search
top

It Really Begins Tomorrow

A left-wing group is planning a protest at NRA’s Federal Affairs office in Washington DC. This is where they will start to lay this tragedy at our feet and make us own it. This is where we have to stand, if you’re capable of getting there. I would encourage everyone, if you’re in the DC area, to show up and counter-protest. Take signs that show the real problem is our mental health system, rather than guns. Take signs that support the Bill of Rights. The politicians will be paying attention to who shows up. Be peaceful, be civil, but be firm. If you forgive my nerdiness here:

29 Responses to “It Really Begins Tomorrow”

  1. Jacob says:

    I’d be surprised if there is much of a turnout. I’m sure Ladd will be there.

    • Sebastian says:

      Are you really that confident? I’m not.

      • Harold says:

        Bloomberg certainly has enough money to “rent a mob”. Wonder if he thinks/works that way, though.

        I wonder if an alliance with mental health advocates is possible. Especially if this becomes a recurring event.

        • Sebastian says:

          I don’t know if it is, but I think we’re the ones who need to try. That could be a powerful alliance if it’s messaged properly.

          • Harold says:

            Especially since we can do better at it; emphasize that all the Sturm und Drang about guns is taking energy away from something we can actually get real results on. In theory. Gun control is cheap for the government, mental health care is not.

            And there’s absolutely no question mental health is involved in this case, and as of yet it doesn’t seem to be of the “he should have been institutionalized” variety. On the other hand, the mother had no lack of money to get him the best of care (alimony started at 250K, was up to perhaps 320K this year), and money is ultimately what it comes down to, with a “freedom” gloss nowadays, sometimes; It’s hard to say that about the 2nd wave, still going on, of deinstitutionalizing the mentally “defective”.

            • Sebastian says:

              From a conservative point of view, this is yet another example of government collapsing under the weight of trying to do too much (with mental health hospitals, like prisons, being among the things government should do). From the leftist point of view, it’s just one more thing government should be doing. I think it’s an issue that can span the divide. I think the right and left should be able to agree here that the government ought to be doing more for institutionalization of the dangerously mentally ill (even if we disagree about the other things Government should/shouldn’t be doing).

              • Rob Crawford says:

                Except the left doesn’t think mental hospitals are something the government should do, just like they don’t think prisons are something government should do.

                • WallPhone says:

                  Really? I see much railing on the privitazation of prisons from the left, and if they believe in socialized general healthcare so much, why not socialized mental healthcare?

                  • Harold says:

                    Privatization of prisons is a side issue, and after the Cash for Kids scandal (which would have been world-wide news if they’d been Republicans) I’d hope the idea is pretty dead.

                    But the left as well as most libertarians are very much against forced institutionalization on an ideological basis (the fact that it frees up money for stuff that is better at buying votes is a bonus). Now, that doesn’t seem to be an issue with this shooting, but it is with the last two (Aurora and Arizona), and its an issue we should push, for all the reasons previously discussed.

                    Mental Healthcare Yes!

                    Gun Control No!

      • Jacob says:

        Yes. The gun control movement is dying. Schumer and some others are calling this event a tipping point. If they can’t pass legislation because of it they know it’s pretty much over for them.

        • Harold says:

          Indeed; beware of the desperate opponent. Sun Tzu and many others advised giving your enemy an out so they wouldn’t fight as hard; that’s not an option here.

    • I will honestly be shocked to see any kind of counter protest anywhere

  2. Harold says:

    My goodness, I gave up on ST:TNG long before that movie, but looking at the clip, are you sounding like a threeper? Picard, again showing us what a great actor he is (by far the most redeeming aspect of that series), is even wielding a rifle….

    • Sebastian says:

      Patrick Steward was without a doubt the best actor of the folks who played the Captain of the Enterprise, and I think that was one of the better Star Trek movies (though not as good as the high art of the Wrath of Kahn).

      I am echoing the sentiment. Now we have to take the stand.

      • Harold says:

        From Wikipedia:

        Richard Corliss of Time: “As Patrick Stewart delivers [a] line with a majestic ferocity worthy of a Royal Shakespeare Company alumnus, the audience gapes in awe at a special effect more imposing than any ILM digital doodle. Here is real acting! In a Star Trek film!”

        (Almost all of the special effects were digital according to the article.)

  3. Arnie says:

    Wow! Dramatic video! Makes me wish I could go to DC…and take a rifle with me!!! But I can’t go. :-(

    Btw, which movie is that from?

    • Sebastian says:

      Star Trek: First Contact.

      And I should note that carrying firearms is illegal in DC, so if you go to the protest, don’t take a rifle.

      • Arnie says:

        First Contact! I have that one. I need to re-watch it! Thanks!!!

        And thanks for the warning. Sad, one must be unarmed in DC – kind of like being a school teacher.

        • Sebastian says:

          There’s lawsuits in the works on that right now, challenging DC’s restrictions under the 2nd Amendment, but they will take a while to play out. Hopefully this won’t screw us, because judges watch the news too.

  4. Harden the Schools says:

    As per Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, we need to start thinking about preventing violence in our schools, similarly to how we deal with fire risks at schools.

    1. Zero kids killed by fire; A+ for Fire Department
    2. Numerous kids killed by violence; F- for Police Department

    Mr. Grossman has studied this problem extensively, and some progress has been made. In my opinion, he is correct that violence risks must be taken as seriously as fire risks in our schools. Basically make a “soft” target very “hard”.

  5. Ronnie says:

    I want to look a bit more into this issue than merely just a counter-demonstration at the NRA office in DC.

    What was the state-controlled media talking about the most, ad nauseum if you ask me, before this massacre of children at the school in Connecticut? The fiscal cliff, right?

    What the state-controlled media weren’t talking about at all were the more dreadful prospects related to the fiscal cliff – the US dollar getting totally dumped as the world’s trading currency, the complete devaluation of the US dollar, the resultant hyperinflation within the US economy, the collapse of the US economy, the ensuing civil unrest, the likelihood of US states seceding, the likelihood of martial law being declared, etc.

    Then, all of a sudden, a 20-something loner type goes to a shopping mall in Oregon with a stolen AR-type rifle, but he only manages to kill two people because he fumbles with it, and a CCW permit holder who was among the mall shoppers might have also possibly deterred him from continuing on with his shooting spree, so he reportedly then turns the AR-type rifle on himself.

    Then, just three days later, a much-deadlier-by-comparison shooting massacre, this time involving small children in an elementary school, happens on the opposite side of the nation in Connecticut. Small children make for the most heart-wrenching of victims in any situation, mass shootings included.

    At first, the state-controlled media tells us details from the scene in Connecticut such as how a second suspect was led away by police in handcuffs from a nearby wooded area, the shooter was granted entry to the school before he began shooting, and how the shooter used a Glock and a Sig Sauer in the shooting. Not before long, the second suspect is completely scrubbed from the narrative, the shooter actually forced his way into the school, the shooter used an AR-type rifle to kill his victims, the shooter shot some of his child victims 10+ times, and that the shooter had more than enough ammunition to kill all of the 600+ students and staff several times over, but he likely decided to shoot himself when he saw the LEO’s arriving on the scene.

    The one part of the narrative that remains unchanged is that the shooter is dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. Dead shooters are not available for questioning, of course.

    Does anybody smell a rat here yet or what? The mall shooting in Oregon apparently was not horrific enough to make an emotionally-driven, public outcry push for a renewed ban on semi-automatic rifles. So then in short order, we have a seemingly tailor-made shooting massacre that our current POTUS and his allies immediately begin using to gin up support for a renewed attempt to disarm civilians of semi-automatic firearms, such as AR-type rifles, which also happen to be readily available now in most states from coast to coast, but would also be the best type of rifle which civilians would arm themselves with in order to form resistance movements with in the event of an economic collapse/martial law scenario.

    The timing of all this, along with the rapid pace thereof, seems rather suspicious to me, to say the least. Let’s not who the POTUS and who the AG currently are, and how they along with all of their other comrades can all lie like nobody’s business. Can you say “Fast and Furious” here with me now?

    • Ash says:

      Please, not another conspiracy theory…

      • Ronnie says:

        It’s really easy to dismiss my suspicions just like that, isn’t it? Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t it seem just a bit odd that there were quite a few mass shootings at schools when Clinton was serving his second term, then they seemed to lapse all throughout GW Bush’s two terms in office, and now all of a sudden, they are starting up again during Obama’s second term?

        I don’t know….maybe it’s just easier to believe whatever the media says when it comes to political issues and other major issues, right? The media all told us for at least two weeks straight that our ambassador and those ex-SEALS in Libya died all because of some video on Youtube, after all, not that it was actually true or anything.

        You can also place as much of your trust as you please in Obama, Holder, et al, but I sure as hell will not.

        Like I said above, can you say “Fast and Furious” here with me now? That was nothing but an attempt to gin up public support for a renewed ban on semi-automatic rifles that look scary to the gun grabbers, by making their previously laughed-at claims of Mexican drug cartels getting 90% of their guns from US gun shops into a smoke-and-mirrors con game. Eventually, enough of us called shenanigans on that one, so then their plan fizzled out.

        (“Fast & Furious” was apparently what Obama meant when he told the “Brady Bunch” and the other gun-grabbers that he was working “behind the scenes” on gun control issues.)

        So, then team Obama seems to have gone back to their drawing board for a new “behind the scenes” plan to gin up public outrage for a renewed ban on semi-automatic rifles. This plan had to hit hard at people emotionally, and hit hard at home, too, in an area that many Americans could identify with – a nice and quiet suburb, that is. It also had to be executed only AFTER Obama got himself another four years in office, of course, and that he did with >100% of the vote in more than just a handful of the voting districts. (No, no voter fraud there, no way, of course not, right? To say otherwise would make you a “conspiracy theorist” or whatever.) It certainly seems that team Obama did not want to wait very long after the election for it to begin, either, but I digress.

        Anyway, if the executive order from Obama comes down sometime in 2013 to ban high-capacity magazines and/or semi-automatic rifles, I am not going to say that I told you so. Instead, I am going to say that it will not end there. More “false flag” operations will be executed in this country vis-a-vis Team Obama’s “behind the scenes” efforts to enact their civilian disarmament schemes. The call for more types of firearms to be banned will ring throughout the state-controlled media, until they are eventually all banned. So, if Obama and his coalition of leftist liars and disingenuous propagandists finally succeed in banning all of our guns, partly because of the of the ignorance of many Americans as to exactly why the Founders put our right as individuals to bear arms into our US Constitution, which has been trampled upon more and more in recent years anyway by those who have been entrusted by us to uphold it, then the full-blown tyranny of Team Obama will truly commence. These wannabe dictators of Team Obama who currently hold the executive branch want our guns so that they can force us to us whatever they want. If we lose this battle for our right to bear arms, we will eventually lose the rest of our ever-shrinking liberties as many of us cherish them today. Big central governments are tyrannical in nature, but that is exactly the direction in which we are headed at this point.

        • Rob Crawford says:

          “It’s really easy to dismiss my suspicions just like that, isn’t it? ”

          Yes.

          Initial reports from ANY event, let alone one that’s violent and traumatic, are inaccurate. This kind of conspiracy mongering — based on incorrect, incomplete information — is intellectually vapid.

          • Harold says:

            “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.”

            We’ve got that for e.g. Fast and Furious; Ronnie’s just got wild supposition that doesn’t particularly hang together.

            I also don’t think Obama is this evil; Clinton, little doubt, and we have Waco as evidence of that.

        • Harold says:

          It’s pretty easy to dismiss you when you don’t even understand the meaning of false flag operations.

          Those are classically where one entity recruits an agent by pretending to be from another entity. That’s one of the reasons Jonathan Pollard is still in prison; he thought he was working for the Israelis, but the information he passed on was of interest to the Soviets (it’s suspected Israeli intelligence had a mole or three).

          The only people who’d be subject to false flag operations like this are the sort who’d be shouting “Allāhu Akbar!” as they mowed down the kaffurs, as in that episode of “workplace violence” at Fort Hood. And these types don’t suicide at the first sign of resistance.

          You theory fails because there’s no reason the Oregon event, if it involved more than one person, couldn’t have continued with significant carnage. As for the multiple assailants in this one, they arrested anyone nearby who looked suspicious, not to mention the brother of the shooter who was 80-90 miles away by car. A long drive during the day past NYC, and who they could have confirmed on the spot wasn’t involved by asking a few of his coworkers where he was during the shooting. And it looks like the authorities planned to do the same to the father, they staked out his home wearing tactical body armor, freaking out his neighbors, but they timed out (cooler heads prevailed?) just before he returned from work.

          “Round up the usual suspects” now seems to include the surviving members of a shooter’s family. As someone commented to me in private email, it appears that “Law & Order gives far too positive a [view] of Northeast police departments and how they work.”

  6. Patrick H says:

    I love that movie, and I love that scene.

top