Nice Article Explaining Gun Control

This whole political circus is maddening.
Adam Lanza didn't even use an AR15 during his shooting spree.

Which goes to show - this isn't about facts or safety, it's about a broad reaching, infringement upon an unpopular, and easily demonized component of the bill of rights through populism and psychological operations against the U.S. citizenry. If you don't believe it, look into CAPOC/PSYOPS. We call it propaganda, now, because it makes us feel better. But it's not really important. So, to those who want to ban assault rifles...

While you're at it, proportionally reduce the rest of your rights under the constitution, too.  
Provisions could be made to differentiate between "citizens" and "resident civilians". Citizens are afforded the full powers of the constitution, while resident civilians are not.
Let's take a look at this new America!

-You now have the freedom of speech at home, in company that is registered with the state government as part of your network. Cursing, slandering the dear leader, or ruling regime will be punishable by imprisonment. No longer can you watch the news, matters of politics will only be broadcast to registered citizens, and only entertainment can be accessed by resident civilians. You can't vote anyway, so it shouldn't matter.

- You have the right to remain silent on your property, about minor code violations. Beyond that, you're guilty until proven innocent, ala Italy, and your cooperation with the police is compulsory. Hey, the NDAA is in the works, so good news for those who are so willing to relinquish their rights: You're a stone's throw away from indefinate detention! "But, I'm a citizen!" say the puffs interviewing Ron Wyden. 
Sorry, stupid, you were too busy burying your head in the Faustian covenant of gun control to realize that you just got F***'d by the dear leader!
"But that only applies to terrorists", which I love, because that is defined by the FBI thusly:

That's ambigious in the days where raising your voice is considered "assault", so forgive me for not wanting to jump on the patriautism bandwagon. "Force"? What does that mean, legally? Jesus, we can't afford this kind of "ad hoc" language, and in our republic, laws that govern the citizenry apply equally to the agencies tasked with enforcing laws. This starts looking like the Wansee minutes to me, which is fricking terrifying.

So, "Violence or force to further a political goal"... FBI, I love you bro, but um... by that definition... You need to slap the cuffs on our National Policy... a policy of doing exactly this that spans a solid 200 years... 
Anyway, back to the citizenry: More good news, execution without trial is still not 'legal'.

- Your home is no longer yours. Soldiers can be garrisoned at will. Speaking of that...

So, now, we have a class system. If we're going to parse out the Republic and make an "us and them" mentality, let's go all the way.

If you have no vested interest in the country, ergo, you're unwilling to serve it voluntarily in *some* capacity, why should you have the right to determine its leadership, policies and laws?
Why should you be given the added responsiblity of rights? 
Orwell once wrote "The Proles will never revolt". Might as well make it so they do not have the means, right? Let's test the water and see if 'ole Georgy was right!

This will shore up the issue nicely. Those who do not "need" their rights are perfectly entitled to live out their lives without worrying about owning a weapon, or having any real rights. Go on with your budweiser, football, Honey boo-boo and daytime talk shows.

If you're willing to forfeit one, be ready to forfeit them all.

...After all, that's why we have a Second Amendment...

For the love of God, think about the government that wants to control your ability to defend yourself.
What possible motivations could it have? 
Safety and security of the population?
Please... the DOJ declared almost two decades ago, during the AWB that the ban had no effect. 
Assault rifles comprise 0.3 - 0.6% of crimes with firearms.
So why them? They're certainly terrifying. They're most definitely designed to kill humans.
So why don't they? I mean, statistically, they're almost insignificant.

Maybe it's neferious and there's a process to fulfill every conspiracy theoriest's "See, I told ya!" quota.
Maybe It's not, and they just see weapons in citizen hands as a strategic liability in the coming collapse (because the Echelon-above-God federal government knows it's coming, and the military has been yelling and screaming about the waste, believe it or not). 

Either way, if you want to limit your ability to defend yourself, you can do so without encroaching on the rights of others. Personally, I don't trust the benevolence of anything on this planet enough to relinquish any of my rights... especially not in times like these.

Aaron

Zerohedge posts this video that includes the advice that if faced with an "active shooter" situation potential victims should "grab some scissors" to defend themselves.  Other advice on how to defend one's self with office supplies is included.  Read the comments at the bottom for some very good laughs.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-02-01/advice-department-homeland-security-if-attacked-shooter-grab-some-scissors

It's fingers that are deadly.  Fingers that can strangle, choke, gouge, tear, and punch.  Fingers that can grasp knives and clubs and pull triggers.  Get rid of the fingers and all our troubles are solved.  It's fingers that are the key.

Related: "The Secret History of Guns"

"The Ku Klux Klan, Ronald Reagan, and, for most of its history, the NRA all worked to control guns. The Founding Fathers? They required gun ownership—and regulated it. And no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear loaded weapons in public than the Black Panthers—the true pioneers of the modern pro-gun movement. In the battle over gun rights in America, both sides have distorted history and the law, and there’s no resolution in sight."

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-o...