http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Aurora Fri, 24 May 2013 14:02:38 -0400 Liveleak http://edge.liveleak.com/80281E/u/u/ll2/logo.gif http://www.liveleak.com/browse?q=Aurora Tue, 21 May 2013 17:17:20 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=04c_1369170667 kingloui Jennifer Greenberg Sexton is her name. If you see her passing by give her a punch in the face. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=04c_1369170667 kingloui How is James Holmes Lawyer also Sandy Hook Parent? Aurora Shooting Hoax, Sandy Hook Shooting Hoax, NWO, New World Order, illuminati Sat, 18 May 2013 21:29:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ef_1368926697 mtnmanx Nice time-lapse HD http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9ef_1368926697 mtnmanx Spectacular <span class="highlight">aurora</span>s over Michigan michigan auroras, aurora, aurora time-lapse, michigan aurora Thu, 23 May 2013 12:51:41 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=856_1369327664 napolean420 sounds legit..... doh.government behind sandy hook. aurora, boston..... and now tornado's!!!!! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=856_1369327664 napolean420 Alex Jones Explains How Government &quot;Weather Weapon&quot; Could Have Been Behind Oklahoma Tornado alex jones, conspiracy Sun, 12 May 2013 12:39:12 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da8_1368376406 Detroit Iron The HAARP antenna array. BY NOAH SHACHTMAN 05.10.13 2:02 PM In the history of U.S. military research, there's never been a project with such a combination of big science, high sleaze, and pure conspiratorial strangeness. Yet somehow, some way, the story of the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, or HAARP, just got sleazier and stranger - all thanks to an elderly physicist named Alfred Wong. Wong was an early proponent of HAARP, who used the facility in his studies of the ionosphere, the electrically-charged portion of the atmosphere. He also was something of a serial con man, according to a federal plea agreement provided to Danger Room. (.pdf) On Thursday, Wong agreed to pay nearly $1.7 million in damages for falsely billing Darpa and the Interior Department. He also plead guilty to a host of fraud charges. HAARP was originally pitched back in the Cold War as a way for plasma physicists to study the ionosphere by blasting it with radio frequency emissions. If you build this series of RF antennas in remote Alaska, the scientists told the Pentagon, HAARP wound not only advance our understanding of this crucial field. It could also be used to fry incoming Soviet missiles and spy on underground bunkers. One physicist working for the Arco oil-and-gas conglomerate even suggested that HAARP could be used to weaponize hurricanes - that is, if Arco's natural gas fields were used to power the thing. But the Pentagon was only partially interested. So instead the scientists - including a UCLA physics professor Alfred Wong - sought out Ted Stevens, an Alaska senator with a legendary soft spot for pet projects. "He provided some congressional money, some pork money," one of the scientists later told me for a 2009 WIRED magazine story . "It was much less than the bridge to nowhere." With Stevens' help, HAARP was eventually built, and physicists began doing some rather fascinating research there. But when those early ideas about HAARP's potential military uses came out - hoo boy, the tinfoil hat crowd went berserk, and stayed that way for a very long time. Everything from the Haiti earthquake to Hurricane Katrina was blamed on HAARP's dark weather-manipulated powers. People swore that the Alaskan antenna array was controlling their minds. A Russian military journal warned that blasting the ionosphere would cause the planet to " capsize ." Leading the charge was a one-time gemologist, miner, school supervisor, Chickaloon tribal administrator, and mind-control lecturer named Nick Begich, who just happened to be the brother of Stevens' eventual successor, Sen. Mark Begich. Through it all, Wong continued to do research at HAARP and at a neighboring facility called the High Power Auroral Stimulation Observatory, or HIPAS. And over the years, he claimed that he had no idea where people got those crazy notions about HAARP. (Although he occasionally floated ideas himself about hacking the planet and controlling the climate.) Wong swore he had no idea why Sen. Stevens, after their meeting together, kept insisting that HAARP would be able to harness the aurora borealis to bring a new, unlimited source of power to the planet. "There's a current flowing up there that you can modulate, and make some waves," Wong told theWashington Post in 1991. " have never claimed it was a way of taking energy to the ground." Perhaps Wong was telling the truth then. But it appears he has been less than forthright in his dealings with the government more recently. On Thursday, Wong plead guilty to federal fraud charges for submitting bogus invoices to U.S. government agencies. The now-retired professor used a number of different companies - including Van Nuys-based Non-linear Ion Dynamics (NID) and Beverly Hills' Alfred Wong Technologies - to score millions in government research contracts over the last decade. But what Wong did after scoring those contracts was somewhat less than ethical, according to his plea agreement . Darpa paid Wong's Non-linear Ion Dynamics, or NID, less than a million dollars to conduct "basic research into the feasibility of a nano technology battery based upon radiation emitted from a radioactive isotope," the plea agreement notes. In 2005, Wong claimed that Alfred Wong Technologies had sold some equipment related to this research to NID. He then billed the Pentagon for $160,000 in reimbursement. The problem was, "none of the items listed in the two invoices were manufactured by AWT," according to the plea deal. "AWT had no employees other than defendant, no manufacturing facilities, and expended no funds in the fabrication of these items." Oops. Wong wasn't done. Through a third front company, the International Foundation for Science, Health, and the Environment ("IFSHE"), he received a $25 million dollar Department of Interior contract to manage HIPAS, the ionospheric research facility neighboring HAARP in Alaska. Again, Wong claimed that one of his companies had sold equipment to another. Again, it was bogus. "In fact, expenditure was for furniture at IFSHE/NID headquarters in Van Nuys, California," the plea agreement notes. He also used the contract money to fund personal trips to Paris. Perhaps Wong's guilty plea will be the final spasm of HAARP-related weirdness. Perhaps now the facility will cease being Alaska's equivalent of Area 51 , and just be another unassuming government funded research effort. Then, again, the facility has recently been blamed for Hurricane Sandy and pegged as an earthquake weapon to be used in a " false flag " attack on North Korea. http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/05/haarp-fraud/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da8_1368376406 Detroit Iron HAARP: OK, He Didn't Cause Hurricane Katrina. But He Is Guilty of Fraud. Alfred Wong, HAARP, International Foundation for Science, Health, and the Environment ("IFSHE"), Wed, 08 May 2013 16:17:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea7_1368044010 Smoothjc1 Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show. Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center. In less than two decades, the gun murder rate has been nearly cut in half. Other gun crimes fell even more sharply, paralleling a broader drop in violent crimes committed with or without guns. Violent crime dropped steeply during the 1990s and has fallen less dramatically since the turn of the millennium. NRA pledge on gun rights: 'We will never surrender' Arizona law bans destroying guns purchased in buyback programs L.A. to draft law banning possession of large-capacity gun magazines The number of gun killings dropped 39% between 1993 and 2011, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in a separate report released Tuesday. Gun crimes that weren't fatal fell by 69%. However, guns still remain the most common murder weapon in the United States, the report noted. Between 1993 and 2011, more than two out of three murders in the U.S. were carried out with guns, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found. The bureau also looked into non-fatal violent crimes. Few victims of such crimes -- less than 1% -- reported using a firearm to defend themselves. Despite the remarkable drop in gun crime, only 12% of Americans surveyed said gun crime had declined compared with two decades ago, according to Pew, which surveyed more than 900 adults this spring. Twenty-six percent said it had stayed the same, and 56% thought it had increased. It's unclear whether media coverage is driving the misconception that such violence is up. The mass shootings in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo., were among the news stories most closely watched by Americans last year, Pew found. Crime has also been a growing focus for national newscasts and morning network shows in the past five years but has become less common on local television news. "It's hard to know what's going on there," said D'Vera Cohn, senior writer at the Pew Research Center. Women, people of color and the elderly were more likely to believe that gun crime was up than men, younger adults or white people. The center plans to examine crime issues more closely later this year. Though violence has dropped, the United States still has a higher murder rate than most other developed countries, though not the highest in the world, the Pew study noted. A Swiss research group, the Small Arms Survey, says that the U.S. has more guns per capita than any other country. Experts debate why overall crime has fallen, attributing the drop to all manner of causes, such as the withering of the crack cocaine market and surging incarceration rates. Some researchers have even linked dropping crime to reduced lead in gasoline, pointing out that lead can cause increased aggression and impulsive behavior in exposed children. The victims of gun killings are overwhelmingly male and disproportionately black, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data. Compared with other parts of the country, the South had the highest rates of gun violence, including both murders and other violent gun crimes. http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-gun-crimes-pew-report-20130507,0,3022693.story http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ea7_1368044010 Smoothjc1 Gun crime has plunged, but Americans think it's up, says study GUNS,GUNS,GUNS, Mon, 06 May 2013 17:00:17 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ce_1367873471 onepercent But then, defending the Constitution is terrorism to democrats and their welfare beggars and useful idiots. This D-bag demands Americans be sent to Gitmo for it. I'm talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association BY DAVE PERRY, Aurora Sentinel editor04/25/13 7:39 am :: Last updated: 04/25/13 7:39 am I have seen the light. After all these years, I now agree that it's fruitless to give the benefit of the doubt to people who are so obviously corrupt, so clearly malevolent, so bent on hurting innocent people for their own sick gain. ForPerryNo more due process in the clear-cut case of insidious terrorism. When the facts are so clearly before all Americans, for the whole world to see, why bother with this country's odious and cumbersome system of justice? Send the guilty monsters directly to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity and let them rot in their own mental squalor. No, no, no. Not the wannabe sick kid who blew up the Boston marathon or the freak that's mailing ricin-laced letters to the president. I'm talking about the real terrorist threat here in America: the National Rifle Association. I'm not laughing. What the NRA did last week was no laughing matter. Aurora is a community that knows only too well the downside of prolific guns, of military weapons in the hands of crazy people, of a nation that's gone so far off base when it comes to firearm regulations that common sense is beyond our reach. If you don't read the thousands of newspapers in this country that came out with their own editorial guns a'blazing last week after a minority of craven, lying, sniveling, cowardly U.S. senators cheated the very premise of American government to back their masters at the NRA, let me offer you a few choice excerpts: "But now, the cowards defied the will of most Americans and helped the hardliners and hypocrites prevail. They allowed themselves to be cowed into submission by a loud but very unrepresentative minority of NRA members who threatened retribution against anyone who voted in favor of the bill." Just another liberal rag in a liberal wasteland toeing the liberal line? No, that was the Dallas Morning News. "It would be shameful, except too many of our politicians have no shame. Again, the gun bill showed that ... Nobody wants the mentally ill having a gun. Nobody, that is, except many of your senators. They just don't care." Barefoot hippies in Boulder? No. That was the Florida Sun Sentinel in Orlando. "The U.S. Senate's handling of a gun safety package was cowardly and contemptible ... What kind of a governing body responds to a national crisis by refusing to even discuss it openly and publicly?" I agree with that, but it was written by the Kansas City Star. Hundreds of editorials across the country used the same language, making it clear that the NRA had bullied a handful of low-life senators who are so cowardly, so corrupt that they would knowingly lie and distort the issue in a painfully obvious attempt to cover their political tracts and back ends. This, this is on par with Nixon's nastiness. This is unforgiveable. And not only did the liars at the NRA cheat the 90 percent of Americans wanting expanded gun registration out of what they want, by cheating and extorting and misleading, they celebrated their successful deceit when they "won." Mission accomplished. You want to know who those people really are? Well some people estimate that 1 in 4 Americans now own a gun. That would be about 76 million people. How many "belong" to the NRA? About 4.5 million. You know how many Americans don't answer to the NRA goons? 309 million Americans. You know who dropped his membership to the NRA? George W. Bush after NRA freaks bought paid ads calling the government "jack-booted thugs." By using the weapon of choice for all terrorist organizations, extortion, the NRA has forced the action of about 45 ineffectual U.S. senators, a clear act of terrorism and treason. And Wayne LaPierre and his arrogant cronies are laughing about it. They're laughing at 9 out of 10 of you and your insistence that Congress do something reasonable to stop the insanity in this country. It's time for the majority of Americans to fight the battle cowards in the Senate are too gutless to handle. If you have a relationship with the terrorists at the NRA, end it. Insist your political heroes do the same and turn back NRA blood money from gun makers. If you really stand behind the spirit of the American Constitution, push back against the cancerous threat that seeks to undermine it for the sake of U.S. gun makers. Reach Editor Dave Perry at 303-750-7555 or dperry@aurorasentinel.com http://www.aurorasentinel.com/opinion/perry-we-can-only-save-ourselves-from-kidnappers-at-the-nra/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6ce_1367873471 onepercent Liberal democrats cheer Bill Ayers and call the NRA members &quot;terrorists&quot; Communist, gun grabber, traitor, Gitmo, democrat, Mon, 06 May 2013 07:26:37 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ff_1367839330 LostRothschild I know it's a lot of reading. If you're not concerned about pro or anti gun laws, don't read it. If you are then it is pertinent and well worth the read. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/opinion/article_1c144792-b36d-11e2-8ac6-001a4bcf887a.html Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it's all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality. To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we're still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come. Where the media really didn't care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can't distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you'll find in news today. But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can't afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation. We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I'm fine with that; they're the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don't. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily's Opinion section. It's been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It's all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don't have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns. Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, "you should write a column about that!" I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the "gun guy" by some folks who use such terms as epithets. The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I'm as much of a "gun expert" as you're likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won't bore you with my "gun resume," but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too. Today, however, I'm going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more - and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily. No experience necessary In the gun debate, I've discovered that one cannot be expert enough about guns. Indeed, when it comes to the gun issue, opinion rules. There doesn't seem to be any opportunity for any genuine, honest debate on guns, and even liberals would agree with that. I've often wondered about this over the years. Is it because my side of the debate is actually loony? I don't think so; at least, I think I'm pretty normal. Sure, we've got some oddballs we all wish would go away, just like any group does. But all the pro-gun people I know are normal people too - people so normal that nobody knows they're gun people until they're told. In fact, there are so many gun owners that if we are all crazy like some suggest, the daily crime rate in America would look more like our crime rate for the entire decade combined, and CNN would actually have something to report on other than the latest gossip. That is to say, there's a hundred million of us, owning a few hundred million guns combined, and we contribute to society peacefully every day. Many of us even literally protect society for a living, or used to. I've come to realize after the Sandy Hook shooting that the reason we can't have a rational gun debate is because the anti-gun side pre-supposes that their pro-gun opponents must first accept that guns are bad in order to have a discussion about guns in the first place. Before we even start the conversation, we're the bad guys and we have to admit it. Without accepting that guns are bad and supplicating themselves to the anti-gunner, the pro-gunner can't get a word in edgewise, and is quickly reduced to being called a murderer, or a low, immoral and horrible human being. You might think that's hyperbole too, but I've experienced it personally from people I considered friends until recently. And every day I see it on TV or in the newspapers, from Piers Morgan to the Des Moines Register's own Donald Kaul, who among others have actually said people like me are stupid, crazy or should be killed ourselves. YouTube is full of examples, and any Google search will result in example after example of gun-owning Americans being lampooned, ridiculed and demonized by the media and citizens somewhere. Hell, it's even gotten so bad that a little kid was expelled from school recently for biting a Pop Tart into the vague shape of a handgun during lunch break (it looked more like Idaho to me). Liberals always make the common plea, "We need to get some experts to solve this problem!" for any public policy issue that comes along, which is a good thing. But when it comes to the gun issue, gun expertise is completely irrelevant to the anti-gunner - people who probably have never fired a gun or even touched one in real life, and whose only experience with guns is what they've seen in movies or read about in bastions of (un)balanced, hyper-liberal journalism, like Mother Jones. That a pro-gun person might actually know a lot about their hobby or profession doesn't stand up against the histrionic cries of the anti-gunner. How can we "gun people" honestly be expected to come to the table with anti-gunners when anti-gunners are willfully stupid about guns, and openly hate, despise and ridicule those of us who own them? There must first be respect and trust - even just a little - before there can be even the beginnings of legitimate discussion of the issue. Death by a thousand cuts Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners always talk about 90 percent of Americans supporting this gun control measure, or 65 percent supporting that one, as if a majority opinion is what truly matters in America. We don't trust anti-gun people because you think America is a democracy, when it's actually a constitutional federal republic. In the American system, the rights of a single individual are what matters and are what our system is designed to protect. The emotional mob does not rule in America. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they keep saying they "respect the Second Amendment" and go on about how they respect the hunting traditions of America. We don't trust you because you have to be a complete idiot to think the Second Amendment is about hunting. I wish people weren't so stupid that I have to say this: The Second Amendment is about checking government tyranny. Period. End of story. The founders probably couldn't have cared less about hunting since, you know, they just got done with that little tiff with England called the Revolutionary War right before they wrote that "little book" called the Constitution. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they lie to us. President Obama directly says he won't tamper with guns or the Second Amendment, then turns around and pushes Congress to do just that. We don't trust anti-gunners because they appoint one of the most lying and rabidly (and moronically) anti-gun people in America, Vice President Biden, to head up a "task force" to "solve" the so-called "gun problem," who in turn talks with anti-gun special interest groups instead of us to complete his task. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they tell us they don't want to ban guns, only enact what they call "common sense gun laws." But like a magician using misdirection, they tell everyone else they want to ban every gun everywhere. While some are busy trying to placate us with lies, another anti-gunner somewhere submits a gun ban proposal - proposals that often would automatically make us felons for possession. Felons, for no good reason. And you anti-gunners can roll up your grandfather clauses and stuff them where the sun don't shine. If it ain't good enough for our grandchildren in 60 years, it ain't good enough for us right now. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they make horrifying predictions about how there will be blood in the streets, gunfights on every street corner and America will become the Wild West again if citizens are allowed to carry concealed firearms. We don't trust anti-gun people because we know that despite the millions of Americans who have carry permits, those who carry guns commit crimes at a much lower rate than people who don't. We know because we know ourselves and we're not criminals. We know because concealed carry is now legal nearly everywhere, and guess what? Violent crime continues to go down. What a shocker. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they say gun control is about crime control. Anti-gunners claim that ending crime and "saving children" is why they want to ban so-called "assault weapons." Yet our very own government says that assault weapons are used in less than two percent of all gun crimes and Department of Justice studies say the last assault weapons ban had little or no effect on crime. Other studies suggest gun control may even make crime worse (one need only look to high crime rates in places where there's a lot of gun control to see the possible connection). Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because when it comes to their "We need gun control to save the children" argument, many of us can't understand how an anti-gun liberal can simultaneously be in favor of abortion. Because you know, a ban on abortion would save a child every single time. I'm personally not rabidly against abortion, but the discongruence makes less sense still when the reason abortions are legal is to protect a woman's individual rights. That's great, but does the individual rights argument sound familiar? Anti-gunners think that for some bizarre reason, the founding fathers happened to stick a collective right smack dab at the top of a list of individual rights, though. Yeah, because that makes sense. Truth, treason and the empire of lies Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they are purposely misleading to rile the emotions of the ignorant. We don't trust anti-gunners because they say more than 30,000 people are killed each year by guns - a fact that is technically true, but the key piece of information withheld is that only a minor fraction of that number is murder; the majority is suicides and accidents. We don't trust anti-gunners because we know accidents and suicides don't count in the crime rate, but they're held against us as if they do. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because suicide is the only human-inflicted leading cause of death in America, and that violent crime has been on the decline for decades. We also know that 10 people die daily in drownings, 87 people die daily by poisoning, more than 20,000 adults die from falls each year, someone dies in a fire every 169 minutes, nearly 31,000 people are killed in car accidents annually and almost 2,000 are stabbed to death. People even kill each other with hammers. Yet fewer than 14,000 people are killed by guns of any kind each year. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because not only is the violent crime rate approaching historic lows, but mass shootings are on the decline too. We don't trust anti-gun people because they fail to recognize that mass shootings happen where guns are already banned - ridiculous "gun-free zones" which attract homicidal maniacs to perpetrate their mass shootings. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because school shootings have been happening forever, but despite them being on the decline, the media inflates the issue until the perception is that they're a bigger problem than they really are. We don't trust anti-gunners because they're busy riling up the emotions of the ignorant, who in turn direct their ire upon us, demonizing us because we object to the overreaction and focus on the wrong things, like the mentally ill people committing the crimes. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they look down on us for defending the Second Amendment as vigorously as they defend the First Amendment - a fight we too would stand side-by-side with them on otherwise. We don't trust anti-gunners because someone defending the First Amendment is considered a hero, but a someone defending the Second Amendment is figured down with murderers and other lowlifes. Where the First Amendment has its very own day and week, both near-holy national celebrations beyond reproach, anti-gunners would use the First Amendment to ridicule any equivalent event for the Second Amendment, like they did for a recent local attempt at the University of Iowa. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gun people put us down with dismissals like "just another dumb redneck with a gun." We are told all over the Internet that we deserve to be in prison for being awful, heartless people; baby-killers and supporters of domestic terrorism, even. We don't trust anti-gun people because even our own president says people like me are "bitter" and "cling to our guns and religion." One need only go to any online comments section of any recent gun article in any of the major newspapers to see all this for themselves. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they seek to punish us for crimes we didn't commit. We don't trust anti-gunners because we know that the 100 million of us are peaceful, law-abiding citizens who love this country and our society as much as the next liberal. Yet when one previously convicted felon murders someone with a stolen gun five days after his release from prison, or things like the Newtown shooting happen, guns are blamed - and therefore lawful gun owners too, as there is guilt by association, apparently. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because when things like the Boston Marathon bombing happen, everyone correctly blames the bomber, not the bomb. Nobody is calling for bomb control because killing people with bombs is already illegal - just like killing people with guns is illegal too. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they're fine with guns protecting the money in our banks, our politicians and our celebrities, but they're against us using guns to protect ourselves, our families, or even our children in schools. Legislative trolls like Dianne Feinstein cry havoc about me protecting my life, while standing comfortably behind armed guards -and the .38 Special revolver she got a California carry permit for. We don't trust anti-gunners because they tell us our lives aren't important, or at least are less important than the life of some celebrity like Snooki, who can have all the armed guards her bank account can afford. A dangerous servant and fearful master Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they completely ignore the fact that true conservatism is about, in part, the preservation of traditions and long-standing principles. We don't trust anti-gunners because the American Revolution was kicked off by an attempt at gun control when the British marched to Concord to seize the colonists' muskets and powder. Since the shot heard 'round the world was fired on Lexington Green, the possession of a firearm has been the mark and symbol of a citizen, distinguishing them from a subject of a monarchy or tyrannical government. We don't trust anti-gunners because they prefer the post-modern world where anything means anything, and they therefore don't understand the power of or need for the preservation of traditions - or at least, ones of which they don't personally approve. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because in a single breath they tell us that the Second Amendment is irrelevant today and should be repealed because semi-automatic weapons didn't exist when the Bill of Rights was written, then turn around and say the First Amendment protects radio, television, movies, video games, the Internet, domain names, Facebook and Twitter. Carrying liberal logic on the Second Amendment through to the First Amendment, it would only cover the town crier, and hand-operated printing presses producing only books and newspapers, and nothing else. Even anything written with a No. 2 pencil or ballpoint pen would not be included. And those of you belonging to religions that formed after the 1790s? You're screwed under liberal logic, too. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because, while liberals seek to expand government regulation and services - things that may not be bad or ill-intended on their own - they simultaneously try to curtail the Second Amendment. We don't trust anti-gun people for this reason because history shows us that every genocide and democide is preceded by expansion of government power and gun control. We don't trust anti-gunners because here in America, gun control is rooted in slavery and racism, with some of America's modern anti-gun laws being direct copies of former Nazi laws that banned gun possession for Jews, blacks, gays and other "undesirables." Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners tell us that the police and military are the only people who should have guns (which is a joke in itself), and that we need to give up our own guns and trust the government. We don't trust anti-gunners because we know that hundreds of millions of people have been killed by their own governments in the last century, and not a single law seeking to ban the government from possessing guns has ever been submitted. Yet when but a few thousand people are killed by civilian criminals, tens of millions of American citizens like myself who did not commit any crimes at all are subjected to gun restrictions and personal persecution at the hands of emotional anti-gun bigots. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because anti-gunners insult us for our opposition to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (aka the "ATF"). We don't trust anti-gunners because we know the ATF is hardly a law enforcement agency but is really a glorified tax collection agency that has abused, ruined the lives of, or murdered dozens of innocent gun owners through overzealous enforcement of gun-related tax and paperwork regulations. Just ask Louis Katona, Patty and Paul Mueller, John Lawmaster, Tuscon Police Lt. Mike Lara or any of the dozens of other victims of criminal ATF agents. Where was the ACLU for all that? And it doesn't help that President Obama tried to appoint known anti-gunner Andrew Traver to be the ATF director. Check out the ATF's "Good Ol' Boys Roundup," "Project Gunrunner" scandal and their loss of department guns for a little F-Troop entertainment sometime, too. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because they always bemoan the NRA, claiming the NRA is the source of all their anti-gun legislation problems. We don't trust anti-gunners because it never occurs to them that perhaps it's not the NRA per se that has the power, but the millions of members that belong to it, and the millions more Americans who otherwise support it and its mission. The NRA is probably the largest private organization in America; maybe that has something to do with its influence...? We also don't trust anti-gunners because they're too ignorant to understand that the NRA only represents a minority of us anyway. Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because while they were crying about the victims of 9/11 or Aurora or Sandy Hook, and thanking God they weren't there, I and many other gun people like me were crying because we weren't there, and asked God why we couldn't have been. Many of us wish we were on one of the 9/11 airplanes, and not because we have a death wish but because we have a life wish. Because when we sit in silence and the world's distractions fall away, the thought creeps in: Could I have made a difference? Gun people don't trust anti-gun people because I and many of us are what they call "sheepdogs" and we're proud of that. Yet anti-gunners make fun of us, calling us "cowboys" and "wannabes" for it. Wanting to save lives and being willing to sacrifice one's own to do it used to be considered a virtue in this country. Anti-gunners think they have the moral outrage, but the moral outrage is ours. I have never expressed any of these feelings openly to anyone because they are private and deeply personal. Screw you for demeaning us and motivating me to speak them. Do unto others No, anti-gunners, we don't trust you. And you've given us no reason to, either. We gun owners obey the law each and every day, same as you. We defend your nation, protect your communities, teach your children, take care of you when you're sick, defend you when you go to court or prosecute those who do you wrong. We cook and serve your food, haul and deliver your goods, construct your homes, unclog your sewers, make your electricity, and build or fix your cars. We are everywhere and all around you, and we exist with you peacefully. You are our friends, neighbors and countrymen, and we are these things proudly. We mourn with you when radicals crash airplanes into our buildings, when hurricanes destroy the lives of our people, or when the criminal and mentally ill kill dozens of our school children. We cheer with you when USA wins the gold medal, when terrorists like Bin Laden are brought to justice, or when we land a machine built by American hands on Mars. So what more can we do to earn your trust, your love and your acceptance other than surrender our rights, bow down to you and take your non-stop attacks? Anti-gunners label people like me "gun nuts" even though we're anything but nutty. Our enjoyment of firearms doesn't define us; it is but a single value and right we enjoy and cherish, among many other rights and values we enjoy and cherish - including the very same ones anti-gunners do too - like the First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. No, anti-gunners are absolutely right: There can be no rational debate on this issue anymore. Anti-gunners don't understand guns, they don't understand crime, they don't understand American history and traditions, they don't understand gun owners and don't care to understand us, and they reduce people like me to a debasing label or a number they've got no clue about. Anti-gunners reject our passions, our traditions, our knowledge, our experiences, our beliefs, our wisdom, our rights. Anti-gunners reject our very individuality by reducing us to labels, stereotypes and false or distorted statistics. Screw you for destroying that individuality and denying our humanity. I am proudly one of many: a caring, friendly, loyal and loving human being. I am an educated and intelligent person, and while I may not be the best-looking guy, friends tell me I have a great personality (yay?). Perhaps more importantly though, I am a proud citizen of this country, and I'd perform any sacrifice for others so that they may not themselves have to sacrifice. And unlike most anti-gunners, it seems, I have served my community and nation in various roles throughout the years - roles that, ironically, often entailed guns. Where I was once given a uniform and a gun, and trusted with it to ensure the safety and security of others, I am now a pariah among many of the very people I sacrificed for. I am sadly one of many here, too. What a terrible, hurtful insult and betrayal! An anti-gunner reads a book though, or sees a documentary on TV - or perhaps worst of all, gets a degree - and suddenly they have the almighty authority and expertise to tell us how we ought to live our lives, replying to our objections to their onslaught by throwing pictures of dead kids in our faces and commanding us to shut up, because we're just a bunch of stupid radicals and liberals alone know what's best for America. You anti-gunners out there will lead us down a path you do not want to go down. Your lack of care and understanding of those who abide by America's oldest and deepest-rooted tradition will cause a social rift in this country of the likes we have never seen in America's young history. Your lack of understanding chances causing a civil war - a civil war that will be far worse, more acrimonious, more prolonged and more deadly than the last one. Anti-gunners may think the military could prevent such a thing - an argument often used against us pro-gunners - but with only a few million people in the military, and with the United States containing 300 million citizens spread across nearly four million square miles, many of whom are themselves veterans, well, military occupation of this country is impossible. It doesn't help that most street cops (opposed to their politician bosses) are pro-gun, too. And what happens when the civilian industries that support the military stop producing the supplies our military needs? The rift is already beginning. We must mend fences...Now. Sleeping dragons and terrible resolve I do not want to live through a war in my own backyard. I do not want our children to grow up in such an America, either. So anti-gunners: Please stop, I beg you. See the writing on the wall before it's too late. Yes, there is a terrible crime problem, and yes, that problem sometimes involves guns - but it is the perpetrator that is the problem, not the instrument. Yes, there is a great divide between liberals and conservatives on the issue of guns. And while I will be the very first person to criticize the Republican Party on its many and frequent mistakes, and even stand with my democratic friends in my disfavor of those things, on the gun issue it is not the conservatives who are mostly in the wrong this time. We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won't come to the table to talk with you. And there will be no hope for resolution but through victory by force initiated by one side or the other, God help us, for we will not plow for those who didn't beat their swords into plowshares. Barry Snell is a senior in history and political science from Muscatine, Iowa. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7ff_1367839330 LostRothschild Why I don't trust anti-gun people. 2, 2nd, second, amendment, gun, firearm, rights, constitution, tyranny, freedom Wed, 01 May 2013 00:43:01 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=18e_1367382734 ramotyis Buoyed by the push in Congress for federal immigration reforms, the May Day immigration march Wednesday is expected to be larger than in recent years, organizers said. Demonstrators plan to march through downtown Chicago before a rally in Federal Plaza to press for action on federal legislation and to call for an end to deportations until a new immigration law is passed. A broader array of groups is working to gather support for the rally because of what some advocates see as a now-or-never effort to get reforms passed after years of failed attempts.Among those taking part are labor unions, the Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago, Pentecostal churches and community organizations in both the city and the suburbs, said Jorge Mujica, one of the lead organizers. "The possibility of having immigration reform is pushing people to do something," Mujica said. "They are coming out from the suburbs again, which is really something we haven't seen in the last couple of years. DuPage is organizing, Aurora is organizing, and they are coming up all the way to Chicago." Just a few thousand people have participated in the march in recent years, compared with several hundred thousand marchers who took to the streets in 2006 and 2007. The demonstration is set to begin at 2 p.m. in Union Park, at Ashland Avenue and Lake Street. From there, demonstrators will head east on Washington Boulevard to Desplaines Street and then south to Jackson Boulevard. The event will culminate with a 4 p.m. rally at the Federal Plaza on Jackson and Dearborn Street. On Tuesday, union workers and other volunteers across Chicago spent the day making banners and finalizing transportation details. "People are obviously worried whether this is going to be the year, and we hope it is going to be the year," said Laura Garza, vice president of Local 1 of the Service Employees International Union, whose heavily immigrant membership has been actively engaged in march preparation efforts. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-immigration-march-preview-0501-20130501,0,35483.story http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=18e_1367382734 ramotyis Turnout for immigration march expected to be higher than in recent years. illegals,adios,jobs,burden,tax,payers Sat, 27 Apr 2013 14:47:10 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=291_1367088271 Marcux A new song by Snoop Lion featuring Drake called 'No Guns Allowed' calls for a complete gun ban while depicting recent shootings as an epidemic despite even the DHS admitting in a recent memo that mass shootings account for only 35 deaths per year on average and actually divert attention away from real crimes. The beginning of the music video for the new song released on April 2nd begins with a speech by Obama regarding the Newtown school shooting incident and includes clips from previous shootings like the Aurora 'Batman' shooting, both of which occurred in areas designated to be 'gun free zones' with heavy regulations. The Batman shooter, James Holmes, actually traveled further to the one movie theater in his area out of seven that did not allow for concealed carry holders to enter the building. Instead of travelling to the closest, or even the largest movie theater which undoubtedly held more movie viewers, Holmes chose to travel extra far to the smaller theater that did not allow law-abiding citizens to carry a weapon in self defense. This is of course because Holmes would have been shot by a trained shooter (all legal permit holders go through basic training) in self defense, and as we've seen before in video reports , criminals absolutely cannot handle any form of firearm responses from legal citizens. The lyrics of the song include: Cause, no guns are allowed, in here tonight Let the music play, me don't want no more gunplay When the bodies hit the ground, there's nothing left to say, ay, ay Me don't want to see no more innocent blood she'd Me don't want to see no more youth dead Come hear me now Snoop Lion 'No Guns Allowed' Fails to Consider 161,965 Saved LivesBut it doesn't just come down to video reports. We actually know from studies like the one published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology that potentially life threatening scenarios are diffused thanks to firearm use by legal citizens around 989,883 times per year . Now these are potentially deadly, as in it's unknown how many individuals would have died if it were not for the use of a firearm for protection. Chances are it's certainly at least in the hundreds of thousands more than the 35 lives lost by mass shootings and the 348 lost from all rifles annually, but we can actually look at a 1993 study for details on absolute homicidal situations that were prevented via firearm use. Thanks to one 1993 survey that examined around 5,000 different households to determine how many lives were saved from the use or possession of a firearm, researchers set out to see how many times citizens reported that they certainly would have been killed if it were not for their use of a firearm. That is, the firearm use saved their lives - and the survey did not include military or police, only civilians within the United States. The study found that 162,000 people were saved from certain death each year by using a firearm . In other words, that's 161,965 more lives saved from firearms than killed in mass shootings - those of which have taken place in gun free zones where the civilians were unarmed. Can you imagine what would have happened if law-abiding citizens had been carrying a legal concealed carry weapon during the incidents? There's a reason that James Holmes did not want to face that scenario at all. That also does not even touch upon the 40% of prison inmates who reported not committing a crime due to the fear of a firearm. And there's much more. For a brief history lesson on the subject where you can see how Chicago's murder rate with handguns (like Washington D.C.) skyrocketed following the city's handgun ban and much more, checkout my article A Brief and Bloody History of Gun Control . But Snoop Lion, of course, does not discuss any of this information. Instead, the music video uses emotional clips to call for 'no guns allowed' in order to stop shootings. Read more: http://www.storyleak.com/snoop-lion-no-guns-allowed/#ixzz2RgqDuhc2 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=291_1367088271 Marcux Snoop Lion Song 'No Guns Allowed' Calls for Complete Gun Ban Snoop Lion Song 'No Guns Allowed' Calls for Complete Gun Ban Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:05:45 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec9_1367081295 SAPD_HRT Every cop with a lot of patrol experience tends to develop a specialty. The specialty comes from getting more than your share of a certain type of call - domestic disturbances, bad crashes, and the like. This specialty is the ability to accurately identify truly crazy people, those sometimes called "whack jobs" in everyday speak. Like folks who put aluminum foil on their windows to block the gamma rays from alien spacecraft. Ann Has a Way with Words I got more than my share of such folks on the job, and a recent item by syndicated columnist Ann Coulter caused me to reflect on the lessons I've learned about these unique individuals. Coulter wrote, and I quote: "Since the deinstitutionalization movement got under way in the 1970s, the mentally ill remain mentally ill, but now instead of living in warm, safe institutions, they live out on the streets, in homeless shelters and in soup kitchens, or drift back to their helpless families, occasionally showing up in 'gun-free zones' to commit mass murder. "After the slaughters at Virginia Tech, Aurora, Colo., Tucson, Ariz., and Newtown, Conn., every sentient person knows we need to do something about institutionalizing the mentally ill and - at the very least - keeping guns out of their hands. That happens to be impossible right now. Involuntary commitments even for the severely psychotic went the way of vagrancy laws... "Of course, the vast majority of mentally disturbed individuals are not dangerous. But looking at it from the other end, more than half of all mass murder is committed by the mentally ill... "Liberals fear 'stigmatizing' the mentally ill more than they fear another mass murder." Ann has a way with words. Crazy, Not Stupid Most states have some form of short-term involuntary commitment law, allowing cops to cuff 'em and arrange for 24-72 hours in a rubber room before some mental health person (working under contract) declares they are no danger to themselves or others. Often, that brief stay in lock-up will cause them to fly below your radar for quite a while - maybe even forever. These people are crazy, not stupid. Many of them are highly-intelligent people and they learn how to avoid police contact. Indeed, even those we involuntarily commit under today's mostly-worthless statutes - the ones the mental health folks so readily release - rarely cause major problems again in their sad lives. Most citizens (and cops, too) don't understand that even the truly crazy ones seem sane 99 percent of the time. They often merely come off as "odd," and "odd" won't get you a free ride to the padded cell. It is the one percent behavior we must watch for and ACT ON! Cops tend to see such people in their one-percent moments, because we see them under stress, where they can't keep up their mask of sanity. Their space cadet terminology and voice inflection are unmistakable, but their eyes truly are the window into their souls. One glance at their eyes often tells us all we need to know. Virtually every active shooter in the last few years left behind numerous clues of their mental instability. Unfortunately, law enforcement is sometimes all too willing to simply "displace" the problem out of their jurisdiction. The Tucson shooter was banished from the local community college for threatening behavior, but the intervention ended there. In fairness to many police agencies, their state laws simply may not allow them to take more aggressive action. Police Intervention Here's my prediction: Except in the most liberal states, the current push for new gun-control laws will largely fail. I think that sensible legislators may finally be able to modify mental health laws to address Newtown-style crazy people. Most states will grant us more latitude to haul in the ones who look (or sound) like they're a few bricks short of a load. Even where the statutes don't become cop-friendly, I think the tolerance for police intervention in the lives of these people will expand substantially. The police profession must be willing to crawl out on the initially-shaky limb of intervention. I believe we have prevented many mass killings already by hooking up those we can. We won't get 'em all, some will keep their masks up and not be detected. Bleeding-heart mental health counselors will still turn 'em loose. But, we will sleep well knowing we did what we could. Eventually, a Newtown-level mentally-ill individual will be hauled in for an Involuntary Commitment by a daring cop, released by a touchy-feely counselor, and will later snap and kill another school full of kids. Then, we'll get some laws with teeth. About the author Dick Fairburn has more than 30 years of law enforcement experience in both Illinois and Wyoming, working patrol, investigations and administrative assignments. Dick has also served as a Criminal Intelligence Analyst and as the Section Chief of a major academy's Firearms Training Unit and Critical Incident training program. He has a B.S. in Law Enforcement Administration from Western Illinois University and was the Valedictorian of his recruit class at the Illinois State Police Academy. He has published more than 100 feature articles and two books: Police Rifles and Building a Better Gunfighter . http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ec9_1367081295 SAPD_HRT Dealing with the dangerously insane Police, Mental, Ill, Laws Mon, 15 Apr 2013 18:50:47 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e99_1366065651 waldo3002 Department of physics University of Ohio video on the aurora. An interesting watch http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e99_1366065651 waldo3002 How are the <span class="highlight">aurora</span> created? Aurora borealis Fri, 05 Apr 2013 22:56:38 -0400 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da4_1365216424 jaydenfre A psychiatrist treating James Holmes warned police her patient was dangerous 38 days before he opened fire in an Aurora, Colo., movie theater, documents show. The court documents unsealed Thursday by Arapahoe County District Judge Carlos A. Samour Jr. revealed Dr. Lynne Fenton told police officer Lynn Whitten that Holmes had confessed homicidal thoughts and was a danger to the public, The Denver Post reported. Fenton also informed the officer Holmes had ended his appointments with her and had been sending her threatening text messages and emails, the documents say. Search warrant affidavits reveal Whitten deactivated Holmes' key-card access to secure areas of University of Colorado medical campus buildings where he had been a student, the newspaper said. The documents give no indication that any further action was taken, however, and on July 20 Holmes entered the movie theater and killed 12 people and wounded 58 others. "Dr. Fenton advised (Whitten) that through her contact with James Holmes she was reporting, per her requirement, his danger to the public due to homicidal statements he had made," one search warrant affidavit states. The Post said a source told it Fenton had declined to order Holmes detained on a 72-hour psychiatric hold. http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/04/05/psychiatrist-warned-police-about-aurora-theatre-shooter/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=da4_1365216424 jaydenfre Psychiatrist warned police about <span class="highlight">Aurora</span> theatre shooter James,Holmes,Aurora,Colorado,theater,massacre