximum tissue damage against human targets on the streets of
America.
** Reason #3) A civil war may be underway before any of this makes it to the courts
At
some point, the law-abiding citizens of America, when repeatedly
oppressed, provoked and denied justice under law, will reluctantly
decide that “following the law” is irrelevant. They will take up arms
and begin to physically fight for the liberties that are being
incrementally stolen from them by tyrants at both the state and federal
level.
Globalists appear to be attempting to trigger precisely
this reaction. The gambit is to see if a small reactionary group of
“terrorists” (i.e. anyone with a gun
who fights against oppression) can be cajoled into committing acts of
violence that would justify the declaration of Martial Law and a nationwide gun confiscation domestic military action.
If such an act of resistance cannot be provoked, it can always be engineered and pulled off by the FBI which is already well-practiced at staging terrorists attacks in the USA, then recruiting hapless stooges to frame as “terrorist masterminds” to be arrested.
This
is where the “stuff” really hits the fan, because we’ll see all-out war
between various factions of gun grabbers vs. gun defenders. Big-city
police will attempt to shoot and murder sheriffs.
Patriot groups within
the U.S. military will mutiny and take over entire units to protect and
defend the Constitution. A military coup might target top administration
officials in Washington D.C. Regional wars might break out between
urban (gun control) and rural (gun rights) communities.
The big kicker? Obama might call in the United Nations
to aid in “halting the terrorists,” setting off an international war
against America and the Constitution. (This may be Obama’s ultimate end
game.)
During war, you are not bound by laws
During all of this, gun laws are irrelevant.
If things degrade to a point where otherwise law-abiding citizens feel
no choice but to pick up a rifle and start killing tyrants, then they
are way past the point of politely following laws written on paper.
Furthermore, once the state declares you a “terrorist” — which the federal government has seemingly already done with veterans and gun owners — there is really no point in attempting to abide by any laws whatsoever because the government already claims to right to murder you without due process thanks to the NDAA and Obama’s “kill lists” of Americans to assassinate.
DHS specifically defines “terrorists” in America as: (SOURCE)
– Americans who believe their “way of life” is under attack
– Americans who are “fiercely nationalistic”
– People who consider themselves “anti-global”
– Americans who are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
– Americans who are “reverent of individual liberty”
– People who “believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.”
Thus,
at least half the U.S. population has already been deemed “terrorists.”
According to the White House, this means they have no right to due
process.
In a scenario when resistance fighters realize they will not be offered anything resembling due process, they will only fight harder
and become even more aggressive in their tactics and stance.
After all,
if you are cornered but offered a fair trial that you can genuinely
trust to be fair, you might simply surrender and avoid the risk of
death.
If you are cornered by a regime that has already announced
it’s going to call you an “enemy combatant” and claims to right to
secretly kill you without any due process whatsoever, there is no additional risk in fighting to the death. You are dead anyway, logically speaking.
Even
more, there is no moral hesitation against people in such a position
resorting to tactics that would otherwise be scorned such as targeting
family members of specific enemy targets.
Even, imaginably, mass public
suicide bombings would be an inevitable behavior of people who exist
under extreme oppression with seemingly no recourse. This is the logic
behind the mass bombings in Israel, of course.
Whether right or wrong,
the suicide bombers feel they have no recourse and have already been
placed on government murder lists anyway.
By signing the NDAA and creating kill lists of Americans to murder with drones, Obama has actually radicalized whatever resistance might someday rise up in America if government oppression worsens. He has put laws
and executive orders in place that have essentially pre-announced to
gun owners and veterans,
“You will not be given a fair trial. You will
be named an enemy combatant and murdered by your own government.”
This
action by Obama is extremely irresponsible, arrogant and dangerous. It
is precisely the kind of stance that could provoke a violent response
that’s wildly multiplied far beyond what might have otherwise been
attempted.
“If you make peaceful revolution impossible you make violent revolution inevitable.” – John F. Kennedy
Keep
in mind that in the recent Rand Paul filibuster in the U.S. Senate
which sought answers to whether the President believed he had the power
to kill Americans on U.S. soil using military drones, the official
answer that was eventually received still claimed Americans who were
“actively engaged” in anti-government activities could be killed without
due process.
“Actively engaged” could mean anything, including
blogging on the web or taking photographs of government buildings. Thus,
the White House already claims the power to kill practically any
American at any time, without due process or even producing a single
shred of evidence against the person.
War is the absence of civility
War
is, philosophically, the complete absence of civil law. Although the UN
has tried to set “rules of war,” the U.S. government routinely and
habitually violates those rules in numerous ways… torture, for
example, as well as the use of weapons of mass destruction (depleted
uranium).
A breakout of war means all attempts at civility have failed and one or both parties believes they are left with no other option but attempted violence to achieve their goals.
That’s how America
was born, by the way: by the desperate actions of a determined minority
of colonists deciding they had endured enough suffering and oppression.
They made a joint decision to flat out start killing (British) tyrants,
realizing this was their last remaining option for achieving liberty.
Due
to this application of strategic violence for a noble cause, the
British empire was eventually forced to withdraw because it could not
physically commit a sufficient level of violence to achieve lasting
control over the colonies.
Importantly, even though the British won most
of the military battles, they still lost the war for numerous tactical
and sociological reasons. This is important because it indicates that military might does not equal military victory when people are defending their lives, their liberties and their core beliefs. (Just ask the Afghans.)
Delusional members of the radical left think they can suppress freedom by writing words on paper
The
reason all this really matters is because the radical left is wildly
delusional on all this, believing that if certain gun control words and
phrases can be written on paper and ratified by members of government,
then those words become a reality and all the privately-held guns, ammo
and freedoms simply vanish from existence.
This is precisely the
same sort of delusional thinking offered up by the left’s advocacy of
signs that say things like “gun free zone,” ridiculously believing that
words on a sign will magically alter reality.
They think the same thing about words on paper held at the state capitol. But history has shown that words are fleeting, but liberty lives forever.
While gun control zealots may temporarily succeed in creating
artificial constructs of their favorite words (i.e. “laws”), all that’s
really happening in the physical world is that gun owners are burying their guns and ammo
while mentally preparing to retrieve them when necessary to defend the
United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Gun prohibition will fail just like marijuana prohibition
Guns do not disappear simply because they are banned. They go underground. Everyone on the left should easily understand this point because most of them smoke illegal pot
from time to time, and they know how easy it is to purchase marijuana
even though the substance is criminalized according to federal law.
Once
guns are added to the list of banned objects, they will only become even easier to acquire
through off-the-books networks of distributors and resellers, none of
whom will pay taxes or report any purchases through government
“background checks” systems.
The best way to drive guns into the hands of criminals is to criminalize guns.
Gun grabbers on the left are almost mentally retarded when it comes to
anticipating the real-world impacts of their laws.
Their intention is to
eliminate guns, but intentions do not drive reality: economics does.
Economics is the study of human decision making and behavior, by the
way, not the study of money.
Driving guns into the underground
economy will effectively construct a huge infrastructure of underground
gun production, distribution and delivery, allowing anyone who can buy
pot right now to be able to buy guns in the near future.
Gun shops that
presently follow federal laws for background checks will be put out of
business and replaced by underground gun smugglers who follow no laws
whatsoever.
In response, the federal government will multiply the
budget of the ATF and declare a “war on guns” that will be roughly as
successful as today’s miserable “war on drugs” — a police state fiasco
that has done nothing more than fill the prisons with innocent victims while justifying the outrageous growth of police state agencies like the DEA.
Leftists who advocate gun control are really advocating a massive expansion of the police state
while invoking the organic, spontaneous economics of underground trade.
The state cannot stop people from getting what they really want. The
failed war on drugs proves that. It’s far smarter for the state to
decriminalize the trade, regulate it and tax it — and that’s where gun
sales are right now, before any new gun control laws are put in place.
Conclusions
My
conclusion in all this is straightforward: The best “gun control” (from
the perspective of those wanting more gun control) is to keep guns
legal and readily available through legal retail shops that abide by
government background checks and are licensed by the ATF. In this
manner, gun sales are taxed and tracked, and it avoids the rise of
underground gun-running gangs.
The worst form of gun control is to criminalize guns and drive the entire gun economy into the underground, where no sales are tracked or taxed
and consumer demand will inevitably drive the spontaneous creation of a
massive underground “gun gang” distribution network.
This will have the
effect of making guns far easier for criminals to acquire, and the net
effect of that will be more violent crimes committed with guns, which is exactly what the gun control zealots claim they wish to prevent.
Thus, the outcome that is desired by gun control advocates will be the exact opposite of what actually unfolds. Such is the nature of “unforeseen consequences.”
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, my friends. Try to make sure you are not blindly running down it.
Mike Adams – April 5, 2013 – posted at NaturalNews
digg
muti
del.icio.us
google
reddit
facebookSource Article from http://www.knowthelies.com/node/8793
Views: 0
Posted in 
