Fake progressives and liberals wage open war on second amendment in the United States

Others call for murdering gun owners and taking all guns from the hands of the people.

By LUIS MIRANDA | THE REAL AGENDA | DECEMBER 17, 2012

Coinciding with the visit of Barack Obama to Newtown to join the vigil for the 27 victims of the massacre of Sandy Hook, several Democratic Party leaders on Sunday announced an immediate legislative initiative to ban some guns and impose greater controls the sales of others, a proposal that will surely be met with strong resistance at the Capitol, despite the outrage caused by the bloody episode of the Connecticut school.

Although Saturday in his usual radio message, Obama insisted one the needed for “significant action” to prevent an incident like the one that happened last week in Connecticut, no concrete measures announcement was made in Newtown, where his presence was primarily intended to show support for the relatives of those whose children were killed at the Sandy Hook School. A total of 20 children and 6 adults, all of them teachers who died while trying to protect the students.

Senior members of the Democratic party, have now called for significant bans on gun possession, with which they intend to debilitate even more the constitutional rights of the American people, while criminals continue to have full access to all kinds of armaments. Some of the first steps to limit and then ban gun ownership are the imposition of legal limitations on arms sales as well as ammunition sales, a larger and more detailed registration process for gun owners and a ban on people who the government determines to be a danger to society, for example, people who the government has included on no-fly and presidential kill-lists.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, who in 1994 introduced the law to ban assault rifles, said yesterday that on the first day of the next Congress a proposal in the Senate will attempt to prohibit the legal possession of semi automatic weapons as well as those that might be modified to be turned into automatic ones. Meanwhile, the dying US corporate media is also waging an open war on gun owners, calling for the complete disarmament of all people in order to avoid more shootings.

A semi-automatic assault rifle was precisely the weapon used by Adam Lanza, the man who shot 26 people in Sandy Hook, all with several shots to the body. The corporate media is blaming guns, not the people who use them, for the mass shootings that have happened in the United States in the last few months in an attempt to echo the government’s call for banning gun ownership.

Suddenly, the same corporate media forgot that it is precisely the U.S. government the one who shipped thousands of weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico, which caused the death of thousands of people over the last 5 or 6 years. No one in the Fast and Furious gun-running scandal has been held accountable for those deaths, but both the media and the government acted quickly to call for gun bans after the Sandy Hook shooting.

Feinstein’s proposal has been supported by another influential Democratic Senator. New York’s Charles Schumer said that “Maybe this dreadful tragedy helps us to unite to prevent the recurrence of such an atrocity”. Another New Yorker who has expressed his desire to ban gun ownership is New York City Mayor, Michael Bloomberg, who had been waiting for this kind of tragic events to reinforce his policy of disarmament.

A Democratic congressman from the state where the killing occurred, John Larson, along with a group of colleagues in the House of Representatives, are promoting a ban on assault rifles accompanied by other measures, such as requiring background checks on each buyer of weapons anywhere in the country.

On other fronts, the group of mayors against guns, captained by Michael Bloomberg, has mobilized to press Congress and the White House to crack down on gun owners. Bloomberg asked the president to submit a proposal to the Capitol Hill which congressmen can vote on. The mayor of Philadelphia, one of the hardest hit by gun violence, urged immediate action. “We do not need more speeches, we need action,” he said.

But the optimism reigning in the heads of the fake progressives may have just come too soon. With at least 5 percent of Americans fully armed, the disarmament process may be all but easy. A massive campaign to confiscate weapons from the hands of the people, will certainly cause another civil war, because most gun owners will not be subdued without a fight. After the shooting of 2011 in Tucson (Arizona) that seriously injured Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the Department of Justice prepared a series of measures to control firearms, but those proposals were put in the drawer given the massive opposition from conservative congressmen and the American public.

But now that Obama may does not need to be accountable to anyone — because he doesn’t have the possibility to seek reelection — he has been more outspoken about going further on gun control. But still, the obstacles he had a year ago still exist today or have grown. One day before the killing of Newtown, the state of Michigan passed a law allowing guns in schools. Similar actions to strengthen gun ownership have happened all over the country.

The National Rifle Association (NRA), which promotes most of these measures to extend the use of weapons, hasn’t officially issued a statement about the shooting or whether it will support gun bans or gun ownership limitations. Meanwhile, sales of firearms have skyrocketed since Barack Obama was elected back in 2008, and even more after he was reelected last November.  Firearm fairs have been booming with hundreds of people buying guns and ammunition. With every shooting and with every proposal to ban gun ownerships more and more Americans pile up on firearms and ammo to ensure they will be able to defend themselves from average criminals and from the entity that seems to want to keep its monopoly of force intact: their own government.

The Real Agenda encourages the sharing of its original content ONLY through the tools provided at the bottom of every article. Please DON’T copy articles from The Real Agenda and redistribute by email or post to the web.

Advertisement

21st Century Culture: Free Enterprise vs Government Control

Arthur C. Brooks

This is not the culture war of the 1990s. It is not a fight over guns, gays or abortion. Those old battles have been eclipsed by a new

Free Enterprise needs to exist for the gears to move.

struggle between two competing visions of the country’s future. In one, America will continue to be an exceptional nation organized around the principles of free enterprise — limited government, a reliance on entrepreneurship and rewards determined by market forces. In the other, America will move toward European-style statism grounded in expanding bureaucracies, a managed economy and large-scale income redistribution. These visions are not reconcilable. We must choose.

It is not at all clear which side will prevail. The forces of big government are entrenched and enjoy the full arsenal of the administration’s money and influence. Our leaders in Washington, aided by the unprecedented economic crisis of recent years and the panic it induced, have seized the moment to introduce breathtaking expansions of state power in huge swaths of the economy, from the health-care takeover to the financial regulatory bill that the Senate approved Thursday. If these forces continue to prevail, America will cease to be a free enterprise nation.

I call this a culture war because free enterprise has been integral to American culture from the beginning, and it still lies at the core of our history and character. “A wise and frugal government,” Thomas Jefferson declared in his first inaugural address in 1801, “which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” He later warned: “To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” In other words, beware government’s economic control, and woe betide the redistributors.

Now, as then, entrepreneurship can flourish only in a culture where individuals are willing to innovate and exert leadership; where people enjoy the rewards and face the consequences of their decisions; and where we can gamble the security of the status quo for a chance of future success.

Yet, in his commencement address at Arizona State University on May 13, 2009, President Obama warned against precisely such impulses: “You’re taught to chase after all the usual brass rings; you try to be on this “who’s who” list or that Top 100 list; you chase after the big money and you figure out how big your corner office is; you worry about whether you have a fancy enough title or a fancy enough car. That’s the message that’s sent each and every day, or has been in our culture for far too long — that through material possessions, through a ruthless competition pursued only on your own behalf — that’s how you will measure success.” Such ambition, he cautioned, “may lead you to compromise your values and your principles.”

I appreciate the sentiment that money does not buy happiness. But for the president of the United States to actively warn young adults away from economic ambition is remarkable. And he makes clear that he seeks to change our culture.

The irony is that, by wide margins, Americans support free enterprise. A Gallup poll in January found that 86 percent of Americans have a positive image of “free enterprise,” with only 10 percent viewing it negatively. Similarly, in March 2009, the Pew Research Center asked individuals from a broad range of demographic groups: “Generally, do you think people are better off in a free-market economy, even though there may be severe ups and downs from time to time, or don’t you think so?” Almost 70 percent of respondents agreed that they are better off in a free-market economy, while only 20 percent disagreed.

In fact, no matter how the issue is posed, not more than 30 percent of Americans say they believe we would fare better without free markets at the core of our system. When it comes to support for free enterprise, we are essentially a 70-30 nation.

So here’s a puzzle: If we love free enterprise so much, why are the 30 percent who want to change that culture in charge?

It’s not simply because of the election of Obama. As much as Republicans may dislike hearing it, statism had effectively taken hold in Washington long before that.

The George W. Bush administration began the huge Wall Street and Detroit bailouts, and for years before the economic crisis, the GOP talked about free enterprise while simultaneously expanding the government with borrowed money and increasing the percentage of citizens with no income tax liability. The 30 percent coalition did not start governing this country with the advent of Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. It has been in charge for years.