Tag Archives: Gun Control

Should Private Gun Sales by Regulated by the State or Federal Governments? Well, it could be a return to slavery for all or it could be a “Great Leap Forward,” could it not? (only 2.5 million died of violence, the rest merely died of starvation)

Consider the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Murdock v. Pennsylvania (319 U.S. 105,  108 , 63 S.Ct. 870, 872, May 5, 1943):  

The First Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press * * *.’ It could hardly be denied that a tax laid specifically on the exercise of those freedoms would be unconstitutional. Yet the license tax imposed by this ordinance is in substance just that.

Now let’s paraphrase that statement with reference to gun control:

The Second Amendment, which the Fourteenth makes applicable to the states, declares that, ‘* * * the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  It could hardly be  denied that a regulation laid specifically on the exercise of this right would be unconstitutional. Yet the legislation now before Congress would  imposed by its express terms as  well as substance just such an unconstitutional infringement.

Later on, the Court in Murdock made the general point more broadly and directly (319 U.S. at 113, 63 S.Ct. at 875):

A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce * * * * A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect.  * * * * It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax.

And again, we could easily paraphrase this text to apply to the Second Amendment, and we would be bolstered by recent Supreme Court Decisions especially 06-28-2010 McDonald v City of Chicago Ill 130 SCt 3020

(For the Full text of Murdock, see: Murdock v Com of Pennsylvania May 3 1943)(see also *2 below).

The right to self-defense is fundamental.  One who believes in the theory of Darwinian Evolution might say it is the most fundamental of all rights: once alive, every creature has the right to do whatever is necessary to preserve its life “in nature red in tooth and claw.”

But in historical as well as evolutionary time the right to self-defense antedates any rights protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States because it does not depend on our humanity (where speech clearly does).  Being part of every animal’s instinctive makeup and nature, it is a right of all who are “born free.”  

I wrote recently of my conversation with a New Orleans Policeman at one of my favorite cafes: the Trolley Stop at 1923 St. Charles Avenue.  This officer (an African American) told me he believed in the Second Amendment and the right to keep and bear arms, “but do you want them to have more firepower than us?  do you want them to be able to outgun us?”

The right of government officials to have more “firepower” than the people is not fundamental, anymore than it is the right of “some animals to be more equal than others.”  Certain lions might wish for stronger jaws or sharper teeth, but none have any “right” to more than others.

Government “entitlement” to superiority on the battlefield, in a very real and direct manner, is like slavery itself: a purely human invention res contra natura alteris omnis rebus (an unnatural thing, unlike all other things).   Legislatively determined inequality of firepower is, to my mind, as utterly intolerable as inequality of speech or the rights to breathe and walk upright.  (If you order me to bow down, you had better be a King, deriving his rights from God, and if you are such a Divine King, you have the right to kill me but I have no right to kill you—and this is inherently un-American.)

As Justice Clarence Thomas has written in several opinions now, the coincidence between the abolition of slavery and the advent of gun control laws in the United States was no accident: freedom for former slaves implied the full panoply of rights available to white citizens.  For better or for worse, discrimination has never been written into the constitution, until now.  But people have been conditioned to think that discrimination against the poor is acceptable, discrimination against the non-elite middle class is acceptable, in fact ALL discrimination is acceptable so long as it is not done along racial lines, apparently.  So the government now wants to establish a hierarchical class system in relation to gun ownership.

The evolving classes, castes, and categories of citizens recognized by the Patriot Act the NDAA, and the proposed gun control legislation now before Congress are basically these: (1) Federal Government Police & their Agents, (2) State Government Police & their Agents, (3) Everyone else in North America.  I fear that these are categories or classes of people which today’s Supreme Court might just uphold as “rational” and therefore constitutional, since they are neither racial nor sexual and therefore not “suspect”—ONLY racial discrimination has been outlawed in the US, NOT discrimination by class or title or status as office or license holder….and this is an American disease or sickness that is killing the Constitution.

The chimeras haunting both American Slavery and the abolition of American Slavery are both Racial: in the beginning, the alleged Racial inferiority of Africans was asserted in Defense of Slavery, and it was widely found to be an inadequate defense.   But afterwards, in a SUPREME Perversion of logic, the Supreme Court of the United States basically rendered all the civil rights laws of the United States enacted after 1865 bad jokes: simultaneously nugatory pointless and toothless, by saying they were designed ONLY to insure equality of the races and nothing else.

Now that we have an “African” President [I would call him African rather the African-American—Jessie Jackson, Morgan Freeman, and Al Sharpton are “African Americans”, but Obama is not] the civil rights laws, it seems, can be dispensed with entirely.  

Total Power in the Hands of Government: this ultimately, appears to be Obama’s goal in life—his self-perceived destiny, his ambition (and his goals are supported by a remarkably broad coalition including obvious evil-doers Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, but treacherous snakes such as John McCain and Lindsey Graham).

The long “road to serfdom” that began with the map laid out by the Communist Manifesto in February 1848, finding its first governmental foundation laid down by Abraham Lincoln in the United States 1861-65, and was afterwards expanded into a highway under Progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and the possibly unwitting (or just witless) Woodrow Wilson, then a superhighway under Franklin D. Roosevelt and all his successors, is about to reach its final destination in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat if Barack Hussein Obama can just disarm the American People FOREVER!

The Courts have been heading in this general direction (the abolition of civil rights all together, once and for all, forget about giving any rights to black or white people) for a very long time.  In fact, the entire purpose of Earl Warren’s Civil Right’s Revolution in the Courts, in retrospect, was simply to pit race-against-race, to create unhealthy envy and hateful one-upsmanship rather than healthy competition.  

True, there are some majestic, wonderful opinions and some beautiful language I have found in those old decisions from the 1960s and 1970s in particular, mostly petering out around 1985-6.  Very little GOOD has happened in civil rights since 1987, but, strange as it may seem, the recent jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court has created at least one “Point of Light” in Second Amendment Jurisprudence in particular.  Ordinarily, political rhetoric concerning the lessons of or effects lingering slavery becomes tiresome quickly.  But in the case of the Second Amendment after emancipation, nothing could be clearer than the need of former slaves to own guns to protect their newly acquired liberty and property (even as limited as it was for most of the century and a half since emancipation).  

Abolition of the private right to keep and bear arms, without much doubt, is a RETURN TO SLAVERY FOR ALL, regardless of race, creed, color, ethnic origin, religion, sex, or occupation—unless you are a member of the police.  The State will then have an ABSOLUTE monopoly on legitimate violence, and the jails and prisons will be filled with all dissenting individuals.

Aside from Clarence Thomas, who will defend us against the threatened confiscation of our only sure means of self-defense AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT?  Anthony Kennedy, painfully and unhappily, stands as at least an occasional beacon for individual privacy and personal autonomy. Antonin Scalia would probably be a constitutionalist if it were politically popular, but he appears to believe that legislatures and congress can limit the constitution pretty much at will if they want to.  So Scalia’s contributions to “freedom” jurisprudence are pretty much limited to the realm of “judge made” law and precedent.  We need two more votes—perhaps we have Samuel Anthony Alito (*), John Roberts, Stephen G. Breyer?  Maybe or maybe not.  John Roberts appears to blow with the political winds like Scalia.  Breyer would probably follow Hillary Clinton’s anti-gun lead.  It looks bad, folks!

But to go back to the key point of Murdock v. Pennsylvania and its companion cases (e.g. Douglas v City of Jeannette (Pennsylvania) 319 US 157 63 SCt 882 87 LEd 1324 *1943* and Jones v City of Opelika:

the power to regulate commerce does NOT include the power to infringe upon the fundamental rights guaranteed by Amendments 1-10.   As legions of Law Professors have correctly pointed out, this concept (that there MUST BE an exception to Congress’ broad regulatory power, even after the onset of the New Deal) traces back most precisely to Footnote Four of U.S. v. Carolene Products, Inc., decided in 1938. US v Carolene Products Co 304 US 144 58 SCt 778 82 LEd 1234 SCOTUS 04-25-1938.

Given the advances in Second Amendment Jurisprudence seen over the past decade in D.C. v. Heller and MacDonald v. City of Chicago, I would hate to see this Country take another Great Leap Forward (*1)  into Maoist Communist Dictatorship. 

So, should Private Gun Sales be Regulated by the State or Federal Government? Only if we want to take a Great Leap Forward into a de facto Communistic Caste System, or an animal farm where “Some Animals are More Equal than Others”

(*1)  Wikipedia casually and very briefly mentions in a longer and very favorable, supportive (i.e. pro-communist, pro-Maoist) article on the Great Leap Forward:

Deaths by violence

Not all deaths during the Great Leap were from starvation. Frank Dikötter estimates that at least 2.5 million people were beaten or tortured to death and 1 to 3 million committed suicide.[100] He provides some illustrative examples. In Xinyang, where over a million died in 1960, 6-7 percent (around 67,000) of these were beaten to death by the militias. In Daoxian county, 10 percent of those who died had been “buried alive, clubbed to death or otherwise killed by party members and their militia.” In Shimen county, around 13,500 died in 1960, of these 12 per cent were “beaten or driven to their deaths.”[101]

Modes of resistance

There were various forms of resistance to the Great Leap Forward. Several provinces saw armed rebellion,[106][107] though these rebellions never posed a serious threat to the Central Government.[106] Rebellions are documented to have occurred in HonanShandongQinghaiGansuSichuanFujian, and Yunnan provinces and in the Tibetan Autonomous Region.[108][109] In Honan, Shandong, Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan, these rebellions lasted more than a year.[109] Aside from rebellions, there was also occasional violence against cadre members.[107][110] Raids on granaries,[107][110] arson and other vandalism, train robberies, and raids on neighboring villages and counties were common.[110]

According to over 20 years of research by Ralph Thaxton, professor of politics at Brandeis University, villagers turned against the CPC during and after the Great Leap, seeing it as autocratic, brutal, corrupt, and mean-spirited.[1] The CPC’s policies, which included plunder, forced labor, and starvation, according to Thaxton, led villagers “to think about their relationship with the Communist Party in ways that do not bode well for the continuity of socialist rule.”[1]

Often, villagers composed doggerel to show their defiance to the regime, and “perhaps, to remain sane.” During the Great Leap, one jingle ran: “Flatter shamelessly—eat delicacies…. Don’t flatter—starve to death for sure.”[34]

Impact on the government

Many local officials were tried and publicly executed for giving out misinformation.[111]

Mao stepped down as State Chairman of the PRC in 1959, though he did retain his position as Chairman of the CPC. Liu Shaoqi (the new PRC Chairman) and reformist Deng Xiaoping (CPC General Secretary) were left in charge to change policy to bring about economic recovery. Mao’s Great Leap Forward policy came under open criticism at the Lushan party conference. The attack was led by Minister of National Defense Peng Dehuai, who, initially troubled by the potentially adverse effect of the Great Leap Forward on the modernization of the armed forces, also admonished unnamed party members for trying to “jump into communism in one step.” After the Lushan showdown, Mao defensively replaced Peng with Lin Biao.

However, in June 1962, the party held an enlarged Central Work Conference and rehabilitated the majority of the deposed comrades who had criticized Mao in the aftermath of the Great Leap Forward. The event was again discussed, with much self-criticism, with the contemporary government calling it a “serious [loss] to our country and people” and blaming the cult of personality of Mao.

(*2)  A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution. Thus, it may not exact a license tax for the privilege of carrying on interstate commerce (McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Co., 309 U.S. 33, 56-58, 60 S.Ct. 388, 397, 398, 84 L.Ed. 565, 128 A.L.R. 876), although it may tax the property used in, or the income derived from, that commerce, so long as those taxes are not discriminatory. Id., 309 U.S. at page 47, 60 S.Ct. at page 392, 84 L.Ed. 565, 128 A.L.R. 876 and cases cited. A license tax applied to activities guaranteed by the First Amendment would have the same destructive effect. It is true that the First Amendment, like the commerce clause, draws no distinction between license taxes, fixed sum taxes, and other kinds of taxes. But that is no reason why we should shut our eyes to the nature of the tax and its destructive influence. The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down.  *   *   *   *   *   *   * [I]n Jones v. Opelika, * * * 316 U.S. at pages 607-609, 620, 623, 62 S.Ct. at pages 1243, 1244, 1250, 1251, 86 L.Ed. 1691, 141 A.L.R. 514 * * * as in the present ones, we have something very different from a registration system under which those going from house to house are required to give their names, addresses and other marks of identification to the authorities. In all of these cases the issuance of the permit or license is dependent on the payment of a license tax. And the license tax is fixed in amount and unrelated to the scope of the activities of petitioners or to their realized revenues. It is not a nominal fee *114 imposed as a regulatory measure to defray the expenses of policing the activities in question. 8 It is in no way apportioned. It is a flat license tax levied and collected as a condition to the pursuit of activities whose enjoyment is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Accordingly, it restrains in advance those constitutional liberties of press and religion and inevitably tends to suppress their exercise. That is almost uniformly recognized as the inherent vice and evil of this flat license tax.

(*3): do you ever why do we have or how we got three justices named “Anthony” or a rare Italian variant “Antonin”>|?)

HURRAY FOR PELICAN STATE CIVIL RIGHTS—LOUISIANA LEADS THE WAY (in civil rights, possibly for the first time EVER—but this will be controversial)(hot off the presses)

What is more important to the definition of what it means to be an American: the Constitution as it was written in 1787-1792 (to include the First Ten Amendments) or the regulatory power of the state to arrest as many people as possible and throw them in jail on slim evidence of real wrongdoing to keep the (few) left outside “safe”—and more importantly, to support the power elite’s establishment?

A Louisiana Judge picked up on arguments in a brief Herbert Paul Bethel recently submitted up in Fresno County, California (last October) and handed down an opinion affirming THAT THERE IS NO RATIONAL BASIS TO DISCRIMINATE BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS, even as regards individuals released from penal custody after conviction of a “felony.”  THE SECOND AMENDMENT THUS JUST WON A MAJOR VICTORY in the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court from the Honorable Judge Darryl Derbigny, who basically picked up on several key points in Bethel’s Brief:

(1)   Once people convicted of a crime have served their time, there is no rational basis to deny them ANY further exercise of their full civil rights.  This proposition is politically uncontroversial when it comes to the right to freedom of religion and freedom of speech, but many other rights of people convicted of “felonies” are curtailed, most notably the right to keep and bear arms.  

(2)   Judge Darryl Derbigny has now ruled, exactly as Herbert Paul Bethel argued in Fresno County, California last fall, that the United States Supreme Court’s opinion in MacDonald v. City of Chicago REQUIRES that Second Amendment Rights be given equal dignity with the First, Fourth, and Fifth, at the very least.

(2)    The voters of Louisiana last Fall overwhelmingly endorsed a gun rights amendment to the Louisiana Constitution which enshrined the MacDonald v. Chicago holdings in State Law—but in so doing LOUISIANA LEADS THE WAY FOR THE REST OF THE NATION TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS IN FACT FUNCTIONALLY AS WELL AS STRUCTURALLY EQUAL TO ALL OTHER RIGHTS SECURED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

(3)     Louisiana Revised Statute 14;95.1, as of today, March 23, 2013, is a DEAD LETTER on the Louisiana Law Books.  No free adult person may now be denied the right to keep and bear arms in this state—HURRAY FOR THE PEOPLE OF LOUISIANA!  HURRAY FOR JUDGE DARRYL DERBIGNY!  

I will be writing much more about this, but wanted to alert readers to the major groundswell that this decision may precipitate.   It is almost unique in the History of Louisiana that this State has ever taken the lead in the PROTECTION of Civil Rights, and it certainly happens that the Civil Rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are among the most sacred to all Conservative, Traditional Americans.

Some American Conservatives may be traumatized by this decision, because too many American Conservatives (I hate to say this, but it’s true) are unreflective hypocrites: they pledge their love of freedom, but they also love “security” and so (many, not all) “moderate” and “mainstream” Republicans (basically includes just about every single Republican in the Senate except Rand Paul and just about every single Republican in the House now that his Dad Ron has retired) would rather keep the prisons full, whether they are full of REAL criminals or not, and make “ex-cons” into permanent second-class citizens with regard to their lifelong disabilities in certain fields of life (most notably gun ownership). 

On a pure “rational basis” standard, I suspect that felons who have served their time may be MORE in need of firearms for LEGITIMATE purposes of self-defense than the average American.  Herbert Paul Bethel’s entire story in Fresno being a case in point….

What bothers me most is that so many Conservatives in this Country do not realize how unjust America’s laws have become, how ALL AMERICANS are potential “felons” within the meaning of a totally over-written, overbroad and vague set of criminal codes.  And so many Americans who have yet to have a major brush with the law support the mass incarceration of their fellow citizens WITHOUT REGARD for the fact that too great a percentage of America’s HUGE incarcerated population have committed at best “commercial” crimes such as drug smuggling or sales, and that the constitutionality of regulating such things is, at best, “open to question” (some would say there is no constitutional basis for the “War on Drugs” whatsoever—and I am one of THOSE….)

In this connexion: STRIKE GOVERNOR BOBBY JINDAL from your list of Republicans you might consider supporting because he immediately spoke out AGAINST Judge Derbigny’s decision (and was lukewarm about the Constitutional initiative last year).  

Small Arms Treaty Negotiations July 2-27, 2012 in New York City—Aurora, Colorado Shooting at Major Media Event July 20, 2012?—Suspect Arrested without Resistance—If you REALLY believe this is a coincidence—you are the kind of BRAIN DEAD AMERICAN that Obama LOVES…..

HISTORICAL METAPHORS AND MYTHIC REALITIES—the enactment of truth

Isn’t it just amazing that less the 48 hours after the shooting, the Police in little Aurora, Colorado, already knew that former Medical Student James Holmes (a white-man with a crazy “Andreas Breivik” smile on his photos) bought all his guns legally?  They also knew there was no Islamic terrorism involved, immediately (well, how could there be, Holmes was a white medical student, right?—must be a conservative opposed to Obamacare, that’s obvious….isn’t it?  I’m just making a prediction now…but SO WAS THE OBAMA ADMINSITRATION when it predicted, just last year, right before Andreas Breivik’s attack in Norway, that White Middle Class American Males were going to be the principal terrorists to be profiled, from now on—my, what insight! what perception! what superb planning!) Wow, they weren’t even going to finish the search of his apartment until today, I wonder how they figured it all out so fast?  That’s just amazing police work if you ask me…. BRAVO AURORA, COLORADO!!!!!  Yeah, right….

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

“Police arrested Holmes — who was wearing full body armor and a gas mask, apparently to protect him from effects of his own tear gas — without encountering resistance by his car at the rear of the theater.

Holmes, who reportedly attended the University of Colorado medical school until last month, had no criminal record aside from a citation for speeding in October 2011, according to police.

Witnesses described chaos chillingly similar to that depicted in the Batman films, in which maniacal villains terrorize Gotham City.”

“”In the last 60 days, he purchased four guns at local metro gun shops and through the internet he purchased over 6,000 rounds of ammunition,” the police chief said.

He added: “My understanding is that all the weapons that he possessed he possessed legally, and all the clips that he possessed, he possessed legally, and all the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally.””

To Anyone who thinks this wasn’t staged—-I would like to offer you a fabulous investment opportunity, in that it happens that I own all right, title, and interest to the Golden Gate Bridge…. but at the present time the costs of maintaining that wonderful American landmark have become prohibitive….

I have no insights into the mind of Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Hussein Obama, or Michael Bloomberg, but I am deeply insulted that they think I (and approximately 300,000,000 other Americans, plus the randomly relevant Mexican, Canadian, or European) am stupid enough to fall for this one.

THERE IS A SMALL ARMS TREATY BEING NEGOTIATED AT A CONFERENCE IN NEW YORK CITY RIGHT NOW (“The Arms Trade Treaty is the name of a controversial potential multilateral treaty that would regulate the international trade in conventional weapons. The treaty will be negotiated at a global conference under the auspices of the United Nations from July 2 – 27, 2012 in New York.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty, as of 3:07 PM on Saturday July 21, 2012).  It is widely expected that Barack Hussein Obama will sign this ridiculous piece of international police power over trade into effect on the final day of the conference, July 27, 2012.

Two weeks into this Conference a guy starts a shooting spree in a Cinemark-Century 16 Movie Theatre in Aurora, Colorado 20 miles from the site of Columbine High School in the suburbs of deadly Denver, Colorado (subject of Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” among other things).   He does so at the opening of what was already guaranteed to be a major media event—the opening of Dark Knight Rises—a film which glorifies Superhuman Monarchical Individual Heroism (traditional symbolic metaphor for All-Power, legally immune, Centralized Government)—and then stands at the back door of a theatre waiting to be arrested without resistance?  This is ALMOST as good a joke as the Terrorist Passport that fell from the sky and survived the incineration of Two Jet Aeroplanes and Three Buildings in New York City on 9/11.  The stupidity of the American people, apparently knows no boundaries, as P.T. Barnum so famously said as he built his own private empire (“Nobody ever went broke under-estimating the intelligence of the American people.).

“On Saturday, Obama promised justice to the residents of Aurora, Colorado, saying: “The federal government stands ready to do everything necessary to bring whoever’s responsible for this heinous crime to justice.”

He said the government “will take every step possible” to ensure the safety of all Americans.”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/vigil-held-us-massacre-batman-screening-023539143.html

Exactly what steps were necessary given that the gunman had already (effectively) turned himself in?  OH, I almost forgot—obviously—OUTLAW ALL GUNS!  How could I omit such an obvious solution????

And did anybody else notice:

Half Mast Flag News

– Fly the American Flag at Half Staff Sunset until July 25, 2012-

A Presidential proclamation has been issued to fly the flag at half staff until July 25, 2012 in Honor of the victims of the Aurora, Colorado shootings.

http://halfstaff.org/

How many brave American soldiers died in around the world, most recently in Iraq and Afghanistan without the Flags being  flown at Half Mast?  Were the Flags Flown at Half Mast after Hurricane Katrina?  Flags are only flown at Half-Mast for Politically-Self Serving Purposes—such as making speeches in favor of gun control in the week that separates the Aurora, Colorado Shooting from the end of the Small Arms Conference in New York City.

The senseless taking of life is deplorable—but as between mass murder and lies, I think that the greater crime is mass deception.  It is a shame that Mr. Holmes, apparently a very good medical student, will never be Dr. Holmes—his smile is so reminiscent of Andreas Breivik, and his role as patsy is so willing and compliant, that I think they must have a new “patsy” school somewhere that trains these guys to take the fall and play their parts to maximum possible effect.  Gone are the days when a Jack Ruby will have to step out of his sleazy bar to shoot the future Oswalds to make sure they don’t flap their lips and tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” about staged murder—all the world’s a stage, but the producers and directors are getting good at this after fifty years or more of practice…

It is a shame that so many people who went to a movie that night—as I myself did, far far away from Colorado, I’m happy to say—were shot.

But their families must take comfort—their loved ones deaths were not in vain nor were they senseless.  The triggerman has surrendered, and will either be locked for life inside a certain Maximum Security Mountain Prison in Colorado or else be put to death, but he did not engage on a random shooting rampage. The murders in Aurora were, and I make this prediction with 99% certainty, were planned, like Mount Carmel in Waco, Texas, the Oklahoma City Bombing, and 9/11, in the White House, the White House Situation Room, and the United States Department of State and U.N. Embassy to the United Nations.

WAKE UP AND STAND UP AMERICANS!!!  LET’S START ARRESTING THE REAL CRIMINALS—the ones who stage killings to take away your rights.  Romney and Obama are, of course, of essentially one mind and one position on gun control: fool the people into complacence and then finally disarm them.

Here is the stridently Anti-Constitutional/Anti-Second Amendment Rights Article in Bloomberg (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-20/colorado-shooting-suspect-avoided-gun-reporting-requirement-1-.html):

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided Gun Reporting Rule

By Michael C. Bender and Jeff Bliss – Jul 20, 2012 7:34 PM PTThe suspect in the Colorado shooting bought two pistols, a semiautomatic rifle and a shotgun since May, avoiding federal reporting requirements and taking advantage of the state’s failure to pass significant firearms legislation since the Columbine massacre 13 years ago.

The suspect, James Holmes, 24, didn’t purchase the handguns from the same store within five days, which would have triggered a requirement for the seller to notify the U.S. Justice Department, according to a federal official who asked for anonymity and wasn’t authorized to speak publicly. Holmes hadn’t committed any offenses that would have raised an alarm during required background checks, the official said.

Colorado Shooting Suspect Avoided U.S. Gun Reporting Requirement

Julie Adams, left, holds her phone displaying a 2006 Westview High School yearbook picture of Colorado shooting suspect James Holmes in front of the Holmes family house in San Diego on July 20, 2012. Photographer: Gregory Bull/AP Photo

Law Enforcement Search Suspected Shooter's Home

0:50

July 20 (Bloomberg) — Police and firefighters in Aurora, Colorado, search the home of the suspect of a shooting of more than 70 people, killing at least 12. James Holmes, 24, was arrested after the 12:30 a.m. attack at a shopping mall that housed the theater in the Denver suburb, Police Chief Dan Oates said at a press briefing today. (Source: Bloomberg)

The shooting early yesterday killed 12 inside an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater. The incident renewed debate over gun laws, with advocates saying the slayings show the need for tighter controls. Lawmakers haven’t clamped down on firearms after earlier shootings gripped public attention, including one in January 2011 that wounded Gabrielle Giffords, then a Democratic U.S. Representative, in Tucson, Arizona.

“You get this fervor in people when something like this happens,” said Ron Teck, a former Republican state senator from Grand Junction, Colorado. He was a lawmaker when the Columbine High School killings took place. “I would be really surprised if anything actually does happen.”

Deadliest Shooting

The deadliest shooting in the U.S. in recent years occurred on the Virginia Tech campus in 2007, when Seung-Hui Cho took 33 lives, including his own. In the 1999 Columbine attack, two students shot 12 classmates and a teacher in the suburban Denver school before killing themselves.

After Columbine, a measure requiring background checks for purchases at gun shows passed the U.S. Senate and stalled in the House of Representatives. No major gun-control laws passed following the Virginia Tech shooting or after Jared Lee Loughner opened fire last year in a Tucson parking lot, killing six and wounding Giffords.

In Colorado, state lawmakers refused to pass new gun- control measures after Columbine. Voters responded by approving a constitutional amendment that required background checks before firearms could be purchased at a gun show.

A bill that would have eliminated Colorado’s background check system, known as InstaCheck, passed the Republican- controlled Colorado House this year and stalled in the Senate, led by Democrats. The measure was backed by the National Rifle Association, which said the check duplicates federal requirements.

Guns Recovered

After the attack in Aurora, authorities seized a Glock G22 and a Glock G23, both .40 caliber pistols, one Remington 870 Express Tactical 12-gauge shotgun and one Smith & Wesson M&P .223 caliber semiautomatic rifle, the federal official said.

Holmes used the shotgun, rifle and one of the Glocks in the shooting, Aurora Police Chief Daniel Oates told reporters.

Two of the guns were purchased at the Denver store of Bass Pro Shops, said Larry Whiteley, manager of communications for the Springfield, Missouri-based company. The store followed federal requirements and background checks were conducted, Whiteley said in a statement.

In Colorado, there are no specific rules that would prohibit those guns from being owned, saidRobert Brown, the agent in charge of background checks at the state Bureau of Investigation.

Waiting Period

Colorado doesn’t require gun registration and there is no specific waiting period to buy a firearm. Instead, purchases are approved as soon as U.S. authorities clear a list of 10 criteria, such as assuring the buyer isn’t a fugitive or an illegal alien, and the state conducts its own checks, including for restraining orders and juvenile arrests.

Residents can carry concealed weapons in Colorado. Sheriffs approve concealed-carry permits if applicants are at least 21, haven’t committed perjury and complete a gun-training course, among other requirements. The state also recognizes concealed- carry permits from 30 other states.

Colorado residents with a permit can’t carry a firearm in schools, some government buildings and on private property where guns are prohibited by the owner, Brown said.

‘Future Tragedies’

Congress should “prevent future tragedies” and pass stricter gun control laws in response to the movie theater shooting, Dan Gross, head of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, said in a statement. The Washington-based group describes itself as the country’s largest pro-gun-control lobby.

The NRA, a membership organization that says it’s widely recognized as a “major political force” and the country’s “foremost defender” of Second Amendment rights, declined to comment on the gun-control debate.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families and the community,” NRA public affairs director Andrew Arulanandam, said by e-mail. “NRA will not have any further comment until all the facts are known.”

The NRA has persuaded state lawmakers to make it easier to buy and carry guns, said Adam Winkler, a University of CaliforniaLos Angeles, law professor who wrote about the subject in his book, “Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms.”

Winkler pointed to states such as Arizona and Wyoming that don’t require permits to carry guns. Florida lawmakers in 2008 forced business owners to let employees and shoppers bring firearms on their property and leave the firearms locked in their cars.

Virginia lawmakers this year repealed a cap on buying more than one handgun per month.

“Tragic incidents like this don’t move gun-control laws,” Winkler said in an interview. “No matter how many people die, gun control reforms go nowhere.”

To contact the reporters on this story: Michael C. Bender in Tallahassee at mbender10@bloomberg.net; Jeff Bliss in Washington at jbliss@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Stephen Merelman at smerelman@bloomberg.net

***********************************************************************

and here is a similar article from UK Yahoo

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/batman-movie-massacre-weapons-bought-legally-031629075.html — the traditional rights of Englishmen have been suppressed for a long time since: “”the 1689 English Bill of Rights explicitly protected a right to keep arms for self-defense, and that by 1765, Blackstone was able to assert that the right to keep and bear arms was “one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen,””  MacDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S.Ct. 3020, 3036 (2010) SCOTUS, citing D.C. v. Heller.

Batman Movie Massacre: Weapons Bought Legally

Sky NewsSky News – 17 hours ago

The man suspected of shooting 12 people dead and wounding 70 during a screening of the new Batman movie in Colorado legally purchased four guns and 6,000 rounds of ammunition in the last 60 days, police have revealed.

More details about the bloody massacre at a cinema in Aurora, near Denver, – and the extent of the weaponry used – were outlined by officials at a news conference.

The gunman, who burst into a midnight screening of the firm and opened fire, was arrested shortly afterwards and has been identified as 24-year-old James Holmes, a loner who recently quit medical school.

Ten people were killed at the scene with another two dying later of their injuries.

Eleven people are still in a critical condition in hospital while only one of the dead has so far been identified .

Aurora police chief Dan Oates said Holmes had bought the four guns in local shops and the 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the internet.

All the weapons were purchased legally, he added.

Describing the rampage itself, he said: “As far as we know it was a pretty rapid pace of fire in that theatre.”

The gunman was wearing a gas mask and a bulletproof vest as he fired shots and hurled a gas canister at the movie-goers.

Holding back tears, an emotional Mr Oates also described the potential danger of booby traps the police face while trying to search the gunman’s flat.

His apartment is filled with trip wires and chemicals, leading to the evacuation of five buildings nearby.

The operation to search the flat would resume in the morning, Mr Oates said.

The police are also due to meet shortly with the victims’ families.

The news conference came after Christopher Nolan, the director of the new Batman film that was being screened at the time of the massacre, called it a “senseless tragedy”, that was “unbearably savage”.

The Oscar-nominated filmmaker cancelled the French premiere of “The Dark Knight Rises” and a media junket in Paris hours after the shootings.

“Speaking on behalf of the cast and crew… I would like to express our profound sorrow at the senseless tragedy that has befallen the entire Aurora community,” he said.

British-American Mr Nolan is director of the Batman trilogy that started with “The Dark Knight” in 2008 and of which “The Dark Knight Rises” is the final instalment.

US President Barack Obama said he was saddened by the “horrific and tragic shooting”.

He cut short campaigning for the November presidential elections to return to the White House, where flags were lowered in mourning.

The Queen sent a message of sympathy to Mr Obama.

The British monarch said: “I was saddened to learn of the tragic loss of life earlier today in Denver, Colorado.

“Prince Philip joins me in extending our heartfelt sympathy to you and the people of America at this time.”

But while the shooting side-tracked the US presidential race neither President Obama nor Republican challenger Mitt Romney addressed the volatile issue of gun control in America.

“There are going to be other days for politics,” Obama said from one key electoral state, Florida. From another one, New Hampshire, Romney said much the same.

Amid their calls for unity and prayer, neither Mr Obama nor Mr Romney said anything of gun control, an issue that has been all but absent from the campaign debate this year.

Both men have shifted with the times, moving away from stances that favoured tougher gun control laws.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a gun control advocate, said: “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it’s time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it.”

Twenty years ago, polls showed that a substantial majority of Americans – nearly 80% in 1990 – supported stricter limits on guns.

But now Americans appear evenly divided between those who want tougher restrictions and those who want to stick with current laws – which allow easy access to guns in many areas.

**********************************************************************

“We only report the news, we don’t make it up!  That’s the GOVERNMENT’s job” (British Newscaster from 2006 Natalie Portman/Hugo Weaving movie V for Vendetta)