Posts Tagged ‘authorities’

The REAL Truth about the Tucson Shootings

January 26, 2011

The lamestream media told you:

Tucson shooting this, that, the other, more, still more, Tucson minutiae, speculation as news, guesswork, tangents, endless tongue clucking, microscopic views of anyone who knew anyone, savage attacks on fundamental civil rights.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

News coverage of anything significant in the entire world was virtually blacked out by news media nationally for more than a week, as a determined effort to sensationalize an assassin’s actions took center stage and the entire media industry took part.

Any notion that all life is precious and people are equal was bluntly erased as more than 1,000 federal and state law enforcement officials launched into action over the relatively small number of killings. More murders occur in bad parts of major American cities on any given day, see maps here — http://www.gunlaws.com/GunshotDemographics.htm. But authorities there barely record or announce the details, let alone document the scene, seek motives or track down perpetrators. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others,” an allegorical pig was overheard saying.

Watching, reading or listening to “news” reports was virtually worthless after the first few minutes, as the same tripe was breathlessly repeated, often without any changes, and the same images of non-incident-related footage barraged the American public. Tiny new facts emerged slowly and entered the endless loops in print and broadcast reports. Speculation on the murderer’s intentions and mental state proceeded headlong with no basis in fact or substance of any kind, self-evident from the opinionated, vacuous and conflicting guesses. The murderer’s mental state and sanity are still completely unknown, but this hasn’t stopped pundits from punditizing.

Commentary failed to note that the standardized image of the murderer, prepared and released by officials and displayed for endless hours, was so distorted from the actual image of the perpetrator prior to the murders, that no human being would be able to pick him out of a lineup.

Efforts to convert an assassin into a champion for denial of fundamental civil rights was promptly taken up by the most leftist members of Congress, following former White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel’s advice that no crisis should be wasted. Every old anti-rights bugaboo was dusted off and presented as if fresh and relevant. The attempts were a direct parallel to the 1960s racial civil-rights battles, where a single black criminal would be displayed incessantly to demean and disparage the entire black population, and keep them out of lunch counters and buses. The only true sign of insanity was a hopelessly impossible proposed 1,000-foot roaming gun-free zone to surround designated so-called important people.

The national disgrace of the coverage is being analyzed piecemeal by some organizations, but the barrage continues unabated, now three weeks after the event. Buried under the mismanaged news process is, for example, Mr. Obama’s support for a plan to create an “internet ecosystem,” where every user will need a government ID code to get online. It was announced the day after the shootings, just by coincidence.

 

This information supplied from the Page Nine No. 96 newsletter/blog from Gunlaws.com.

Check it out here at http://www.gunlaws.com/PageNineIndex.htm or their website above.

(Note: Highlighting/emphasis has been added to original document)

Guns and Laws – Think it can’t happen here?

February 26, 2010

You’re sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.  Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you’re in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless.  Yours was never registered…

Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

“What kind of sentence will I get?” you ask.

“Only ten-to-twelve years,” he replies, as if that’s nothing. “Behave yourself, and you’ll be out in seven.”

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you’re portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can’t find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both “victims” have been arrested numerous times.  But the next day’s headline says it all: “Lovable Rogue Son Didn’t Deserve to Die.”

The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he’ll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you’ve been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven’t been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.  When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you.  Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man.  It doesn’t take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second.  In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one’s own life in the once great British Empire?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license.

The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of “gun control”, demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearms still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, “We cannot have people take the law into their own hands.”

All of Martin’s neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities.  Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn’t were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn’t comply. Police later bragged that they’d taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

“…It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds…” — Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because your new president is going to do this very same thing over here if he can get it done. And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.


%d bloggers like this: