Video
Do Sandy Hook and Additional Gun Control Illustrate Directed History?
N.Y. Assembly Speaker Silver: "We Are Going To Ban Assault Weapons." Among New Laws, Gun Owners Would Have To Renew License Every 5 Years ... The New York State Legislature was poised Tuesday to pass the first gun control measure following the Newtown school massacre. This as the vice president was set to unveil federal proposals to end gun violence later in the day. Albany lawmakers ironed out the kinks Monday, allowing them to propose in writing new gun control measures in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shooting. Assuming the new bill passes — it was approved by the Senate late Monday night and will go before the House on Tuesday — it will turn into the toughest set of gun control laws in the country. "The people of this state are crying out for help on gun violence. We don't need another tragedy," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Monday night. "I think this is one of the greatest problems facing our state. If this proposal is enacted it is one of the most comprehensive approaches to the problem." – CBS New York
Dominant Social Theme: Children cry out for justice.
Free-Market Analysis: The politicians are not even trying to hide it anymore. Motivated by the passions of the day, state legislatures are beginning to take action to make certain weapons more difficult or impossible to purchase.
The US Constitution plainly states that legislators are not to restrict people's rights to own guns. But in New York the argument over gun control has given way to "action." Owning guns is to be fully licensed now and subject to renewal. The article excerpted above tells us that the new state legislation will:
- Limit ammunition clips to seven. It's now 10
- Stiffen penalties for bringing a gun on school property
- Force gun owners to renew their licenses every five years
- Stiffen penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime
- Add new restrictions on the assault weapons already owned by New Yorkers
We now have an even starker contradiction between the constitutional "law of the land" and the "law" of New York State.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: "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." But watch this video, above, and you will see this vital reference is not even being referred to in mainstream media coverage.
The text of this amendment is fairly clear, especially when one examines the surrounding debate of the time, amply preserved in various notes and notations. Thus, it is strange to see a national debate take place that treats the issue as if it is floating in midair, untethered by any larger legal consideration.
The Constitution surely is not perfect and was perhaps a step back in many ways for the confederation of states of the time. But even so, a number of those who wrote it attempted to ensure that it would not be turned into a vehicle of oppression by adding a Bill of Rights as amendments that clarified its intent. Here's more from the article:
Sources told CBS 2′s Marcia Kramer the deal worked out by the Legislature is wide ranging, but it starts with assault weapons.
"To basically eradicate assault weapons from our streets in New York as quickly as possible is something the people of this state want and it's an important thing to do. It is an emergency," Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2's Kramer.
"We are going to ban assault weapons. We are going to eliminate all of the loopholes that existed previously," Silver added. "They will be basically not permitted to be transferred. They will be grandfathered in but not in terms of a transfer. There will be a registry," Silver said.
A registry is what gun owners have feared for years. Once one has to register a gun, all sorts of other considerations come into play. Gun owners are suddenly exposed to state retribution for their purchases. Potentially they take on a new liability: They can be looked on as enemies of the state.
This is not merely alarmism. In the 20th century, rogue states murdered something like 250 million individuals – and there is nothing to stop a seemingly pacifistic government from evolving into something far more troublesome.
The argument taking place in the United States is partially based on the idea that the US is turning into a far less benign place when it comes to civilian freedoms.
The evidence is everywhere. From the creation of the inaptly named Homeland Security agency, to the "constitution-free zone" along the entire US border, to the increasing brutality of law enforcement and federal assertions the government has the right to murder civilians at will, and to arrest and hold them indefinitely without trial, as well, it is obvious that the US is becoming less free and more oppressive.
Conspiracy-minded individuals will claim this is because the powers-that-be are attempting to create one-world government and are trying to eradicate US freedoms in order to do so. The US, one of the world's only extant republics, is well known for its "exceptionalism" and culture of freedom. This is why the US is target number one for the forces of globalism – or so the argument goes.
The conspiratorial version of history clearly maintains that various false flags are in use to attack US freedoms, and that these include the massacre of innocents in schools to create and enforce draconian gun control. While there is no hard evidence for this version of what we call "directed history," there are surely plenty of questions raised as a result of these shootings and the "official" narrative that is eventually disseminated. See, for instance, "Professor's Questions About Sandy Hook Shooting Recall Columbine Massacre."
What is also true is that gun control has been the first step toward oppressive and even murderous government. Even if one maintains that the US government is yet a benign bulwark of global freedom, there is always the possibility that its enormous power can be used for ill as well as good and that like so many governments it can become an oppressor of its citizens rather than a defender.
Is that what is happening today?
(Video from BestEntToday's YouTube user channel.)
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Leviathanfighter on 01/17/13 10:44 PM
They are obviously trying to scare and intimidate the masses into giving up their rights to defend themselves with firearms and accepting whatever elite-driven agenda comes their way.
We know that the "false flag" is a tried and true method for advancing their agendas. They have worked very well for the elites, until very recently. It remains to be seen whether this strategy will keep working for them as it has in the past. I think not. The Sandy Hook meme is getting slaughtered on the net right now. Get on YouTube and you will see that most people are not falling for this hoax.
As for "directed history," I think you are on the right track. I sometimes call this "fairy tale history," and Sandy Hook is a perfect fit. It comes complete with a very simple story line (guns are bad for children and other living things), a big bad ogre, cute little Hansels and Gretels, and culminates in the typical catharsis.
The alternative to directed history is usually called Revisionist History, and this goes back a hundred years or so, arising out of the works of the Progressive Historians and New Left Historians, and assorted thinkers such as Albert J. Nock, Randolph Bourne, Harry Elmer Barnes, Charles Callan Tansill, Charles Beard, Gustavus Myers, William Appleman Williams, James J. Martin, and others.
The Libertarian Historians include Ludwig von Mises, Murray N. Rothbard, Jeff Riggenbach, and Thomas E. Woods, Robert Higgs, etc.
Believe me, you are in very good company!
It must be understood that in the early and middle years of the twentieth century, writers of Libertarian history experienced an almost total blackout against their work which would change only very slowly. This change is now accelerating rapidly with the advent of the Internet.
Modern news coverage, with its videos of witness testimony and the resulting exploding, world-wide coverage on the Internet has made it increasingly impossible for the elites to sell their false flag mythology to the masses because the masses can see these things for themselves and get a good sense of their falsehood. They can also share information as never before.
The evolution of our economy and technology is now freeing us from the terrible burden of these lies for the first time in history.
The truth is a glorious thing.
Reply from The Daily Bell
You encapsulate some of our suppositions. Thanks.
 |
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 01/17/13 07:45 PM
Brick says:
"Of course they use propaganda and dismissive idiom. They've spent decades (and billions of tax dollars) figuring out how to ask you when you stopped beating your wife in just the right way."
Would that be the difference between polling you and poling you?;)
|
Posted by Brick on 01/16/13 11:08 PM
Old Grey One: Of course they use propaganda and dismissive idiom. They've spent decades (and billions of tax dollars) figuring out how to ask you when you stopped beating your wife in just the right way.
Violent crime is a symptom of tyranny, one they would rather not discuss. Happy people with guns don't go on killing sprees. Capiche? (I know you do :)
|
Posted by Brick on 01/16/13 10:43 PM
There's something close to one gun for every man, woman and child in the US. If guns were effective in the pursuit of overthrowing tyrany, they'd have been used by now.
Folks, lets face it; this war is over. Criminals get guns through illeagal channels, citizens buy guns to put under the bed. The 2nd ammendment was all about keeping the power of government in the hands of responsible individuals, but it's well past time to accept the failure of that initiative. It's over; the only people who havve guns and the will to use them are members of the ruling class, e.g. the military in all its forms and civilian police. Militias don't dare even organize much less train together in the US; they would be killed.
The first step towards changing things is to accept reality.
 |
Posted by 1776 on 01/16/13 03:53 PM
Read President Obama's New, Proposed Executive Orders and Legislation on Guns By David Weigel | Posted Wednesday, Jan. 16, 2013
Click to view link
|
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 01/16/13 01:46 PM
I have a small plan to counteract the President's future campaign rallies to push his gun control agenda. I just need a few good men (and women and children,too)...
Click to view link
This could be fun...
|
Posted by maryartemis on 01/16/13 01:29 PM
Newtown's Chief Michael Kehoe ought to know better, that the problem is not the weapon itself. The grandmother should know that the right to grow up and get married is not incumbent upon nor connected to the right to own an weapon. In fact they are not connected at all and both can occur at the same time.
It strikes me how stupid Americans have become. It's hard not to blame our government schools for this. The art and necessity of critical thinking has fallen by the wayside. Emotion and propaganda are appealed to.
I thank God (infinite field, Universe, etc.) for the conclusion of this piece that the Feds are moving too fast. At least there are still people with brains out there. Still, tho, shouldn't psych drugs have been brought up? Was this a factor?
|
Posted by maryartemis on 01/16/13 01:22 PM
THEY, God bless them, are not experts.
|
Posted by 1776 on 01/16/13 12:23 PM
Rate of Killings Rises 38 Percent in Chicago in 2012 Daniel Borris for The New York Times Officers and onlookers at a crime scene on Chicago's West Side. By MONICA DAVEY Published: June 25, 2012
Click to view link
This is the same Chicago with some of nations toughest restrictions. Here is your sign!
 |
Posted by dave jr on 01/16/13 06:49 AM
"Obama plans to surround himself with children during gun control announcement"
A human shield?
It is against the law to murder. Gun control makes it difficult for law abiding citizens to defend themselves. Gun control favors the murderer.
 |
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 01/16/13 05:59 AM
"Prominent rifle manufacturer killed in mysterious car crash days after posting psych drug link to school shooters"
Click to view link
'Bury Your Guns at Wounded Knee.'
Click to view link
Oh, and by the way ...
"New Fort Bragg chapel dedicated to God and country"
Click to view link
"Drones with Guns: 'If It Can Be Done, It Will Be Done ... Over 16 million people have seen this video. Seeing is believing. Start viewing at 60 seconds into the video. Have a nice day"
Click to view link
|
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 01/16/13 04:17 AM
"Obama plans to surround himself with children during gun control announcement"
Click to view link
 |
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/15/13 10:43 PM
Seer
You are looking at it exactly backwards.
The reason for the 2nd amendment is to prevent tyranny, and failing that to overthrow it. For that to be effective, the people must be able to out fight the government. As written it logically prevents government from even hindering the possession of any weapon. Whatever legalese or fear you use to say otherwise, that is what it means. There is no logical cut off point. Constitutionally they can not hinder the people from possessing weapons because they are capable of holding more than a certain number of rounds. Being semiautomatic, or automatic, or above a certain caliber makes no difference. If you have the wherewithall to build and arm your own aircraft carrier or nuclear bomb, they do not have the authority under the constitution to even hinder you from doing so.
|
Posted by Mark M on 01/15/13 09:01 PM
"Have you ever noticed how these anal-retentive types like to say they are being responsible and reasonable? Well, who wouldn't want to be responsible and reasonable, anyway? Even I am in favor of reasonable restrictions on access to firearms that doesn't really have to invlove the government... "
My observation is that keeping a "position" pithy makes consensus building much easier. The idea that the collective is wiser than the individual is known as part of the Delphi Method. If a large number of participants are saying the same thing, then the answer is apparent. Unfortunately the participants are not always experts. This may also be why entire groups of humans are classfied as "birthers", "truthers", "neocons", "Paultards", etc.. These generalizations enable many who are unable to reason and articulate a position to participate (in the "conversation") thus providing an apparent (though manipulated) consensus.
|
Posted by Mark M on 01/15/13 08:31 PM
"Basically the founding fathers were referring to muskets. Even a deranged lunatic could do little damage with a musket compared to an AR 15. As a member of the NRA, I believe we must do all that is necessary to limit these mass shootings. An AR 15 or an AK-47 would be of limited value against a concerted unified takeover by the US military services. Perhaps one could escape into a primitive area and try to remain out of the notice of the mainstream society but to confront the might of the US Military complex with an assault rifle would be futile. I believe backround checks and licensing to be prudent measures against rash decisions by emotional humans during times of stress."
Seer, the authors were referring to arms. That is any implement of the soldier whether that be a knife, sword, gun, whatever. Have you read Hamilton, Madison, Mason or any of the Federalist papers? This is not disputable. With respect to the historical record of disarming the citizens and the means and ends associated with it I would say that you are the one emoting. Doing "something" for the sake of doing something is the (ir)rationale in question. You appeal to your NRA membership as some kind of validation?
If it was said, "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed." Would ebook be excluded? What about color printing? Internet?
|
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 01/15/13 06:46 PM
seer said:
"Basically the founding fathers were referring to muskets. Even a deranged lunatic could do little damage with a musket compared to an AR 15. As a member of the NRA, I believe we must do all that is necessary to limit these mass shootings. An AR 15 or an AK-47 would be of limited value against a concerted unified takeover by the US military services. Perhaps one could escape into a primitive area and try to remain out of the notice of the mainstream society but to confront the might of the US Military complex with an assault rifle would be futile. I believe backround checks and licensing to be prudent measures against rash decisions by emotional humans during times of stress."
Please understand that the muskets you refer to were the Main Battle Rifle of their day and the men who wrote the Bill of Rights were aware that there would be improvements in the technology of weapons as they had observed some of that in their own lifetimes...
Click to view link
Since we cannot predict when and where someone will become a "loose cannon" in an emotional sense, then the best defense is for all to be armed in order to protect themselves...
Click to view link
The idea that 100 million people armed with the best weaponry they can afford can somehow not best the U.S. government and its hordes of well-armed minions is indeed a fatalistic mindset that is still not justification for people to allow themselves to be disarmed. We the People certainly don't want to make it any easier for them, unless one likes riding on trains...
|
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 01/15/13 06:34 PM
Have you ever noticed how these anal-retentive types like to say they are being responsible and reasonable? Well, who wouldn't want to be responsible and reasonable, anyway? Even I am in favor of reasonable restrictions on access to firearms that doesn't really have to invlove the government...
Click to view link
But by labelling themselves as "responsible" or "reasonable," they immediately imply that those who disagree with them, like yours truly, are being irresponsible and unreasonable. What they propose is unreasonable in its despotic nature, irresponsible in that it will leave more people open to becoming victims of violent crime, unnecessary based on any objective analysis of applicable crime statistics, and, most assuredly, un-Constitutional. So what is it they are after when they borrow from the gun control laws of the Third Reich?
Click to view link
I wonder what patch they will expect us to sew unto our clothing this time...
|
Posted by seer on 01/15/13 05:01 PM
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: "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." But watch this video, above, and you will see this vital reference is not even being referred to in mainstream media coverage.
Basically the founding fathers were referring to muskets. Even a deranged lunatic could do little damage with a musket compared to an AR 15. As a member of the NRA, I believe we must do all that is necessary to limit these mass shootings. An AR 15 or an AK-47 would be of limited value against a concerted unified takeover by the US military services. Perhaps one could escape into a primitive area and try to remain out of the notice of the mainstream society but to confront the might of the US Military complex with an assault rifle would be futile. I believe backround checks and licensing to be prudent measures against rash decisions by emotional humans during times of stress.
Reply from The Daily Bell
It is not clear at all that the "founding fathers" were referring to muskets. You think people went to trouble of writing the second amendment with the idea that weaponry would never change? That seems ... simplistic.
|
Posted by taxesbyanyothername on 01/15/13 02:39 PM
There are a couple of things it might be good to ban, prescribing antidepressants, and psychiatry. Both are terrible evils but will continue because of the huge amount of money made selling both.
How much of these killer drugs are paid for with your taxes?
Click to view link
|
Posted by 1776 on 01/15/13 02:09 PM
Choose Your Own Crime Stats, but here are the real stats without the propaganda or feelings!
Click to view link
|
|
