Start A Petition

Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?

Health & Wellness  (tags: abuse, children, death, ethics, americans, congress, corruption, constitution, cover-up, crime, dishonesty, freedoms, government, republicans, propaganda, politics, usa, u.s., media, lies, healthcare, disease, family, health, prevention, protection, resea )

- 1984 days ago -
Of course, attempts to equate gun control with fascism are bogus. But the "Hitler took the guns" argument has long had a prominent and fairly effective role in America's gun control debate despite its obvious reductionism.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 1:35 pm

Mother Jones
Was Hitler Really a Fan of Gun Control?
Detangling the history behind an over-the-top argument for unregulated firearms.

By Gavin Aronsen | Fri Jan. 11, 2013 3:01 AM PST

Near the outset of his rant on Piers Morgan Tonight on Monday, conspiracy peddler Alex Jones warned [1] that the Second Amendment is all that stands between democracy and dictatorship. "Hitler took the guns, Stalin took the guns, Mao took the guns, Fidel Castro took the guns, Hugo Chávez took the guns, and I'm here to tell you, 1776 will commence again if you try to take our firearms!" he screamed.

Two days later, the Drudge Report published this visual echo of Jones' claim:

Meanwhile, Google searches for "Hitler gun control" are spiking [2].

Of course, attempts to equate gun control with fascism are bogus. But the "Hitler took the guns" argument has long had a prominent and fairly effective role in America's gun control debate despite its obvious reductionism.

Its origins can be traced back to at least the early 1980s, when opponents of a Chicago proposal to ban handguns invoked it in the largely Jewish suburb of Skokie [3] by "reminding village residents that the Nazis disarmed the Jews as a preliminary to sending them to the gas chambers," the Chicago Tribune reported. In 1989, a new pro-gun group called Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership [4] began arguing that the 1968 federal gun control bill once favored by the NRA's old guard "was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation." [5] (That false claim is still being repeated [6].)

Tragedy in Newtown

The NRA Myth of Arming the Good Guys [7]
151 Victims of Mass Shootings in 2012: Here Are Their Stories [8]
MAP: A Guide to Mass Shootings in America [9]
Read our in-depth investigation: More Guns, More Mass Shootings—Coincidence? [10]
Do Armed Civilians Stop Mass Shooters? Actually, No. [11]
Mass Shootings: Maybe We Need a Better Mental-Health Policy [12]
WATCH: Newtown Residents Gather to Mourn and Reflect [13]
DATA: Explore our mass shootings research [14]

In 1994, JPFO founder Aaron Zelman implored the NRA's board [15] to seize on the alleged Nazi connection:

Some of you may even have figured out that unless the NRA changes its strategy, the law abiding firearm owner in America will go the way of the Jews in Nazi occupied Europe: extermination…The choice is yours; you can turn your back on a failed strategy—one of compromise with evil-doers—and attack the concept of "gun control" by exposing the Nazi roots of "gun-control" in America. Or, you can persist in a failed strategy, and accept your own extinction.

Whether or not the NRA was influenced by his advice, that same year its CEO, Wayne LaPierre, published Guns, Crime, and Freedom, in which he claimed [16], "In Germany, firearm registration helped lead to the holocaust," leaving citizens "defenseless against tyranny and the wanton slaughter of a whole segment of its population." The following year, President George H.W. Bush famously resigned [17] from the NRA after LaPierre attacked federal law enforcement officials [18] as "jack-booted government thugs" [19] who wore "Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms." More recently, Stephen Halbrook, a lawyer who has represented the NRA [20], argued [21] (PDF) that "if the Nazi experience teaches anything, it teaches that totalitarian governments will attempt to disarm their subjects so as to extinguish any ability to resist crimes against humanity."

So did Hitler and the Nazis really take away Germans' guns, making the Holocaust unavoidable? This argument is superficially true at best, as University of Chicago law professor Bernard Harcourt explained in a 2004 paper [22] (PDF) on Nazi Germany's impact on the American culture wars. As World War I drew to a close, the new Weimar Republic government banned nearly all private gun ownership to comply with the Treaty of Versailles and mandated that all guns and ammunition "be surrendered immediately." The law was loosened in 1928, and gun permits were granted to citizens "of undoubted reliability" (in the law's words) but not "persons who are itinerant like Gypsies." In 1938, under Nazi rule, gun laws became significantly more relaxed. Rifle and shotgun possession were deregulated, and gun access for hunters, Nazi Party members, and government officials was expanded. The legal age to own a gun was lowered. Jews, however, were prohibited from owning firearms and other dangerous weapons.

"But guns didn't play a particularly important part in any event," says Robert Spitzer, who chairs SUNY-Cortland's [23] political science department and has extensively researched [24] gun control politics. Gun ownership in Germany after World War I, even among Nazi Party members, was never widespread enough for a serious civilian resistance to the Nazis to have been anything more than a Tarantino revenge fantasy [25]. If Jews had been better armed, Spitzer says, it would only have hastened their demise. Gun policy "wasn't the defining moment that marked the beginning of the end for Jewish people in Germany. It was because they were persecuted, were deprived of all of their rights, and they were a minority group."

Gun enthusiasts often mention that the Soviet Union restricted access to guns in 1929 after Joseph Stalin rose to power [26]. But to suggest that a better armed Russian populace would have overthrown the Bolsheviks is also too simplistic, says Spitzer. "To answer the question of the relationship between guns and the revolutions in those nations is to study the comparative politics and comparative history of those nations," he explains. "It takes some analysis to break this down and explain it, and that's often not amenable to a sound bite or a headline."

(Ironically, pro-gun white nationalists have tried to stand the "Hitler took the guns" idea on its head by arguing that he was in fact a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms—for Aryans. William Pierce, author of the race war fantasy The Turner Diaries [27], made this claim in his book Gun Control in Germany, 1928-1945. So who's behind the effort to paint Hitler as anti-gun? The Jews, of course [28].)

Even if President Obama suddenly unleashes his inner totalitarian, there's no chance he could successfully round up all of America's 300 million-plus firearms [10]. Such an idea is practically and politically impossible. A tough assault weapons ban like one Democrats are currently proposing [29] would affect just a fraction of the total privately owned firearms in the country. Yet by invoking the historical threat of disarmament, Spitzer says, "the gun lobby has worked to throw a scare into gun owners in order to rally them to the side of the NRA."
Source URL:


Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 1:59 pm

A low estimate is 280 to 300 million guns currently in American homes. Hitler and Stalin are always the rally point for desperate people looking for the bogey man or the Big Brother behind every set of controls or limits that reasonable people wish tot see enacted for the public safety. This IS a public safety issue and not some grand conspiracy buy the guy in the White House. Good guys with guns will not protect us from lunatics with guns. Read about the FACTS, not just more propaganda by those who don't even believe the stuff they are paid to crank out for public consumption. This is not a right/left issue and not even one about those who are members of the NRA verses those who are not. Fully 60% or higher of NRA members are strongly in favor some reasonable controls on the sale of real weapons that cause massive destruction.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 2:08 pm
Excellent points Kit! Prior posted articles indicate that the NRA's positions may be dictated by weapons and ammunition manufacturers these days rather than the membership. You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.

David C (29)
Monday January 14, 2013, 3:58 pm
For 100 years the National Rifle Association was among America’s foremost pro-gun control organization, in fact it help to write most of the federal laws restricting gun use until the 1980s.
NRA formed a legislative affairs division in response to debate concerning passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. NRA supported that act, the first major federal legislation about gun control, and also supported the Gun Control Act of 1968. The two acts created a system to license gun dealers and imposed very high taxes on the private ownership of automatic weapons ("machine guns")
Eight U.S. Presidents have been NRA members. They are Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. Bush. Nixon disavowed his "Honorary Life Membership" in 1969, and Bush resigned his in 1995 in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, after LaPierre referred to federal law enforcement agents as "jack-booted thugs" and compared them to the Nazis

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 4:11 pm
Thanks David for the excellent additions for historical perspectives on the issue of gun control, various presidents and the NRA illuminating some of the apparent changes with the NRA over time. You cannot currently send a star to David because you have done so within the last week.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:12 pm
Could you provide sourcing or a link to the source you're using Julian?

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:16 pm
Correct count was 750 Jews fought and their action held up German troops from fighting on thefront lines in order to deal with them. Thank God they had guns. The UN is all part of NWO and subverting American civil and human rights.
Don't blindly follow the UN Nwo.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:26 pm
The UN doesn't think we should execute people, a violation of the human rights we asked to have included in the UN treaty--so I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:31 pm

And... though that did in fact happen, ultimately it did nothing but create a few more martyrs to Jewish cause. Having guns in the hands of the Jews did not in this incident and would not have prevented Hitler's plan, nor would it have stopped the Germany Army. So I guess whatever your point is or was is lost. I have read and studied all of WWII and this particular incident is not lost in to history. I would be very surprised if the author of this article is not aware of this incident in history. Mother Jones has an excellent reputation for reporting factually.

Nor is the point of the desire of the majority of American's that do desire some sane laws for public safety before the rights of the few Guns Nuts, feeding on nothing more than propaganda and lies by the NRA. All of this feeds into their true interests, which is of course gun sales for the gun manufacturers.

The current discussion on better safety for all citizens in NO way infringes on the rights of the second amendment.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:31 pm

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum


Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:32 pm

Oops! I didn't realize this about New World Order....Never mind. I will not attempt a rational discussion with irrational people.

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:38 pm

Oh and I should add, Yes! I will attack that crazy half wit Alex Jones any time, any where. He is a lunatic, that uses air time to feed paranoid delusional conspiracy ideation to those susceptible to his cock and bull rantings.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:38 pm
Thanks for the source Julian. Genocide is ghastly and some might want to learn more about the Holocost from this site,

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:48 pm
Alexander Emerick "Alex" Jones (born February 11, 1974) is an American talk radio host, actor and filmmaker. His syndicated news/talk show The Alex Jones Show, based in Austin, Texas, airs via the Genesis Communication Network on over 70 AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations across the United States[2] and on the Internet. His websites include and[3][4]

Mainstream sources have described Jones as a conservative[5][6][7][8] and as a right-wing conspiracy theorist.[9][10][11][12] Jones sees himself as a libertarian, and rejects being described as a right-winger.[13] He has also called himself a paleoconservative[14] and an "aggressive constitutionalist".[15][16] Jones has been the center of many controversies, such as the one surrounding his actions and statements about gun control after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting,[17] and has accused the US government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing[18] and September 11 attacks.[19]

Jones was born on February 11, 1974 in Dallas, Texas,[20] and grew up in the suburb of Rockwall. His father is a dentist.[18] He attended Anderson High School in northwest Austin, Texas. Jones was a lineman on his high school's football team.[18] As a teenager, he read Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy which strongly impacted him, and which he calls "the easiest-to-read primer on The New World Order."[21] After graduating high school he briefly attended Austin Community College.

He began his career in Austin with a live call-in format public-access television cable TV program. In 1996, Jones switched format to KJFK, hosting a show named The Final Edition.[22] During this time, Ron Paul was running for congress and was a guest on Jones' show several times.[23] The two share many beliefs and have been friends since then.[23] In his early shows, he frequently talked about his belief that the US government was behind the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing,[24] using the incident to put down a growing "states rights movement.[25] In 1998, he released his first film, America Destroyed By Design.

In 1998, Jones organized a successful effort to build a new Branch Davidian church as a memorial to those who died during the 1993 fire that ended the government's siege of the original Branch Davidian complex near Waco, Texas.[26] He often featured the project on his public-access television program and claimed that David Koresh and his followers were peaceful people who were murdered by Attorney General Janet Reno and the ATF during the siege.[22]

In 1999, he tied with Shannon Burke for that year's "Best Austin Talk Radio Host" poll as voted by The Austin Chronicle readers.[27] Later that year, he was fired from KJFK-FM for refusing to broaden his topics, his viewpoints making the show hard to sell to advertisers, according to the station's operations manager.[22] Jones argued: "It was purely political, and it came down from on high", and, "I was told 11 weeks ago to lay off Clinton, to lay off all these politicians, to not talk about rebuilding the church, to stop bashing the Marines, A to Z."[22] He began spreading his show via internet connection from his home.[24]

In early 2000, Jones was one of seven Republican candidates for state representative in Texas House District 48, an open seat swing district based in Austin, Texas. Jones stated that he was running, "to be a watchdog on the inside."[1] He aborted his campaign and withdrew before the March primary when polls indicated he had little chance of winning.

In July, a group of Austin Community Access Center (ACAC) programmers claimed that Jones used legal proceedings and ACAC policy to intimidate them or get their shows thrown off the air.[28]

In 2001, his show was syndicated on approximately 100 stations.[24] After the 9/11 terrorist attack, Jones began to speak of a conspiracy by the Bush administration as being behind the attack, which caused a number of the stations that had previously carried him to drop his program.[29]

On June 8, 2006, while on his way to cover a meeting of the Bilderberg group in Ottawa, Canada, Jones was stopped and detained at the Ottawa airport by Canadian authorities who confiscated his passport, camera equipment, and most of his belongings. He was later allowed to enter Canada lawfully. Jones said regarding the reason for his immigration hold, "I want to say, on the record, it takes two to tango. I could have handled it better."[30]

On September 8, 2007, he was arrested while protesting at 6th Avenue and 48th Street in New York City. He was charged with operating a bullhorn without a permit. Two others were also cited for disorderly conduct when his group crashed a live television show featuring Geraldo Rivera. In an article, one of Jones's fellow protesters said, "It was ... guerilla information warfare."[31]
Reception and impact

Mainstream sources have described Jones as a conservative[5][6][7][8] and as a right-wing conspiracy theorist.[9][10][11][12] The Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Files assert that he has "exploit[ed] racial animosities" to "appeal to the fears of the antigovernment Patriot movement."[32] Jones sees himself as a libertarian, and rejects being described as a right-winger.[13] He has also called himself a paleoconservative[14] and an "aggressive constitutionalist".[15][16]

Jones has been the center of many controversies, and has accused the US government of being involved in the Oklahoma City bombing[18] and September 11 attacks.[19] Jones was in a "media crossfire" in 2011, which included criticism by Rush Limbaugh, when the news spread that Jared Laughner had been "a fan" of Jones' 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change.[33] In January 2013, Jones was invited to speak on Piers Morgan's show after promoting an online petition to deport Morgan due to his support of gun control laws.[34] The interview turned into "a one-person shoutfest, as Jones riffed about guns, oppressive government, the flag, his ancestors’ role in Texan independence, and what flag Morgan would have on his tights if they wrestled."[34] The event drew widespread coverage,[34] and according to the Huffington Post, Morgan and others such as Glenn Beck "agreed that Jones was a terrible spokesman for gun rights".[35] Jones' appearance on the show was a top trending Twitter topic the following morning.[36]
Main article: The Alex Jones Show

The Alex Jones Show syndicated radio program is broadcast nationally by Genesis Communications Network to more than 70 AM and FM radio stations in the United States, and to WWCR Radio shortwave. Live-broadcast times are weekdays 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. CST and Sundays from 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. CST. The Sunday broadcast is also broadcast by Emmis Communications' KLBJ Radio.

As of 2010, he was estimated to have an audience of over 2 million listeners, with a demographic heavier in younger viewers than other conservative pundits.[29] In 2011, he had a larger on-line audience than Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh combined.[33] Author Will Bunch says that Jones was in part a model for Glenn Beck who "synthesized" some of the paranoia of Jones' commentaries into his persona.[29]

Alex Jones is also the operator of several web sites centered on news and information about civil liberties issues, global government, and a wide variety of current events topics. Several of these sites are,,, and

He has been able to mobilize his followers to create "google bomb" actions that bring particular terms to the top of search engine listing, a tactic which has then inspired other on line media, such as The Drudge Report to cover the story.[37]

Jones has directed and produced a number of videos detailing his theories of a "New World Order" and his concerns that U.S. national sovereignty and constitutional rights have both been eroded as a result. They also address his views concerning the misuse of government power, corporate deception and collusion between disparate power structures.

From Media Matters:

Who is Alex Jones?
Research October 11, 2010 7:02 AM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

As John Hamilton reported, alleged California highway shooter Byron Williams cited radio host Alex Jones as a source of information. Like Williams, Alex Jones believes in numerous anti-government conspiracy theories, such as that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job.
Williams cites Alex Jones as a source of information

From Hamilton's "Progressive Hunter":

Byron says that Gulf Coast residents should be up in arms about the conspiracy to destroy their shorelines for the profit of George Soros. "What ever happened to the spirit of the South, of the Confederacy in the Civil War?" he asks.

He blames Obama for deliberately destroying American jobs in the oil industry.

"We have a moratorium on drilling below 5,000 feet here," Byron says. "None of the other countries have that." He contends that this gives other countries an economic advantage, because they can drill far deeper.

"What I see here is a plan to bring the country down," Byron states.

I tell Byron that I haven't heard any of this and ask him where he got his information. He leans back in his chair and thinks a moment.

"Alex Jones. is his website. Also, DiscoverTheNetworks."

Jones is a conspiracist and repeat Fox News guest who mingles dire warnings of the "New World Order" with stories of government complicity in the 9-11 attacks. DiscoverTheNetworks is a website claiming to track "the individuals and organizations that make up the left." It's run by David Horowitz, a former leftist who has reinvented himself as a right-wing propagandist.


It's clear that there are some theories Byron subscribes to that Beck does not. For example, Byron endorses the claim that "the U.S. government contracted its own destruction of the twin towers." On this issue, Byron cites Alex Jones and other websites.

Jones tied to "friend" and Fox host Andrew Napolitano

Napolitano has hosted Jones, whom he calls a "dear friend"; Napolitano is also a regular on Jones' program. Fox Business host and Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano hosted Jones on his then-online show, Freedom Watch. Napolitano is also a regular guest on Jones' show and has called Jones a "dear friend" who "we go to" because of "your zeal and your courage and your fearlessness in exposing" the government. Napolitano is a frequent guest-host and guest on Glenn Beck's Fox News program.

Jones: "Beck is now able to go on the air and talk about things that 15 years ago I was called a lunatic for." During the October 7 Alex Jones Show, Jones asked Napolitano whether Napolitano has been "influencing" Glenn Beck because "he is getting more and more hardcore." Jones later suggested that Beck followed him on pushing the falsehood that Obama administration official John Holdren is in favor of "forced sterilization in the water" and added, "The mood of the country has changed if Judge Andrew Napolitano has the number one show on Fox Business and is getting a primetime show weekdays and Glenn Beck is now able to go on the air and talk about things that 15 years ago I was called a lunatic for, when all I was doing was reading their own statements."
Alex Jones' conspiracy theories

New World Order. The starting point for Jones' conspiracy theories is his belief in the existence of the New World Order, a secretive group of powerful elites with an agenda to rule the world through authoritarian world government.

The Independent Film Channel (IFC) -- which aired a documentary about Jones -- wrote that he believes the New World Order is "covertly masterminding a series of destructive events to cause a mass breakdown of the world's economy and society. Once the world has fallen into chaos, these same 'elitists' will offer a plan to rebuild the economic and social structure of the world (to their liking). ... The film captures this growing anti-New World Order movement as it targets the annual Bilderberg conference, and the 9/11 attacks as focal points in the alleged global conspiracy."

Part of the New World Order conspiracy is the meeting of the Bilderberg Group. Every year, according to Jones' website, "traitorous government officials go to Bilderberg to get their marching orders" to help enact global "serfdom and dictatorship." Jones' website also writes, "Two key Bilderberg films that contributed to this unraveling of Bilderberg's cloak of secrecy were Alex Jones' Endgame and The Obama Deception. In Endgame, Alex Jones bullhorns the 2006 Bilderberg meeting in Ottawa Canada, garnering front page coverage in major newspapers as for the first time Bilderberg's efforts to preserve their low profile agenda were blown wide open. ... In The Obama Deception, ... Alex Jones exposed how he [Obama] was personally chosen over Hillary Clinton at the 2008 Bilderberg meeting by Bilderberg luminaries and how Obama was in actual fact a compliant servant for the Bilderberg globalists who he answers to, people like Zbigniew Brzezinski."

Jones' film Fall of the Republic documents how the New World Order dictatorship is in the "final stages of completion" for an authoritarian world government:

Fall Of The Republic documents how an offshore corporate cartel is bankrupting the US economy by design. Leaders are now declaring that world government has arrived and that the dollar will be replaced by a new global currency. President Obama has brazenly violated Article 1 Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution by seating himself at the head of United Nations' Security Council, thus becoming the first U.S. president to chair the world body.

A scientific dictatorship is in its final stages of completion, and laws protecting basic human rights are being abolished worldwide; an iron curtain of high-tech tyranny is now descending over the planet. A worldwide regime controlled by an unelected corporate elite is implementing a planetary carbon tax system that will dominate all human activity and establish a system of neo-feudal slavery. The image makers have carefully packaged Obama as the world's savior; he is the Trojan Horse manufactured to pacify the people just long enough for the globalists to complete their master plan.

This film reveals the architecture of the New World Order and what the power elite have in store for humanity. More importantly it communicates how we the people can retake control of our government, turn the criminal tide and bring the tyrants to justice.

NWO will exterminate 80% of the world's population. A summary of Jones' ENDGAME film states: "For the New World Order, a world government is just the beginning. Once in place they can engage their plan to exterminate 80% of the world's population, while enabling the elites to live forever with the aid of advanced technology. ... Watch as Jones and his team track the elusive Bilderberg Group to Ottawa and Istanbul to document their secret summits, allowing you to witness global kingpins setting the world's agenda and instigating World War III ... Discover how the practitioners of the pseudo-science eugenics have taken control of governments worldwide as a means to carry out depopulation."

The U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks. Jones describes himself as being on "the front lines of the growing global information war from ground zero to the occult playgrounds of the power-mad elite. Jones predicted the attacks on September 11th, 2001 and is considered one of the very first founding fathers of the 9-11 Truth Movement."

The Anti-Defamation League wrote that "Jones may currently well be the most prominent conspiracy theorist in the United States" and "reached prominence in the years after the 9/11 terror attacks, as he became one of the most energetic of the 'truthers,' the conspiracy theorists who believe that the 9/11 attacks were an 'inside job' by the U.S. government."

The New York Times wrote that Jones "is the William Jennings Bryan of the 9/11 band." The Times described Jones' 9-11 theories as: "that the military command that monitors aircraft 'stood down' on the day of the attacks; that President Bush addressed children in a Florida classroom instead of being whisked off to the White House; that the hijackers, despite what the authorities say, were trained at American military bases; and that the towers did not collapse because of burning fuel and weakened steel but because of a 'controlled demolition' caused by pre-set bombs."

Jones' -- a sister site of that shares content and staff -- features a section for 9-11 conspiracy theories. Jones also sells "exclusive" movies dedicated to the 9-11 Truth movement:

9/11: The Road to Tyranny. The movie claims to document "the ruthless history of governments orchestrating terrorist attacks against their own people to scare them into total submission." The description continues: "In this brutal expose you will witness the birth of a global police state that surpasses Orwell's nightmarish vision. It's all here: *The history of government-sponsored terrorism *The modern implementation of fear-based control *The New World Order's future plans."

Truth Rising: The 9/11 Chronicles Part One. The movie description states: "Join Alex Jones, Luke Rudkowski and others as they set out on a mission determined to expose the ruthless global elite and alert the masses to the truth about 9/11. Strap in and get ready to ride along as criminal overlords David Rockefeller, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Alan Greenspan, John McCain, and many others are confronted about their lies and manipulation."

Jones is the executive producer for Loose Change: Final Cut and helped with "financing the production and release of the film." The movie states that it "hopes to be the catalyst for a new independent investigation, in which the family members receive answers to their questions, and the TRUE PERPETRATORS of this horrendous crime are PROSECUTED and PUNISHED." TIME notes that Loose Change is "[o]ne of the most popular conspiracy videos online, ... a 90-min. blizzard of statistics, photographs, documents, eyewitness accounts and expert testimony set to a trippy hip-hop backbeat. It's designed to pick apart, point by point, the conventional narrative of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001."

Secret FEMA camps. Alex Jones is a proponent of the conspiracy theory that the government has set up FEMA concentration camps in America. From the description of Jones' movie Police State 4 on

Police State 4: The Rise of FEMA chronicles the sickening depths to which our republic has fallen. Veteran documentary filmmaker Alex Jones conclusively proves the existence of a secret network of FEMA camps, now being expanded nationwide. The military-industrial complex is transforming our once free nation into a giant prison camp. A cashless society control grid, constructed in the name of fighting terrorism, was actually built to enslave the American people. Body scanners, sound cannons, citizen spies, staged terror and cameras on every street corner -- it's only the beginning of the New World Order's hellish plan.

This film exposes how the Continuity of Government program has established an all powerful shadow state. Prepare to enter the secretive world of emergency dictatorship, FEMA camps, and a shredded Constitution. Witness police and military savagely attacking innocent citizens as our own government unleashes false flag operations to justify its oppression. Then watch as Alex Jones takes on corrupt mercenary police and exposes mainstream media brainwashing.

The police state isn't coming -- it's already here.

Ads for the DVD show Jones' eyes above the words, "Death camps Are Real."

Jones' Obama Deception film claims that "Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law."

An April 17, 1999, Austin American-Statesman article (retrieved from Nexis) reported that, even then, Jones believed that FEMA was "building hundreds of concentration camps on military bases with separate areas for men, women and women with children."

BP oil spill a deliberate act. Jones has pushed the theory that the BP oil spill was a deliberate attack. Jones co-wrote a June 8 article headlined, "Evidence Points To BP Oil Spill False Flag." A false flag event is an operation carried out by a powerful entity to deceive the public into thinking it was carried out by someone else. False flag examples cited by conspiracy theorists include the Oklahoma City bombing, and 9-11 attacks. From Jones' article on

- Sales of shares and stocks in days and weeks beforehand

- Halliburton link, acquisition of cleanup company days before explosion

- BP report cites undocumented tampering with well sealing equipment

- Government uses disaster to push for Carbon Tax, Nationalization talk

Troubling evidence surrounding the Deepwater Horizon explosion on April 20th suggests that the incident could have been manufactured.

Jones has discussed "evidence" that the spill was a false flag event on his radio program. A program posted on Jones' YouTube channel on June 20 states that Jones "reveals why he is now sure it's a 100% false flag event to usher in the global carbon tax talked about at the G-20 summit."

Additionally, Jones has pushed numerous other conspiracy theories about weather control, mass sterilization, the Oklahoma City bombing and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, among others.


Who is Alex Jones? What is Alex Jones?

Alex Jones
October 2, 2010
By: Louis James

Radio host Alex Jones.
Radio host Alex Jones.
0 Email
Nonpartisan newsletter
Related topics

Alex Jones
independent media
Peter Joseph


This guy is something else. While his adamant stance on certain issues, like false flag attacks, criminal banking syndicates and media disinformation is both valuable and admirable, his hamfisted and belligerent approach to any and all opposing voices is quite unbearable. There are few instances in radio more cringeworthy than when Alex is cornered by a guest or caller and resorts to professional wrestling style tactics of debate rather than responding like a serious person. His own obese ego prevents him from seeing how alienating his reactionary and disjointed tirades are for many people. One of his most grotesque public showings was his "interview" with Zeitgeist creator Peter Joseph.

After attempting to match intellects and failing, Jones resorts to more and more O'Reillyesque tactics of bullying Joseph into line. It was a very revealing exchange, demonstrating Jones's utter intolerance to opposing views, and providing a good example of just how detrimental he could be to the truth/liberty movement if he were to become the defacto leader of it.

His prominence in the independent media is not always a bad thing, as he's a tireless workhorse for the exposure of many important issues and people. But one is left to wonder why an oftentimes buffoonish character, with a small minded insistance on injecting conservative social standpoints into the truth movement, has been having such remarkable success.

Perhaps it's all attributable to his hard work and his parents' money which gave him a jump start, or perhaps the establishment doesn't really mind having a divisive bible thumper waltz in and claim ownership over the entire truth movement, a movement with far more potential than could ever be expressed under the shadow of Jones. In

fact, aside from his willingness to address taboo subjects that the mainstream media can't afford to touch, it's difficult to see how he's any less misguided or socially dangerous than Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck. He's certainly more honest than either of those two cretans, but ultimately cut from the same cloth.

Alex Jones is fond of describing eugenics as a "religion of death" and indeed, eugenics is both real and actively carried out on a daily basis. However, if we're to be honest, we would have no choice but to acknowledge that Jones is a full fledged member of the true religion of death, known as Christianity. This is not to say, of course, that the goal of eugenics is not death. It most certainly is. But setting a goal for yourself is one thing. Let's look at the score card. Christianity was used, either fully or in part, as the justification for far more atrocities than can be attributed to eugenics operations.

Ultimately jones and his show end up reeking of clumsy overbearing masculinity, which is perfectly mirrored by the selection of repetitive meathead rock that is pervasive throughout the show. Worse than the lowest common denominator format, however, are Jones' transparent attempts to portray himself as a humble and ever reasonable host and speaker. The truth is that few are less humble and more self-centered than those who constantly feel the need to remind us all just how humble, generous, and selfless they are.

Talk to other members of the Austin radio scene and you'll hear about a different side of Jones, one that is viciously competitive, to the point of being simply antagonistic, and all too willing to use his clout to silence dissenting voices within his radio network. Mike Rivero, for example, was constantly pressured by GCN to lighten up on his criticism of Israel, which eventually led to his decision to leave the network in the interest of being able to speak freely. This type of schoolyard bullying is typical of Jones, who, for a masculine type, often exhibits rather thin skin.

To be fair, however, it can easily be stated that Jones is the hardest working man in independent media. Some of his shortcomings have been laid out here in explicit detail, since it is this author's belief that everyone needs a good knock every now and again, especially when the temptation to let one's ego run amok becomes greatest. So it's with deep admiration and respect for much of Jones' work that this criticism is being presented. The idea here is to learn and grow and gain strength from one another, not simply to find other intellectual team members with whom to wave a banner. So it's in the interest of abrasive, inconsiderate, party pooping American independence from any and all leaders but ourselves, that this criticism is offered.

[Note: seems to be evidence of limited education, research or other background to claim expertise or absence of bias]

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:48 pm
Kit B,
It did happen and did more than create a few martyrs. It held the German army at bay for a month keeping them off the front lines. Survivors went on to form and help the resistance. And if all civilians had been armed WW2 would have ended a lot sooner with less loss of life. Quit being abusive to us patriots who do not want to disarm and calling us nut jobs. Disarm if you want to be a slave, but don't try to take my Constitutional 2nd amendment right to arm myself from Government tyrants. Look how and liberties and rights have been taken already. NSA warrant-less monitors all your communication. NDAA allows that you can be detained indefinitely with no lawyer, reason for detention etc, Free Speech has been reduced to free speech zones when the entire country was a free speech zone. Inside border checkpoints abridging freedom of travel. Groping by TSA. President has kill list on who he will assassinate including Americans by using drones. Now demonstrating is deemed an act of terrorism so go back to NDAA. Patriot Act etc etc. Yet you trust them and disarm because they tell you that guns are bad and they the government will protect you. REALLY!!!

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:53 pm
The UN does not want to execute us. I guess you are brainwashed. Look up UN Agenda 21 and see how the plan to kill 80-90 percent of the world population. Do I need to point the evidence out to you with population reduction supporters in their own words saying this is what they want to do. Hint Bill Gates, Ted Turner to name a couple.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:01 pm
No--the UN does not and we all want the human rights as the UN treaty has the US signed.
There is nothing frightening nor binding about Agenda 21 unless one is frightened by cooperation?)
From Wiki:
Agenda 21 is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regard to sustainable development.[1] It is a product of the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992. It is an action agenda for the UN, other multilateral organizations, and individual governments around the world that can be executed at local, national, and global levels. The "21" in Agenda 21 refers to the 21st century. It has been affirmed and modified at subsequent UN conferences.

1 Structure and contents
1.1 Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions
1.2 Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development
1.3 Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups
1.4 Section IV: Means of Implementation
2 Development and evolution of Agenda 21
2.1 Rio+5 (1997)
2.2 Rio+10 (2002)
2.3 Agenda 21 for culture (2002)
2.4 Rio+20 (2012)
3 Implementation of Agenda 21
3.1 Local Agenda 21
4 Agenda 21 at national level
4.1 Agenda 21 in the United States
4.1.1 Opposition in the United States
5 See also
6 References
7 Further reading
8 External links

Structure and contents

Agenda 21 is a 300-page document divided into 40 chapters that have been grouped into 4 sections:
Section I: Social and Economic Dimensions

This section is directed toward combating poverty, especially in developing countries, changing consumption patterns, promoting health, achieving a more sustainable population, and sustainable settlement in decision making.
Section II: Conservation and Management of Resources for Development

Includes atmospheric protection, combating deforestation, protecting fragile environments, conservation of biological diversity (biodiversity), control of pollution and the management of biotechnology, and radioactive wastes.
Section III: Strengthening the Role of Major Groups

Includes the roles of children and youth, women, NGOs, local authorities, business and workers and strengthening the role of indigenous peoples, their communities, and farmers.
Section IV: Means of Implementation

Implementation includes science, technology transfer, education, international institutions and financial mechanisms.
Development and evolution of Agenda 21

The full text of Agenda 21 was revealed at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit), held in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, where 178 governments voted to adopt the program. The final text was the result of drafting, consultation, and negotiation, beginning in 1989 and culminating at the two-week conference.
Rio+5 (1997)

In 1997, the UN General Assembly held a special session to appraise the status of Agenda 21 (Rio +5). The Assembly recognized progress as "uneven" and identified key trends, including increasing globalization, widening inequalities in income, and continued deterioration of the global environment. A new General Assembly Resolution (S-19/2) promised further action.
Rio+10 (2002)
Main article: World Summit on Sustainable Development

The Johannesburg Plan of Implementation, agreed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (Earth Summit 2002) affirmed UN commitment to "full implementation" of Agenda 21, alongside achievement of the Millennium Development Goals and other international agreements.
Agenda 21 for culture (2002)
Main article: Agenda 21 for culture

The first World Public Meeting on Culture, held in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in 2002, came up with the idea to establish guidelines for local cultural policies, something comparable to what Agenda 21 was for the environment.[2] They are to be included in various subsections of Agenda 21 and will be carried out through a wide range of sub-programs beginning with G8 countries.[citation needed]
Rio+20 (2012)
Main article: United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development

In 2012, at the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development the attending members reaffirmed their commitment to Agenda 21 in their outcome document called "The Future We Want".
Implementation of Agenda 21

The Commission on Sustainable Development acts as a high-level forum on sustainable development and has acted as preparatory committee for summits and sessions on the implementation of Agenda 21. The UN Division for Sustainable Development acts as the secretariat to the Commission and works "within the context of" Agenda 21.

Implementation by member states remains essentially voluntary and its adoption has varied.
Local Agenda 21
See also: International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives

The implementation of Agenda 21 was intended to involve action at international, national, regional and local levels. Some national and state governments have legislated or advised that local authorities take steps to implement the plan locally, as recommended in Chapter 28 of the document. These programs are often known as "Local Agenda 21" or "LA21".[3] For example, in the Philippines, the plan is "Philippines Agenda 21" (PA21). The group, ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability, formed in 1990; today its members come from 1,200 cities, towns, and counties in 70 countries and is widely regarded as a paragon of Agenda 21 implementation.[4]

In other countries, opposition to Agenda 21's ideas has surfaced to varied extents. In some cases, opposition has been legislated into several States limiting or forbidding the participation and/or funding of local government activities that support Agenda 21.[5]
Agenda 21 at national level
[icon] This section requires expansion. (June 2012)

The UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs' Division for Sustainable Development monitors and evaluates progress, nation by nation, towards the adoption of Agenda 21, and makes these reports available to the public on its website.[6]

Australia, for example, is a signatory to Agenda 21 and 88 of its municipalities subscribe to ICLEI, an organization that promotes Agenda 21 globally. Australia's membership is second only to that of the United States.[7] Opposition to Agenda 21 in Australia is not covered in the major media outlets though groups such as Act Australia, a "fringe" political organization, has labeled Agenda 21 a "threat to freedom".[8] European countries generally possess well documented Agenda 21 statuses. France, whose national government, along with 14 cities, is a signatory, boasts nationwide programs supporting Agenda 21. Like Australia, however, some opponents have expressed that they view Agenda 21 as a "sham".[9]

In Africa, national support for Agenda 21 is strong and most countries are signatories. But support is often closely tied to environmental challenges specific to each country; for example, in 2002 Sam Nujoma, who was then President of Namibia, spoke about the importance of adhering to Agenda 21 at the 2002 Earth Summit, noting that as a semi-arid country, Namibia sets a lot of store in the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD).[10] Furthermore, there is little mention of Agenda 21 at the local level in indigenous media. Only major municipalities in sub-Saharan African countries are members of ICLEI. Agenda 21 participation in North African countries mirrors that of Middle Eastern countries, with most countries being signatories but little to no adoption on the local-government level. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa generally have poorly documented Agenda 21 status reports. By contrast, South Africa's participation in Agenda 21 mirrors that of modern Europe, with 21 city members of ICLEI and support of Agenda 21 by national-level government.
Agenda 21 in the United States

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is not a treaty, the Senate was unable to hold a formal debate or vote on it, nor was it ratified by the executive branch. Several congressmen and senators, however, have spoken in Congress in support of Agenda 21; these include Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, and Senator Harry Reid.[11]

In the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that helps to implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States has nearly half of the ICLEI's global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level.[12] The United States also has one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports.[13]
Opposition in the United States

During the last decade, opposition to Agenda 21 has increased within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels[citation needed]. The Republican National Committee has adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, and the Republican Party platform stated that "We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty."[14][15] Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21.[4][16][17][18][19][20] Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21, but Arizona rejected a similar bill.[5]

Activists, some of whom have been associated with the Tea Party movement by the The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have said that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights.[4][20] Columnists in The Atlantic have linked opposition to Agenda 21 to the property rights movement in the United States.[20][21] A poll of 1,300 United States voters by the American Planning Association found that 9% supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion.[20]

I suggest anyone inclined to believe to begin fact checking Mr. Jones--he's been proven wrong on way too many occasions for me to count as I looked him up

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:12 pm

Get a grip, Julian. Personal attack? Only if you make that choice.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:14 pm
Yes 911 was an inside job. Proof is there for all to see. For the short attention span people an easy to follow video can start you with facts. It is called "Loose Change". Then dig deeper to find the truth if you dare. False flag, Gulf of Tonken incident never happened. I can point out so many more but I suspect your feeble brain can't deal with the truth.

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:16 pm

Follow Jones? Me? That is too funny.

Dear Julian, you really should read more carefully before you pounce.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:21 pm
I did not say you followed Jones. I said I did. You follow Bush etc

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:23 pm
Look further that the official bs put out by UN about Agenda 21

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:24 pm
Julian, please get a grip. You are violating Care2's code of conduct. I encourage all who choose facts for decision-making to read what is in this thread indicating that Jones should probably be fact checked against a credible and reliable source on every claim he makes independently of sources with a history of reliability.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:27 pm
Agenda 21 isn't a treaty and isn't binding on anyone so where does the concern actually come from? Jones has spun proven myths before--If he is the source for concern, it isn't worth my time to look further.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:32 pm
This Forbes article makes me wonder whether he's spinning these theories strictly for personal profit (given the money he makes spinning them):
Who Is Alex Jones, Anyway? Five Fun Factoids
33 comments, 4 called-out
Comment Now
Follow Comments



Alex Jones

Syndicated radio host Alex Jones has moved from the fringe to center stage, at least temporarily, following a spittle-flecked appearance on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight.” But who is he, anyway? A quick primer:

1. For a guy who’s pretty out there, he’s got some scale. His daily four-hour show airs on more than 60 AM and FM radio stations, according to, one of his two websites. It’s syndicated by Genesis Communications, a radio network founded in 1998 by Midas Resources, a vendor of gold and silver coins. The show draws 2 million listeners per week, according to a 2010 Texas Monthly profile. and, his other site, attract a monthly unique audience of 4 million. Jones also has a YouTube channel with 350,000 subscribers, which has received more than 260 million views. He’s produced around 25 documentaries, depending how you count them, including “Loose Change,” the most famous of the films alleging that the Sept. 11 attacks were an inside job by the U.S. government.
Alex Jones Spins 'Piers Morgan' Appearance: 'I Don't Respect That Show' Jeff Bercovici Jeff Bercovici Forbes Staff
What Does Keith Olbermann Have Against Bald People? Jeff Bercovici Jeff Bercovici Forbes Staff
Piers Morgan Lashes Out On Twitter Against Petition Asking White House To Deport Him Alex Kantrowitz Alex Kantrowitz Contributor
Rush Limbaugh + Twitter = A Recipe For Disaster Jeff Bercovici Jeff Bercovici Forbes Staff

Altogether, Jones was taking in revenues of about $1.5 million per year in 2010, enough to support a staff of 15 and enable him to buy an $800,000 house and 7,600 square foot studio.

2. He’s never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t like. Or basically never, anyway. Jones believes that a pan-global cabal of the super-rich, with its origins in a century-old cult called the Illuminati, is conspiring to exterminate most of the world’s population and enslave the rest. Among the tools of this so-called New World Order: mind control, water fluoridation, the global warming “hoax,” eugenics, the World Bank and the IMF, flu vaccines, FEMA, the Gates Foundation and psyscho-active drugs, both legal and illegal.

He believes the recent mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado, and Tucson, Arizona, were the work of perpetrators who’d been programmed by the government as part of a plot to deprive Americans of their guns. He believes Sen. Paul Wellstone was killed by a microwave gun and dead before his plane crashed. He believes the federal government engineered the Oklahoma City bombing as a coded reminder of the way it had crushed the Branch Davidians in Waco a year earlier.

Some of his theories are patently unfalsifiable — any proof of their falsity is just part of the cover-up — but some aren’t. On his show Tuesday, he claimed Piers Morgan must have been a government operative in order to know the mechanics of hacking mobile phones. In fact, no special knowledge was required to hack cell phones; Morgan’s tabloid colleagues simply relied on the fact that most phone owners never bothered to change the default pass codes. The phone companies have since fixed the problem.

3. For a dude who believes virtually every powerful institution is a tool of an evil conspiracy, he’s surprisingly keen on Hollywood. “The globalists want us turned toward Hollywood and the TV so they can poison us,” he told Rolling Stone in 2001. Yet he loves to quote movies, especially science fiction movies like “Star Wars,” “The Matrix,” “Star Trek,” “Starship Troopers” and “Dune.”

He’s friendly with filmmaker and fellow Austinite Richard Linklater, who has put him into two of his movies, and Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine, who named an album after one of Jones’s films. His love of heavy metal music is especially curious given that genre’s long association (mostly in the form of urban myths) with Satanism and subliminal mind control. (Jones famously tried to catch global elites performing what he believed to be Satanic rituals at Bohemian Grove.)

4. Speaking of his famous friends, he’s pals with Charlie Sheen and helped to get him fired from “Two and a Half Men.” It was on Jones’s show that Sheen laced into the CBS sitcom’s creator, Chuck Lorre, in a way that was widely perceived as anti-Semitic. For the record, Jones himself has long taken pains to distance himself from overt anti-Semitism or racism of any kind.

5. Some of his enemies aren’t who you’d think they’d be, either. He especially hates Rush Limbaugh, whom he calls a “whore,” and Glenn Beck, whom he accuses of stealing his theories and presenting them as his own, yet only after twisting them in a way that lets big business and the Republican Party largely off the hook.

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:33 pm

I'm a life long democrat and I don't call any one names. Though you are certainly free to draw what ever conclusion that you find suit your own way of thinking.

You just might want to heed that warning, Julian. Care2 does have a code of conduct and you stepping all over that. Cool off and come back later, that might help.

(Though I would say again that you should probably read more carefully before drawing assumptions about others.)

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:39 pm

And...Yes, as we all know by now the Gulf of Tonkin was a complete fabrication used for a rally point as a means of justification for war with Veitnam.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:45 pm
Simple thought.
UN Agenda 21
Obama executive order
Bill Gates Depopulation
Georgia Guidestones (NWO)
Few things for thought


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:48 pm
No you are violating code of conduct with your attacks on me for differing with you. You cool off.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:51 pm
Julian--Kit made statements about Jones that you took as if she directed them at you then began personal attack mode. Her comments are not filled with the emotion yours show.

BREAKING Bullets Planted in Luggage of Ron Paul Delegate at 2012 RNC
robrobbyrob1robrobbyrob1 is all I can find for checking source credibility on first video (in other words no information and thus could be a posted prank)...if the others are similar, you did not provide me with any source that can be verified.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:04 pm
Apparently followers of Jones may believe he is the source of the claims Mother Jones investigated and found a multitude of experts who had reviewed extensively historical data, records, etc. and found at least a preponderance of evidence against the claims related to gun control.

If it seemed warranted, I suspect similar evidence could be found that personal firearms would not have done much in battles against tanks from weapons and military experts then any more than recent testimony from US military experts indicate they could against current military weapons.

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:06 pm

Dear Julian,
Again I say go back and read my comments. I did say that Alex Jones was full of hot air and makes his appeal (for which he is well paid) to those who follow conspiracy ideation. I did not at any point direct the comment to you. I have not violated either your rightsnor that of the Care2 code of conduct. You however, jumped way over that line.

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:08 pm

To anyone attempting to follow this thread --- good luck! Just read the opening article and pass over these silly back and forth comments. They have absolutely nothing to do with the excellent article submitted by J L.

I do apologize J L.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:12 pm
No apology needed Kit. And thanks for assisting my effort to return the focus to the article itself and related content. You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.

Past Member (0)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:14 pm
Good article. Noted. I don't think anyone's rights or whatever are really threatened by the application of common sense: no hunter needs an assault weapon or a 150 round clip for hunting nor does any American need such things for their immediate defense. The NRA has hijacked the Second Amendment for their own agenda, including to profit all their corporate sponsors.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:14 pm
Wrong JLA her words
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:38 pm

Oh and I should add, Yes! I will attack that crazy half wit Alex Jones any time, any where. He is a lunatic, that uses air time to feed paranoid delusional conspiracy ideation to those susceptible to his cock and bull rantings.

Read it she is saying I am less knowledgeable by being susceptible to delusional cock and bull rantings. She went further to suggest I said for her to follow Alex Jones which I did not. I said she follows the Bushs'
Quit trying to vilify me for her attacks.

Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:21 pm

Right you are Brian. No one needs to own or use a military designed assault rifle, other than on the field of battle.

Indeed, the NRA and other gun manufacture lobbies are making their usual and wholly expected argument for the gun makers with total disregard for the public safety.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:21 pm
No Julian--her comments clearly and explicitly are exclusively about Jones, who my research indicates more who know him share her view than don't. The rest is something apparently only you see since there are no printed words to support your jump in taking them to be directed at you. Is it possible that you identify so much with him that you now automatically see critiques of Jones as a personal attack on you? She attacked his credibility, which does not violate the code of conduct like your personal attacks on her did. You copied her words and still did not see that all of them clearly were solely about Jones.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:21 pm
My comments were to give opposing view on unproven story and was attacked. The rest was back and forth but still deals with the fact that the premise of the article is false proven by
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum

Just because you can't take the truth don't attack me and pretend you didn't.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:23 pm
Thank you Brian for adding those excellent points to the discussion! Unfortunately I cannot send you a green star yet!

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:23 pm
Assault rifles are also used to defend yourself from tyrannical governments and rioters as in LA riots.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:25 pm
I copied her words but you could not see that she implied that I was suscitable thus weaker. Learn to read.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:26 pm
And comprehend.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:27 pm
No, the museum's historical information did not address gun control policies whatsoever (the article topic with experts viewed as equal if not more knowledgeable than museum curators) nor did the museum information address any hypothesis of any different outcome had there been more guns. All of that was either provided by you independent of any source Julian or from Jones without any identifiable credible source.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:28 pm
Better yet go back and watch the deliberate dumbing down of America video.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:28 pm
Please do not begin personal attacks on me because you are reading words and meaning that no one else sees Julian.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:30 pm
That video had no credible sourcing Julian when I looked the last time you suggested it---Please go cool down and stop with the personal attacks on this thread.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 8:33 pm
I'll repost this comment to try to return this thread to its actual topic(article):

Apparently followers of Jones may believe he is the source of the claims Mother Jones investigated and found a multitude of experts who had reviewed extensively historical data, records, etc. and found at least a preponderance of evidence against the claims related to gun control.


Kit B (276)
Monday January 14, 2013, 9:09 pm

After the January battle, the Jews spent the following weeks training, acquiring weapons, and making plans to defend of the ghetto. The Germans also prepared for the possibility of a fight. On the eve of the final deportation, Heinrich Himmler replaced the chief of the SS and police in the Warsaw district, Obergruppenfuhrer Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg, with SS und Polizeifuhrer (SS and Police Leader) Jurgen Stroop, an officer who had experience fighting partisans.

The ghetto fighters were warned of the timing of the final deportation and the entire Jewish population went into hiding. On the morning of April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising began after German troops and police entered the ghetto to deport its surviving inhabitants. Seven hundred and fifty fighters armed with a handful of pistols, 17 rifles, and Molotov cocktails faced more than 2,000 heavily armed and well-trained German troops supported by tanks and flamethrowers.

***This in no way diminishes the brave efforts of those who tried to take on the German Army by fighting for their lives.***

Not that any of this has anything to do with this article or the current discussion on some reasonable attempts to control the many abuses of our "gun culture". Most of can not and should not own a "flame thrower" or have a tank parked in our garage. Therefore, to try to make a comparison between the German Army or Hitler is a fool's errand, though I expect will hear more about Hitler and Stalin in the coming weeks. When discussing any attempt at reasonable and needed gun controls in this country; Hitler and Stalin always come up in the discussion.

JL A (281)
Monday January 14, 2013, 9:19 pm
Thanks Kit for finding and posting this succinct yet complete factual history. I suspect you will be proven correct on how often we are apt to hear references to this chapter of history and am glad we all have factual information to be comfortable and confident in responding to any misrepresentations about this chapter and I, for one, welcome it. For those less familiar with that part of WWII, this helps see why MJ chose to do the investigative work this article presents. You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:41 am

Interesting information to consider . . . I actually read this yesterday after receiving it from one of my newsletter subscriptions, so I'm glad you posted it.

As for the vitriol ruining this thread, it's shameful. I actually enjoy intelligent debate from opposing opinions, but have no patience with those who inconsiderately (and with questionable motives) decide to stray from the actual subject matter.

I am a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but believe that our founders never envisioned the fervor of certain industries to perfect ways to kill people. There definitely needs to be some control, but I am not going to jump to the highly-improbable extreme of believing the government is taking the first steps to completely disarming American citizens. (Good luck with that here in the South! LOL)

For one thing, the government already has more than enough military, tanks, sophisticated weaponry . . . and so on that I doubt they'd be intimidated by some disorganized civilians with knock-offs of some of their arsenal.

In fact, even the "hint" that the government is attempting to take away people's guns has caused a huge spike of gun and ammo sales. So, another possibility is that (again) the public is being manipulated, but this time by the NRA and arms manufacturers.

Too bad we have to constantly question such things, but it's a reality (and eternal vigilance is a necessity).


JL A (281)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:13 am
Excellent analyses as usual Carole! Thanks so much for sharing them with us. I cannot even imagine trying to stop both a drone and whoever is controlling it from afar concurrently. And following the money tells us that current policies, where the evidence indicates ALEC (and the corporations that are members) and NRA (and the corporations that are members, if that's the right term) are the primary voices and financing of advertising/propaganda for unfettered proliferation of weapons to residents and other countries who have exponentially increased their profits and income: evidence of why eternal vigilance is indeed necessary.
You cannot currently send a star to Just because you have done so within the last week.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 5:44 am

I couldn't help but think of a joke I recently read (but which is totally on topic):

Barack Obama was in the Oval Office when his telephone rang. "Hello, President Obama," a heavily-accented southern voice said. "This is Archie, down here at Joe's Catfish Shack, in Mobile, and I am callin' to tell ya'll that we are officially declaring war on y'all!"

"Well, Archie," Barack replied, "This is indeed important news! How big is your army?"

"Right now," said Archie, after a moment's calculation, "there is myself, my cousin Harold, my next-door-neighbor Randy, and the whole dart team from Hooters. That makes eight!"

Barack paused. "I must tell you, Archie, that I have one million men in my army waiting to move on my command."

"Wow," replied Archie. "I'll have to call ya back!"

Sure enough, the next day, Archie called again. "Mr. Obama, the war is still on! We have managed to acquire some infantry equipment!"

"And what equipment would that be Archie?" Barack asked.

"Well sir, we have two combines, a bulldozer, and Harry's farm tractor."

President Obama sighed. "I must tell you, Archie, that I have 16,000 tanks and 14,000 armored personnel carriers. Also, I've increased my army to one and a half million since we last spoke."

"Lord above," said Archie, "I'll be getting back to ya."

True to form, Archie called again the next day. "President Obama, I am sorry to have to tell you that we have had to call off this here war."

"I'm sorry to hear that," said Barack. "Why the sudden change of heart?"

"Well, sir," said Archie, "we've all sat ourselves down and had a long chat over sweet tea, and come to realize that there's just no way we can feed that many prisoners."

JL A (281)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 6:08 am
Thanks Carole for helping lighten the tone of this thread!

John B (185)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 1:56 pm
Thanks J.L. for the post. It certainly got a discussion going. Not much I can add, great comments. Read and noted.

JL A (281)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 2:01 pm
You're welcome John. That it did. You cannot currently send a star to John because you have done so within the last week.

Carrie B (306)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 2:51 pm
Wow, I don't know what to say. Sorry Kit and J.L. are being so viciously attacked here. Completely unacceptable and way over the line! Good post J.L. and good comments from most.

JL A (281)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 2:53 pm
Thanks Carrie. I agree.

Past Member (0)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 2:58 pm
Having already commented on the article, this comment is more directed to the rather flaming direction that this thread has gone:

Here is a concept for all to consider. People need to not just read the blurbs of news posts and start commenting "from the hip" so to speak. Click the link. Read the article. Then comment on the article. Comments are best when kept in the third person. First person and second person comments always seem to lead to a great deal of heat, but almost no light.

JL A (281)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 3:00 pm
Thanks for adding your astute observations Brian (and forgive me for the first and second person aspect here)! You cannot currently send a star to Brian because you have done so within the last week.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 3:54 pm
JLA, you are wrong.
I was attacked but you are just too blinded by your stance to see.
See meaning of word susceptible. : capable of submitting to an action, process, or operation
: open, subject, or unresistant to some stimulus, influence, or agency
: impressionable, responsive

— sus·cep·ti·ble·ness noun
— sus·cep·ti·bly adverb
See susceptible defined for English-language learners »
See susceptible defined for kids »

The virus can infect susceptible individuals.

Researchers at the University of South Carolina say that a chemical found abundantly in red wine, apples and onions helps protect against influenza, especially after a rigorous respiratory workout, when the body is more susceptible to infection. —Kim Marcus et al., Wine Spectator, 31 May 2009
[+]more. Synonyms: endangered, exposed, open, sensitive, subject (to), liable, vulnerable.
Note vulnerable, not resistent to stimulis.
So that makes me weak per her definition and you don't call that an attack.
She also lied saying I said see follows Alex Jones. I support majority of what he says but I don't buy it all. I don't support Ron Paul. JLA you said no credibility well maybe you should watch when the information he puts out is from government issued and released documents. Refute that as non credible. I agree that I dislike his shrill shouting but I understand the message over the delivery. I listen to Jesse Ventura, David Icke among others and the AEG on 911 truth. Check your facts before your attacks. Go watch The Deliberate dumbing Down of America again and go past Rockefeller and see part about gmos and drugs to all mass shooters. Credible source if you look up producers see from mak 8:23 to 10:43 mark. The source A National Education report: Education in the 70's.
Still relevant now and a credible source. Now go educate yourself.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 3:57 pm
Thank you to my new friend and stars sent my way from others for my comments. You know who you are. Much appreciated.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:04 pm

“I just watched my dog chase his tail for ten minutes and I thought, ‘Dogs are easily entertained’ – and then I realized I had just watched my dog chase his tail for ten minutes.”

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.
Alvin Toffler


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:07 pm
Kit said I was irrational. I responded to that attack but attacked by others forgetting she attacked me.
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:32 pm

Oops! I didn't realize this about New World Order....Never mind. I will not attempt a rational discussion with irrational people.

ir·ra·tion·al (-rsh-nl)
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
a. Being a syllable in Greek and Latin prosody whose length does not fit the metric pattern.
b. Being a metric foot containing such a syllable.
3. Mathematics Of or relating to an irrational number.
n. Mathematics
An irrational number.
ir·ration·al·ly adv.
ir·ration·al·ness n.

So per Kit,
I suffer from this
a. Not endowed with reason.
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock.
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike.
Damn sounds like a personal attack to me.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:09 pm

And here I was thinking this thread was about new ideas on gun control, when all the time it was actually one perceived misunderstanding by one commenter. I wonder, could it be possible to that other have read and watched these suggested videos and intellectually reject these ideas? Ummmm....


JL A (281)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:12 pm
b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental clarity; incoherent, as from shock. [Many would describe as a kind attribute when put with a comment not directly addressing the subject or the content of an article]
c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike. [Many say comments unrelated to the focus of an article when no words related to that topic are provided that gives linkage as many expect for accord with reason or sound judgement]
Take your pick which compliment and kindness was intended.

Kit B (276)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:32 pm

What is it the rooster crows come the morn? Wack-a-doodle?

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 8:32 pm

I do hope that all members -- who recognize the need for cohesiveness in these troubled times of what is, ever-increasingly, becoming a class war and an assault on human liberties -- will exercise good judgment when conferring with their fellow compatriots.

While we may disagree on some points, it is essential that we treat each other with respect (and maybe find one kernel of knowledge presented by a member with whom we seem to be at odds otherwise).

This country has -- with highly-paid psychological assistance -- used fear-mongering propaganda and divisiveness to fracture the citizenry. Most of us are now becoming aware of that; and in many cases, are bitterly decrying the betrayal.

Let's rise above them and refuse to give them the final victory of dividing the ranks.


Past Member (0)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 6:04 am
Hitler??? Who???

Kenneth L (314)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 6:20 am
As far as Alex Jones, he's sort of like Limbaugh on steroids. And not in a good way either.

Suzanne L (99)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 7:28 am
Alex Jones is an alarmist and fear-driven. Kenneth L. you took the thought right out of my head. The U.S. is an exception in the worldl. Canada and other democracies by and large do not allow guns in the hands of citizenry and we all manage quite well. When we don't like what the government does we organize peaceful protests, write letters, sign petitions and stuff like that. On the Toronto news last night I heard about a theif who broke into an elderly woman's home. She tackled him with a bseball bat and he fled. Authorities figure he'll be easy to spot form all the bruises, but no one died. That's how things go when people aren't armed to the teeth.

paul m (93)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 7:50 am

Nice one Kit,,,,

Past Member (0)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:07 pm
Do dictators try to disarm the public? Even the author admits this is true, but tries to argue that it didn't matter either way, it made no difference in the outcome of events. The author cannot prove that point, because we cannot know what the outcomes would have been had guns not been removed from the populace, or certain segments of the populace. I would argue that dictators would think twice about wars and repression when they know the populace is well armed. While i agree, we need to do something about "crazies' with guns, disarming the populace is Not the answer!

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:09 pm
Thanks for your on topic comment Robert.

Dotti L (85)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:08 pm
WOW is all that I can say after reading this article and the comments. Thanks JLA.

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 2:15 pm
You are welcome Dotti.

Craig Zimmerman (86)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 3:09 pm
Good article. History is rarely simple and the press should not repeat slogans from any political group until they do some research on the validity of those slogans.

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 3:47 pm
Note to readers: Care2 has removed the comments deemed violating the Code of Conduct from this thread so some of the references in comments may be related to comments that are no longer here.

Sheila D (28)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 5:27 pm
I have heard this line of reasoning for decades. It's nice to read facts, for a change. Thanks for the article J.L. Interesting comments, also.

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 5:37 pm
You are welcome Sheila. You cannot currently send a star to Sheila because you have done so within the last week.

Craig W. (2)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 6:16 pm
After reading these post I am amazed the no one seems to understand that lunatics and criminals do not obey.gun laws. If you look at the history for the past 50 years you will see that the only effective gun laws are the ones that allow concealed carry. Every restrictive law has failed and the violence escalates after each one is passed into law. Chicago has one of the toughest gun laws in the U.S. but has one of the highest crimes per capita.

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 6:54 pm
FactCheck: the Data and research links posted above showed the results of the actual data collected are the stricter the gun laws, the less the crime--and especially fewer gun homicides.

Ellen m (215)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:01 pm
A very good post JL, but after reading the comments I can see why there are many more people just "noting" than there are posting comments..
I myself don't have the energy tonight to feed the troll, and you and Kit, along with a few others have shown remarkable restraint in your intelligent posts. kudos ;-)

Walt G (2)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:06 pm
(Kenneth L: Wednesday January 16, 2013, 6:15 am
All you have to do is look and see if there are any democratic countries in the world that do not have any guns in the hands of the citizens worth mentioning, and are not dictatorships. That would be Canada, Japan, and I'm sure others if I looked further.
That blows the 'if the citizens aren't loaded with guns the gov't will become a dictatorship!' rant. The paranoid are very vocal sometimes
Suzanne L: “Canada and other democracies by and large do not allow guns in the hands of citizenry and we all manage quite well.”)
Kenneth/Suzanne....sigh! Do you NEVER check your facts before parading your ideas for the world to see? Lawfully owned firearms in Canada arguably number somewhere in excess of 20,000,000....this figure does NOT include all the illegal guns which are predominantly possessed by criminals and others of that ilk. That might make us have a per capita rate of firearms ownership a little less than the USA, but only a little, since accurate figures of actual firearms in either country is subject to estimation and conjecture, not hard fact.

The reality is that millions of Canadians have owned and used firearms legally and responsibly for as long as we've been a country, contrary to what both of you either stated or implied. So....look elsewhere for 'fact' to support your own ideologically driven, emotion-laden rhetoric, please.

Just as a axiom or truism is that there are no simple solutions to complex problems.....yet it is human nature to seek such. Japan has LOW individual firearm ownership...and LOW murder rates...Switzerland has HIGH firearm ownership and LOW murder rates....contradicting the rhetoric seen here so often. As Craig W and others have pointed out.....the areas of the USA with the MOST STRINGENT and COMPREHENSIVE and RESTRICTIVE firearms laws.....just happen to be the areas with the highest murder/violent crime rate....while the areas with the most 'lax' firearms laws, and widespread firearm ownership....just happen to have the lowest murder rates. I submit we need to look elsewhere than emotional, knee-jerk responses for the answers....if we're really interested in actually curbing violent crime.

JL A (281)
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 11:41 pm
This research indicates that fewer guns=fewer homicides:
Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

[a peer reviewed journal article which means it has the highest standard for credibility, reliability and validity or truth of any source]
and these also:

Two non government respected research entities with expertise in doing such analyses (e.g., appropriate statistical analyses for the type of data( with findings quite similar to the official government evaluation

Statistics is the method which determines where a case (e.g., Switzerland) is a data anomaly and thus different from all other developed countries where what is true there is not true for anywhere else--often because of some unique factor that has yet to be identified or isolated which may not be a factor that can exist anywhere else.

There is a place with a lot of people over 100 years old. Do people assume that means everyone everywhere can expect to live that long and the expected lifespan is untrue elsewhere? No. It means they are different from elsewhere and researchers are trying to determine whether or not what makes them different is diet or something else people elsewhere can possible do to live longer.

A different example is that a lot of people would say that when you are getting dehydrated you get thirsty. Except that often isn't true for nonagenerians and octogenerians. Does that mean it is untrue? No it just means there are limits to who it is factual for.

If there are credible research studies that differ from the ones I found, that were published in peer reviewed journals using methods that make them generalizable to whole country, please provide the sourcing links. Otherwise the factcheck says that more stringent gun laws reduces homicides and some other crimes compared to places with less stringent gun laws.

Kenneth L (314)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:42 am
Rhetoric? Walt, the ONLY people of any number in Canada who have hand guns are the cops and some criminals. The military has their own guns. Then there are hunters and some farmers with long guns. Don't try to project your dumbass U.S. gun mentality onto me or Canada. I've lived here 60 years Never even SEEN a handgun except in a cop holster. Canadians don't like handguns, don't want them, don't even THINK about them.
What a warped view about how 'everyone must have guns or there will be rampant crime'. LIE. FALSE. NOT TRUE. Any Canadian knows that and so does any citizen in Japan and I'm sure other countries.

Kenneth L (314)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:49 am
As for Switzerland they don't have a regular Army, they have made their little 8 million population into a people's militia where most young men are conscripted into it and then given guns to keep in their homes and trained in their use as a militia. They don't have some long running dumbass gun culture mentality like the U.S. and they don't have a perversion of some 'right to bear arms' mentality either.

robert zank (0)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 3:07 am

Jaime Alves (52)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 6:08 am

JL A (281)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 8:57 am
Source information about Robert's post (to allow consideration of bias and credibility):
About Food for the Thinkers
My name is Doug Newman. I live in Aurora, Colorado, just outside Denver. Food for the Thinkers is mostly about the connection between Christianity and libertarianism. Most Christians do not understand libertarianism. And most libertarians do not understand Christianity. Hopefully, this blog helps clear up those misunderstanding. Check out my old page at And remember: When you let people do whatever they want, you get Woodstock. But when you let governments do whatever they want, you get Auschwitz.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 1:35 pm
Thank you Robert and the posting of Doug Collins remarks. All on target and Doug's comment did not mention gun control 'directly but was spot on.
Source information about Robert's post (to allow consideration of bias and credibility):
About Food for the Thinkers
My name is Doug Newman. I live in Aurora, Colorado, just outside Denver. Food for the Thinkers is mostly about the connection between Christianity and libertarianism. Most Christians do not understand libertarianism. And most libertarians do not understand Christianity. Hopefully, this blog helps clear up those misunderstanding. Check out my old page at And remember: When you let people do whatever they want, you get Woodstock. But when you let governments do whatever they want, you get Auschwitz.

You definitely get Auschwitz.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 1:45 pm
BREAKING Bullets Planted in Luggage of Ron Paul Delegate at 2012 RNC
robrobbyrob1robrobbyrob1 is all I can find for checking source credibility on first video (in other words no information and thus could be a posted prank)...if the others are similar, you did not provide me with any source that can be verified.

JLA what are you talking about? Bullets in Ron Paul's luggage. I already stated that I do not support Alex Jones boy Ron Paul. I also don't blindly follow Alex Jones. I did say when his videos show released government documents or military documents then his videos are relevant. I also said I dislike his shrill shouting but did say I get the message regardless of the delivery. I believe he has vastly great credibility the majority of the time than not. So please you and your followers quit attacking me if you dislike Alex Jones.
I see my comments still here so C2 deems my comments as not a violation. Gee I wonder if they removed any of yours and Kits.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 1:48 pm
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:12 pm

Get a grip, Julian. Personal attack? Only if you make that choice.

What shall I get a grip of? My mentality? Define as this can be construed as a personal attack.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 1:52 pm
Monday January 14, 2013, 6:38 pm
Thanks for the source Julian. Genocide is ghastly and some might want to learn more about the Holocost from this site,

I should have thanked you for your civil comment here and am doing so now. I was derailed by Kit's assertion that these Jews created only martyrs. I replied to her o that incorrect assumption. But I neglected to thank you.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 1:58 pm
Monday January 14, 2013, 7:39 pm

And...Yes, as we all know by now the Gulf of Tonkin was a complete fabrication used for a rally point as a means of justification for war with Veitnam.

Good then you know the government lies to you.
911 lies, Kennedy assassinations, illegal experiments drugs and nuclear perpetuated on US citizens.
That is why I am against gun control as I don't trust the government to protect me.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:04 pm
Look what popped up on yahoo today saying the same thing and more on assault weapons. Although I did ay something in error and said all guns are assault weapons. If used in an assault they are. But single shot weapons like zip guns, one shot derringers or one shot rifles are not semi automatic.

What Is an Assault Weapon?
By Marc Lallanilla, Life's Little Mysteries Assistant Editor | – 4 hrs ago
• Email
• Share

• 3
• Print
Related Content
• View Photo
Which of these are assault weapons, …
For years, a debate has raged over the role of assault weapons in a nation where the "right to keep and bear arms" is enshrined in the Constitution. But what exactly is an assault weapon?
The weapons have come to the forefront with President Barack Obama's gun control proposals, including a push for a renewed assault weapons ban and for a ban on high-capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition.
Though politicians and gun enthusiasts each have their own definition of what is and isn't an assault weapon, a useful framework for the debate was written into law in 1994, when the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was enacted during the Clinton administration.
That law, according to Mike Cooper on, defined an assault weapon as "any semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine and at least two of the following five items: a folding or telescopic stock; a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor or threaded barrel (a barrel that can accommodate a flash suppressor); or a grenade launcher."
That definition, however, raises about as many questions as it answers. For example, how does having a bayonet mount (but not an actual bayonet) turn a rifle into an assault rifle? And outside of Civil War re-enactments, who actually still uses a bayonet? [10 Major Innovations That Revolutionized Combat]
"Yes, they still make them," Cooper wrote. "In a desperate wartime situation, a bayonet gives you something somewhat more effective than a raised middle finger when you've run out of bullets." But labeling a rifle an assault weapon because it has a metal clip where one might potentially mount a bayonet is "circular reasoning," Cooper wrote.
One significant problem with the particulars of legal definitions, said John Sweeney of, is that gun manufacturers easily slipped through the loopholes in the AWB by removing any features that defined a rifle as an assault weapon.
"The definition of the assault weapon in that [AWB] legislation had so many extras — bayonet mount, for example — that simply by making a few superficial changes, the basic AR-15 [semiautomatic rifle] was no longer an assault weapon," Sweeney wrote.
As flawed as the AWB definition of assault weapons may be, the wording has found its way into many state codes, including that of Connecticut, site of the December Newtown school shootings. "The AR-15 that [shooter] Adam Lanza used was a legal weapon under Connecticut law," wrote Sweeney.
Another point of contention in the gun control debate is the use of magazine clips that hold ammunition. The Connecticut definition of "assault weapon" includes semiautomatic pistols with "an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip." While many states have no such restrictions on magazine clips, other states place a limit on the number of rounds a weapon's magazine can hold. (States can create their own definitions of what makes an assault weapon, but that definition can't be weaker than the federal one.)
Despite the vagaries of state and federal laws, there is some common ground among gun rights' activists and gun control advocates. Fully automatic weapons like machine guns, which continue to fire bullets as long as the trigger is pulled, are legal to own but are tightly regulated by the federal government, according to Many states have regulations that are stricter, or have outright bans on automatic weapons.
It's the definition of semiautomatic weapons, which fire a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, that sets off sparks in the gun control debate. Most firearms available today, including small handguns, rifles and pistols, are semiautomatic, according to
The FN Five-seven handgun that was used in the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, was a semiautomatic weapon capable of shooting 20 rounds in just 5.3 seconds. And the Glock 19 that Jared Loughner used to shoot Gabrielle Giffords and kill six people in Tucson, Ariz., in 2011 was a semiautomatic handgun, reports
Both of those handguns, however, were perfectly legal even under the AWB, which expired in 2004.
Follow LiveScience on Twitter @livescience. We're also on Facebook & Google+.
• 5 Milestones in Gun Control History
• 10 Historically Significant Political Protests
• Top 10 Controversial Psychiatric Disorders


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:10 pm
Now to you Kenneth. Rhetoric, those counties you mentioned all all part of the NWO agenda. It exists. Ask both Bush presidents, Clinton (both), Kissinger, Obama, the Pope and many more. One world government with one currency, one religion, one military. Sorry I want my sovereignty.

As to Switzerland with no standing army, they also don't have a gun ban or gun control laws on their citizens. Look it up.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:23 pm
Now to all. I don't trust the government as legislators only vote on what CFR tells them to. Council og Foreign Relation is made up by unelected former politicians, judges, bankers etc and have no business making laws.
I trust the 2nd amendment.
Now if you want to see how your legislators voted on any bills or specific bills go the the Library of Congress Thomas.

You will see many pending bills sent to CFR for approval. And you thought you lived in a democracy. Wrong the word democracy appears no where in the constitution as we were a Republic.
Do some homework and look up the differences of Monarchies, fascist, communist, socialist, democracy and Republic goverments.

Past Member (0)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:24 pm
I don't generally set much store by bans, but when there's a problem, it needs to be addressed in some way, not just "reasoned" away (meaning scared away) by pundits.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:33 pm
Here is Hillary Clinton admitting CFR runs the government.

Don't disarm me or the people.

JL A (281)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:55 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Laura because you have done so within the last week.

JL A (281)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:59 pm
CFR is the acronym for the Code of Federal Regulations.

From Wikipedia:
Code of Federal Regulations

Regulations are created and used by executive agencies to "clarify" the intent and scope of federal statutes, which an agency is charged with administrating or enforcing. Statutes are the actual laws passed by Congress; regulations are the "who, what, when, where, and how" involved in administrating and/or enforcing the statute.


Every regulation in the CFR must have an "enabling statute", or statutory authority. The United States Code (U.S. Code) precedes the CFR and contains statutes enacted by Congress. The CFR contains regulations, which spell out in further detail how the executive branch will interpret the law.[1] The two documents represent different stages in the legislative process. The U.S. Code is a codification of legislation, while the CFR serves as administrative law. Administrative law exists because the Congress often grants broad authority to executive branch agencies to interpret the statutes in the U.S. Code (and in uncodified statutes) which the agencies are entrusted with enforcing. Congress may be too busy, congested, or gridlocked to micromanage the jurisdiction of those agencies by writing statutes that cover every possible detail, or Congress may determine that the technical specialists at the agency are best equipped to develop detailed applications of statutes to particular fact patterns as they arise.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, the agencies are permitted to promulgate detailed rules and regulations through a public "rulemaking" process where the public is allowed to comment, known as public information. After a period of time, the rules and regulations are usually published in the Federal Register.

The Parallel Table of Authorities and Rules in the index to the CFR correlates laws with their regulations using U.S. Code citations, Statutes at Large citations, and Public Law numbers.[2]

The code was started in 1938.
Effect of administrative law

The rules are treated by the courts as being as legally binding as statutory law, provided the regulations are a reasonable interpretation of the underlying statutes. This "reasonable interpretation" test or Chevron doctrine was articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in a unanimous decision (six voting, three recused) involving a challenge to new Clean Air Act regulations promulgated by the Reagan administration in 1981. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[3]

I would hope CFR runs the government since is intended to do just that.

. (0)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 3:33 pm
Kit. thank you for trying to keep a focus on this article. Mr Gonzalez...please research why the second amendment was written. It had to do with the right to bare arms IN TIMES OF WAR. Of course all people during this period had rifles - they had to eat! Baring arms means just that - to produce a weapon to protect your home and property from any forces (which in this case was England). Automatic rifles were not mentioned in the Constitution.

JL A (281)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 3:46 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Allan because you have done so within the last week.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:05 pm
Thursday January 17, 2013, 2:24 pm
I don't generally set much store by bans, but when there's a problem, it needs to be addressed in some way, not just "reasoned" away (meaning scared away) by pundits.

Laura, can you expand on your comment so as to understand fully on what you are saying. I don't want to misinterpret your comment. Especially the part about bans. What are you referring to as far as pundits?
Please elaborate.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:35 pm
Mr Yorkowitz,
I am well versed on the 2nd Amendment. You should learn about the 2nd amendment.
Yes the 2nd Amendment states specifically that the PEOPLE have the RIGHT to bear arms. Also there is no mention of hunting as far as guns concerned. Refer to video I posted earlier and see what survivor of a mass killing has to say about that.

Yes they did not know about semi or automatic firearms but they also did not know about cars, trains, planes etc and we don't ride on horses or buggies today.
They wrote this amendment to ensure people have the right to defend themselves from tyrannical governments. They just fought a 2 year war with England the tyrannical government at the time.
Learn before you comment to me calling me out by name.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:41 pm
Please watch the video and remarks said by her and note who she is speaking to. The name is plastered on the wall behind her.
CFR = Council on Foreign Relationships.

She should know having been many times to the mother ship.

JL A (281)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 4:56 pm
About CFR

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher. CFR members, including Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria, Angelina Jolie, Chuck Hagel, and Erin Burnett, explain why the Council on Foreign Relations is an indispensable resource in a complex world.
CFR's current membership of nearly 4,700 is divided among those living in New York, Washington, DC, and across the country and abroad.

For those between the ages of thirty and thirty-six there is the Stephen M. Kellen Term Member Program.

The Corporate Program serves an international membership of about two hundred leading global corporations.

The Think Tank

The David Rockefeller Studies Program—CFR's think tank—is composed of more than eighty full-time and adjunct fellows who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international agenda. The program also includes recipients of several one-year fellowships.

The Studies Program is organized into more than a dozen program areas and centers that focus on major geographical areas of the world or significant foreign policy issues, including the Maurice R. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, the Center for Preventive Action, the International Institutions and Global Governance program, the Civil Society, Markets, and Democracy initiative, and the Renewing America initiative.
Informing the Public Debate

Access to CFR's high-level discussions—with world leaders, U.S. government officials, CEOs, policy analysts, and others—is available through select videos, audio recordings, and unedited transcripts.

Outreach initiatives target constituencies increasingly important to the national foreign policy debate: educators and students; religious and congregational leaders; state and local officials; and nonprofit, civic, and community leaders.

The Washington Program actively engages decision-makers in Congress, the executive branch, and the diplomatic community.

The bimonthly Foreign Affairs is widely considered to be the most influential magazine for the analysis and debate of foreign policy and economics. Its website,, publishes original daily features and hosts the complete archives going back to 1922.

Independent Task Forces work to reach consensus on how to deal with critical foreign policy challenges.

CFR's website is a trusted, nonpartisan source of timely analysis and context on international events and trends. publishes backgrounders, interviews, "first-take" analysis, expert blogs, and a variety of multimedia offerings that include videos, podcasts, interactive timelines, and the Emmy-winning Crisis Guide series. The site also presents the work of CFR's Think Tank, including books, reports, congressional testimony, and op-eds, as well as audio, video, and transcripts of CFR events. Each weekday morning, the Daily News Brief delivers subscribers an authoritative digest of global news and analysis compiled by's editors.

From Wikipedia:
The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an American nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization, publisher, and think tank specializing in U.S. foreign policy and international affairs. Founded in 1921 and headquartered at 58 East 68th Street in New York City, with an additional office in Washington, D.C., the CFR is considered to be the nation's "most influential foreign-policy think tank".[1] It publishes a bi-monthly journal, Foreign Affairs.

As stated on its website, the CFR's mission is to be "a resource for its members, government officials, business executives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries."

The CFR aims to maintain a diverse membership, including special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders. It convenes meetings at which government officials, global leaders and prominent members of the foreign policy community discuss major international issues. Its think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, is composed of about fifty adjunct and full-time scholars, as well as ten in-resident recipients of year-long fellowships, who cover the major regions and significant issues shaping today's international agenda. These scholars contribute to the foreign policy debate by making recommendations to the presidential administration, testifying before Congress, serving as a resource to the diplomatic community, interacting with the media, authoring books, reports, articles, and op-eds on foreign policy issues.

The council publishes Foreign Affairs, "the preeminent journal of international affairs and U.S. foreign policy." It also publishes Independent Task Forces which bring together experts with diverse backgrounds and expertise to work together to produce reports offering both findings and policy prescriptions on important foreign policy topics. To date, the CFR has sponsored more than fifty reports eg the Independent Task Force on the Future of North America that published report #53 entitled, Building a North American Community in May 2005.[2]

The CFR aims to provide up-to-date information and analysis about world events and U.S. foreign policy. In 2008,'s "Crisis Guide: Darfur" was awarded an Emmy Award by the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences, in the category of "New Approaches to News & Documentary Programming: Current News Coverage." In 2009, the Crisis Guide franchise won another Emmy for its "Crisis Guide: The Global Economy," in the category of business and financial reporting.
Early history

The earliest origin of the Council stemmed from a working fellowship of about 150 scholars called "The Inquiry" tasked to brief President Woodrow Wilson about options for the postwar world when Germany was defeated. Through 1917–1918, this academic band, including Wilson's closest adviser and long-time friend "Colonel" Edward M. House, as well as Walter Lippmann, gathered at 155th Street and Broadway at the Harold Pratt House in New York City, to assemble the strategy for the postwar world. The team produced more than 2,000 documents detailing and analyzing the political, economic, and social facts globally that would be helpful for Wilson in the peace talks. Their reports formed the basis for the Fourteen Points, which outlined Wilson's strategy for peace after war's end.[3]

These scholars then traveled to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 that would end the war; it was at one of the meetings of a small group of British and American diplomats and scholars, on May 30, 1919, at the Hotel Majestic, that both the Council and its British counterpart, the Chatham House in London, were born.[4]

Some of the participants at that meeting, apart from Edward House, were Paul Warburg, Herbert Hoover, Harold Temperley, Lionel Curtis, Lord Eustace Percy, Christian Herter, and American academic historians James Thomson Shotwell of Columbia University, Archibald Cary Coolidge of Harvard, and Charles Seymour of Yale.[citation needed]

In 1938 they created various Committees on Foreign Relations throughout the country. These later became governed by the American Committees on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C.[citation needed]
Network diagram showing interlocks between various U.S. corporations and institutions and the Council on Foreign Relations, in 2004

The Council on Foreign Relations, a sister organization to the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London (commonly known as Chatham House), was formed in 1922 as a noncommercial, nonpolitical organization supporting American foreign relations.[5] From its inception the Council was bipartisan, welcoming members of both Democratic and Republican parties. It also welcomed Jews and African Americans, although women were initially barred from membership. Its proceedings were almost universally private and confidential.[6] A critical study found that of 502 government officials surveyed from 1945 to 1972, more than half were members of the Council.[7]

Today it has about 5,000 members (including five-year term members[8] between the ages of 30–41), which over its history have included senior serving politicians, more than a dozen Secretaries of State, former national security officers, bankers, lawyers, professors, former CIA members and senior media figures.[citation needed]

In 1962 the group began a program of bringing select Air Force officers to the Harold Pratt House to study alongside its scholars. The Army, Navy and Marine Corps requested they start similar programs for their own officers.[7]

Vietnam created a rift within the organization. When Hamilton Fish Armstrong announced in 1970 that he would be leaving the helm of Foreign Affairs after 45 years, new chairman David Rockefeller approached a family friend, William Bundy, to take over the position. Anti-war advocates within the Council rose in protest against this appointment, claiming that Bundy's hawkish record in the State and Defense Departments and the CIA precluded him from taking over an independent journal. Some considered Bundy a war criminal for his prior actions.[7]

Seven American presidents have addressed the Council, two while still in office – Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.[9]

The Council says that it has never sought to serve as a receptacle for government policy papers that cannot be shared with the public and does not encourage its members serving in government to do so. The Council says that discussions at its headquarters remain confidential, not because they share or discuss secret information, but because the system allows members to test new ideas with other members.[10]


It has an extensive website,, featuring links to its history, fellows' biographical information, think tank, the David Rockefeller Studies Program, Independent Task Force reports[11] and other reports, CFR books, expert interviews, meeting transcripts, audio, and videos, Emmy award-winning multimedia Crisis Guides and timelines, Foreign Affairs, and many other publications, biographies of notable directors and other board members, corporate members, and press releases.[2]
Influence on foreign policy

Beginning in 1939 and lasting for five years, the Council achieved much greater prominence within the government and the State Department when it established the strictly confidential War and Peace Studies, funded entirely by the Rockefeller Foundation.[12] The secrecy surrounding this group was such that the Council members who were not involved in its deliberations were completely unaware of the study group's existence.[12]

It was divided into four functional topic groups: economic and financial, security and armaments, territorial, and political. The security and armaments group was headed by Allen Welsh Dulles who later became a pivotal figure in the CIA's predecessor, the OSS. It ultimately produced 682 memoranda for the State Department, marked classified and circulated among the appropriate government departments. As a historical judgment, its overall influence on actual government planning at the time is still said to remain unclear.[12]

In an anonymous piece called "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" that appeared in Foreign Affairs in 1947, CFR study group member George Kennan coined the term "containment." The essay would prove to be highly influential in US foreign policy for seven upcoming presidential administrations. 40 years later, Kennan explained that he had never suspected the Russians of any desire to launch an attack on America; he thought that was obvious enough he didn't need to explain it in his essay. William Bundy credited the CFR's study groups with helping to lay the framework of thinking that led to the Marshall Plan and NATO. Due to new interest in the group, membership grew towards 1,000.[13]

Dwight D. Eisenhower chaired a CFR study group while he served as President of Columbia University. One member later said, "whatever General Eisenhower knows about economics, he has learned at the study group meetings."[13] The CFR study group devised an expanded study group called "Americans for Eisenhower" to increase his chances for the presidency. Eisenhower would later draw many Cabinet members from CFR ranks and become a CFR member himself. His primary CFR appointment was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. Dulles gave a public address at the Harold Pratt House in which he announced a new direction for Eisenhower's foreign policy: "There is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty land power of the communist world. Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power." After this speech, the council convened a session on "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy" and chose Henry Kissinger to head it. Kissinger spent the following academic year working on the project at Council headquarters. The book of the same name that he published from his research in 1957 gave him national recognition, topping the national bestseller lists.[13]

On 24 November 1953, a study group heard a report from political scientist William Henderson regarding the ongoing conflict between France and Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh's Viet Minh forces, a struggle that would later become known as the First Indochina War. Henderson argued that Ho's cause was primarily nationalist in nature and that Marxism had "little to do with the current revolution." Further, the report said, the United States could work with Ho to guide his movement away from Communism. State Department officials, however, expressed skepticism about direct American intervention in Vietnam and the idea was tabled. Over the next twenty years, the United States would find itself allied with anti-Communist South Vietnam and against Ho and his supporters in the Vietnam War.[13]

The Council served as a "breeding ground" for important American policies such as mutual deterrence, arms control, and nuclear non-proliferation.[13]

A four-year long study of relations between America and China was conducted by the Council between 1964 and 1968. One study published in 1966 concluded that American citizens were more open to talks with China than their elected leaders. Kissinger had continued to publish in Foreign Affairs and was appointed by President Nixon to serve as National Security Adviser in 1969. In 1971, he embarked on a secret trip to Beijing to broach talks with Chinese leaders. Nixon went to China in 1972, and diplomatic relations were completely normalized by President Carter's Secretary of State, another Council member, Cyrus Vance.[13]

In November 1979, while chairman of the CFR, David Rockefeller became embroiled in an international incident when he and Henry Kissinger, along with John J. McCloy and Rockefeller aides, persuaded President Jimmy Carter through the State Department to admit the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, into the US for hospital treatment for lymphoma. This action directly precipitated what is known as the Iran hostage crisis and placed Rockefeller under intense media scrutiny (particularly from The New York Times) for the first time in his public life.[14][15]
Current policy initiatives

The CFR started a program in 2008 to last for 5 years and funded by a grant from the Robina Foundation called "International Institutions and Global Governance" which aims to identify the institutional requirements for effective multilateral cooperation in the 21st century.[16]

The CFR's Maurice C. Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies, directed by scholar and author Sebastian Mallaby, works to promote a better understanding among policymakers, academic specialists, and the interested public of how economic and political forces interact to influence world affairs.[17]

The CFR's Center for Preventive Action (CPA) seeks to help prevent, defuse, or resolve deadly conflicts around the world and to expand the body of knowledge on conflict prevention. It does so by creating a forum in which representatives of governments, international organizations, nongovernmental organizations, corporations, and civil society can gather to develop operational and timely strategies for promoting peace in specific conflict situations.
A model of transparency with a broad range of views and experts. What's not to like and respect?
But since focus is foreign policy, seems not to have relevance to the topic of this article:

"new ideas on gun control" or "apparently followers of Jones may believe he is the source of the claims Mother Jones investigated and found a multitude of experts who had reviewed extensively historical data, records, etc. and found at least a preponderance of evidence against the claims related to gun control."


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 5:41 pm
CFR = Council on Foreign Relations. Sorry not relationships.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 6:15 pm
I want to add a further note on the Patriots who fought the Tyrannical government. The fight was better balanced as the weapon both sides used were single shot muskets. Today the AR15 shoots .224 bullets semi automatically and government wants to ban these.
They have fully automatic weapons firing the same caliber and also 50 caliber fully automatic weapons and higher caliber weapons yet. As well as grenade launchers, rocket propelled guns, drones, bombs, armored vehicles, sound ray weapons and more. And they still want to disarm us.
So sad.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 6:45 pm


While I don't believe that my comments have any more weight than any other opinion, I do think that it's important to question whether response in kind versus violence rendered is the higher ground.

I, honestly do NOT believe that violence in kind results in peace. (Yeah, once the statistics are examined, and interpretted by the victors -- who then write, and re-write, history to their glory, it MAY appear to be a victory . . .

But, there is no (regardless of the methods used by the government officials attempting to justify murder via unjustifiable murder for greed) glory in the taking of innocent lives.

We need to be able to protect ourselves, and our families, but we also have an obligation to those we love to be sensible (realizing that our efforts toward warfare will be an exercise in suicide against the much mightier forces we may try to overtake), and to prove that we will not promote the very actions we despise.

How are we different if we employ the methods we despise?


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 6:47 pm

Gandhi: "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."
--Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955)


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 6:56 pm
In reply to Kit,

Kit B. (307)
Monday January 14, 2013, 9:09 pm

After the January battle, the Jews spent the following weeks training, acquiring weapons, and making plans to defend of the ghetto. The Germans also prepared for the possibility of a fight. On the eve of the final deportation, Heinrich Himmler replaced the chief of the SS and police in the Warsaw district, Obergruppenfuhrer Ferdinand von Sammern-Frankenegg, with SS und Polizeifuhrer (SS and Police Leader) Jurgen Stroop, an officer who had experience fighting partisans.

The ghetto fighters were warned of the timing of the final deportation and the entire Jewish population went into hiding. On the morning of April 19, 1943, the Warsaw ghetto uprising began after German troops and police entered the ghetto to deport its surviving inhabitants. Seven hundred and fifty fighters armed with a handful of pistols, 17 rifles, and Molotov cocktails faced more than 2,000 heavily armed and well-trained German troops supported by tanks and flamethrowers.

***This in no way diminishes the brave efforts of those who tried to take on the German Army by fighting for their lives.***

Not that any of this has anything to do with this article or the current discussion on some reasonable attempts to control the many abuses of our "gun culture". Most of can not and should not own a "flame thrower" or have a tank parked in our garage. Therefore, to try to make a comparison between the German Army or Hitler is a fool's errand, though I expect will hear more about Hitler and Stalin in the coming weeks. When discussing any attempt at reasonable and needed gun controls in this country; Hitler and Stalin always come up in the discussion.

Well the fact that they were armed shows what guns in the hands of suppressed can do. That is the point.
Most of us don't have tanks or flame throwers but they can be had.
Already a boat load of gun control laws which do not do anything to curb violence.

If a criminal wants a gun they will get one regardless. They are not law abiding citizens.
Are drugs outlawed in prisons? Can drugs be gotten in prisons? Answer yes to both and you are right.
Can the government enforce a ban on violence. Think back to prohibition. Did it stop drinking or create mafia and more violence and law abiding citizens disregard the law? Gun control will not curb violence and statistics and criminals will verify this for you.

Do you trust the government? I don't. That is why I oppose gun control.
I posted earlier how the CIA did illegal drug experiments on US citizens and foreign diplomats. Source National Geographic.

The US government has a long history of atrocities committed on Americans and helpless foreigners.
Remember the syphilis experiments on Tuskegee black men.
Now this is from a share I posted some time ago. I bet if guns were in the hands of my people these crimes would not have continued or minimized.

Let me preface this by saying I love America most American people which are good people and The Constitution.

I hate American politicians who are abusive criminal low life people.
Remember America that gave Native people small pox infected blankets. Soldiers used as guiney pigs to test radiation exposure, flu viruses sprayed over SF etc. And syhphilis given to black men in Tustegee. That is where my story continues. I am disgusted, sad, and hate the bastards behind the killing of Guatemalan by troops trained by Americans and direct intentional infection of Men, Women and Children with syphilis.
Watch Guatemala - An American Genocide - September 1999 Syphilis Laboratory - Guatemala


Thubten Chokyi (831) Wednesday October 3, 2012, 6:45 am
Americans need to know about these - they are part of their history.
delete this comment send green star

Dandelion G. (313) Saturday October 6, 2012, 12:53 pm
I have on my profile page this quote "The offspring of the criminals who brought Small Pox laden blankets to Native Americans to kill them off to steal their land are still up to their evil deeds of their predecessors."

When there is a group of people or even a single individual, like the Dr. in the syphilis experiments, or Hitler, who feel they are Judge, jury, all Superior to others, this is the nightmare that unleashes. That others follow along or cover it up makes it all the worse and more sad, for good people to not stop it in it's tracks.

It is why I try to teach anyone from the Dominent Culture, who will listen, that if they do not fully understand what transpired upon this land, then they do not learn what is still going on. To start a healing process, by not at all dealing with it, this allows this preditory and heartless energy to continue on.

Once understood then they will recognize it all the quicker, is why oppressed people who live on one part of the planet understand about oppression to another group of people far away.

People need to understand that by protecting their brothers and sisters in other places they in turn also protect themselves. As one of the videos had stated, a monster was unleashed that could no longer be controled.

The leadership in the USA has allowed these exploitations to go on, for it started right here on this soil, it was brought over from Europe. The same mindset then moved into Africa, South America, and other parts of the world. It hasn't stopped. If people do not open their eyes, they remain ignorant to what is taking place "in their name" with their monies.

As they have not understood these things, this preditory energy is now entering their own streets and communities. For these exploitive conditions will not stop, they just go on and on and on. When the well runs dry in one area it simply moves to a new area, destroyer of people, environments, and cultures, it doesn't care.

So more hearts need to open up to understand that experiments, murder, and rape of lands done on some people far away comes back to roost at some point. Who knows today what they spray in the air over our heads, what is in our foods, our water, vaccines. Germany was also a Democracy.

Our sons and now our daughters are being sent to one Country after another for some false flag to so call keep us safe, save our freedom, and then we find out later it was all lies. How many millions to be tortured, killed, lives uprooted....because too few stand up, too few look beyond their comfort zone to see that we are all connected and that we will all have to account for the preditory energy that we fail to reign in.

Thank you Julian for doing your part. My heart breaks with yours, as I my ancestry via my two Grandmothers is American Indian. I have a family story of cultural genocide and members who no longer exist simply by being in the spot they had lived for thousand years. It still has not stopped for us even today, it just morphs into something else.

Like the communities in the video the people way out in the mountains who were bothering no one, all they wanted was to live out their lives, yet the Heartless Ones find their way to them anyways.

I'm so sorry, we can only keep trying to shed the light.....bring forth and expose the ones who do all of this. It really could be so simple, so beautiful for all upon our Earth Mother, but the human being is what makes it so hard. Protect your Spirit, it is all we truly have.

A big part of me defends the 2nd amendment and I also have a personal pain for what the US government has done.
Again don't disarm law abiding citizens.

I asked you to see if Native Americans trust the government. I ask again and more specifically if they trust gun banning. Start with the siege at Wounded Knee. Again they negotiated with the government and they are the most abused people in this country by the US government.


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 7:16 pm
This group refers to an agency created in 1938. Another agency The Federal Reserve was created that turned us into slaves to corporate bankers.
This country was founded as a Republic which is a government run by legislators to represent the views of the people who elected them.
Recite the Pledge of Allegiance and remember the part about the Republic.

JL A (281)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 7:18 pm
Not an agency--independent of government think tank that qualifies as a non-profit organization (CFR)

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 7:21 pm

My grandfather was a Native American chief (rest his soul), and was -- to me -- the epitome of strength and cogent thinking. I was born on his birthday, and relished every moment of my childhood I spent with him.

He was a man of few words, believing that words are often misused, but actions portray a soul's worth.

Please do not asume that all Native Americans distrust the government -- in first-hand account, from him, born shortly after Wounded Knee, not ALL felt the same. (And, trust me, he had great distaste for those who "sold out.")

But, my point is that it is WRONG to portray any group or ideology as ALL believing exactly the same. It denies the members of each "category" the right of being individuals.

Please do not stereotype. It insults the group you define; and diminishes your own objectivity (and, as such, credibility).


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 7:22 pm
Here is another video the 2nd amendment rally.
Susanna Hupp speaks here too.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 7:28 pm
Allan y,
Another response to your comments the 2nd amendment does not talk about any time frame such as a time of war.
It also states the right of the people to BEAR arms will not be infringed.

No mention of BARING arms. Where those guns naked?

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 7:41 pm
I looked up your profile and your cause is

Causes: education

Can I ask did you attend one of those dumbed downed public schools?

Just curious as bearing and baring have2 different meanings and no such words in the 2nd amendment about IN TIME OF WAR.

Where did your education come from? Not an attack just want to know source of your education as that is a cause for you!
The information is misinformed.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 7:50 pm
Note the FBI considers occupy protesters as terrorists.
Gee what will the government do next. Oh right throw terrorists into jail for indefinite detention. Thanks Obama for your NDAA. Don't ban our rights to bear arms.
FBI Considers the “Occupy Movement” as a “Terrorist Threat”
By Global Research News
Global Research, December 26, 2012
Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF)
Region: USA
Theme: Police State & Civil Rights
104 14 9 521

by Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF)

FBI documents just obtained by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) pursuant to the PCJF’s Freedom of Information Act demands reveal that from its inception, the FBI treated the Occupy movement as a potential criminal and terrorist threat even though the agency acknowledges in documents that organizers explicitly called for peaceful protest and did “not condone the use of violence” at occupy protests.

The PCJF has obtained heavily redacted documents showing that FBI offices and agents around the country were in high gear conducting surveillance against the movement even as early as August 2011, a month prior to the establishment of the OWS encampment in Zuccotti Park and other Occupy actions around the country.

“This production, which we believe is just the tip of the iceberg, is a window into the nationwide scope of the FBI’s surveillance, monitoring, and reporting on peaceful protestors organizing with the Occupy movement,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF). “These documents show that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are treating protests against the corporate and banking structure of America as potential criminal and terrorist activity. These documents also show these federal agencies functioning as a de facto intelligence arm of Wall Street and Corporate America.”

“The documents are heavily redacted, and it is clear from the production that the FBI is withholding far more material. We are filing an appeal challenging this response and demanding full disclosure to the public of the records of this operation,” stated Heather Benno, staff attorney with the PCJF.

As early as August 19, 2011, the FBI in New York was meeting with the New York Stock Exchange to discuss the Occupy Wall Street protests that wouldn’t start for another month. By September, prior to the start of the OWS, the FBI was notifying businesses that they might be the focus of an OWS protest.
The FBI’s Indianapolis division released a “Potential Criminal Activity Alert” on September 15, 2011, even though they acknowledged that no specific protest date had been scheduled in Indiana. The documents show that the Indianapolis division of the FBI was coordinating with “All Indiana State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies,” as well as the “Indiana Intelligence Fusion Center,” the FBI “Directorate of Intelligence” and other national FBI coordinating mechanisms.
Documents show the spying abuses of the FBI’s “Campus Liaison Program” in which the FBI in Albany and the Syracuse Joint Terrorism Task Force disseminated information to “sixteen (16) different campus police officials,” and then “six (6) additional campus police officials.” Campus officials were in contact with the FBI for information on OWS. A representative of the State University of New York at Oswego contacted the FBI for information on the OWS protests and reported to the FBI on the SUNY-Oswego Occupy encampment made up of students and professors.
Documents released show coordination between the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and corporate America. They include a report by the Domestic Security Alliance Council (DSAC), described by the federal government as “a strategic partnership between the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security and the private sector,” discussing the OWS protests at the West Coast ports to “raise awareness concerning this type of criminal activity.” The DSAC report shows the nature of secret collaboration between American intelligence agencies and their corporate clients – the document contains a “handling notice” that the information is “meant for use primarily within the corporate security community. Such messages shall not be released in either written or oral form to the media, the general public or other personnel…” (The DSAC document was also obtained by the Northern California ACLU which has sought local FBI surveillance files.)
Naval Criminal Investigative Services (NCIS) reported to the DSAC on the relationship between OWS and organized labor for the port actions. The NCIS describes itself as “an elite worldwide federal law enforcement organization” whose “mission is to investigate and defeat criminal, terrorist, and foreign intelligence threats to the United States Navy and Marine Corps ashore, afloat and in cyberspace.” The NCIS also assists with the transport of Guantanamo prisoners.
DSAC issued several tips to its corporate clients on “civil unrest” which it defines as ranging from “small, organized rallies to large-scale demonstrations and rioting.” It advised to dress conservatively, avoid political discussions and “avoid all large gatherings related to civil issues. Even seemingly peaceful rallies can spur violent activity or be met with resistance by security forces. Bystanders may be arrested or harmed by security forces using water cannons, tear gas or other measures to control crowds.”
The FBI in Anchorage reported from a Joint Terrorism Task Force meeting of November 3, 2011, about Occupy activities in Anchorage.
A port Facility Security Officer in Anchorage coordinated with the FBI to attend the meeting of protestors and gain intelligence on the planning of the port actions. He was advised to request the presence of an Anchorage Police Department official to also attend the event. The FBI Special Agent told the undercover private operative that he would notify the Joint Terrorism Task Force and that he would provide a point of contact at the Anchorage Police Department.
The Jacksonville, Florida FBI prepared a Domestic Terrorism briefing on the “spread of the Occupy Wall Street Movement” in October 2011. The intelligence meeting discussed Occupy venues identifying “Daytona, Gainesville and Ocala Resident Agency territories as portions …where some of the highest unemployment rates in Florida continue to exist.”
The Tampa, Florida FBI “Domestic Terrorism” liaison participated with the Tampa Police Department’s monthly intelligence meeting in which Occupy Lakeland, Occupy Polk County and Occupy St. Petersburg were discussed. They reported on an individual “leading the Occupy Tampa” and plans for travel to Gainesville for a protest planning meeting, as well as on Veterans for Peace plans to protest at MacDill Air Force Base.
The Federal Reserve in Richmond appears to have had personnel surveilling OWS planning. They were in contact with the FBI in Richmond to “pass on information regarding the movement known as occupy Wall Street.” There were repeated communications “to pass on updates of the events and decisions made during the small rallies and the following information received from the Capital Police Intelligence Unit through JTTF (Joint Terrorism Task Force).”
The Virginia FBI was collecting intelligence on the OWS movement for dissemination to the Virginia Fusion Center and other Intelligence divisions.
The Milwaukee division of the FBI was coordinating with the Ashwaubenon Public Safety division in Green Bay Wisconsin regarding Occupy.
The Memphis FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force met to discuss “domestic terrorism” threats, including, “Aryan Nations, Occupy Wall Street, and Anonymous.”
The Birmingham, AL division of the FBI sent communications to HAZMAT teams regarding the Occupy Wall Street movement.
The Jackson, Mississippi division of the FBI attended a meeting of the Bank Security Group in Biloxi, MS with multiple private banks and the Biloxi Police Department, in which they discussed an announced protest for “National Bad Bank Sit-In-Day” on December 7, 2011.
The Denver, CO FBI and its Bank Fraud Working Group met and were briefed on Occupy Wall Street in November 2011. Members of the Working Group include private financial institutions and local area law enforcement.
Jackson, MS Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a “Counterterrorism Preparedness” alert. This heavily redacted document includes the description, “To document…the Occupy Wall Street Movement.”
You can read the FBI – OWS documents here where we have uploaded them in searchable format for public viewing.

The PCJF filed Freedom of Information Act demands with multiple federal law enforcement agencies in the fall of 2011 as the Occupy crackdown began. The FBI initially attempted to limit its search to only one limited record keeping index. Recognizing this as a common tactic used by the FBI to conduct an inadequate search, the PCJF pressed forward demanding searches be performed of the FBI headquarters as well as FBI field offices nationwide.

The PCJF will continue to push for public disclosure of the government’s spy files and will release documents as they are obtained.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Thursday January 17, 2013, 8:01 pm
Jesse Ventura's take on on Sandy Hook.

Jesse Ventura on Sandy Hook

Jesse Ventura just released the following statement on his Facebook page:

"I don’t see enough evidence to think Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. This is more of a tragic event turned into political opportunity than it is a staged event.

Was there investigative bungling and the sensationalist media reporting unverified stories? Yes.

Was there confusion and were facts lost and gained in that confusion? Yes.

Are there people, even witnesses, looking for their 30 seconds in the spotlight? Yes.

Are there individuals and institutions using and shaping this event for their own political agendas? Yes, and we must keep a very watchful eye on those institutions to keep them from twisting the facts of this event.

Sadly, everything I mentioned above... (read the rest of the statement)

Join us in discussing Jesse Ventura's statement at!

Jesse Defends the 2nd Amendment

Also listen to Jesse Ventura's passionate defense of the 2nd Amendment after the Connecticut tragedy.

Kenneth L (314)
Friday January 18, 2013, 5:23 am
Julian, you are out of your tree. Anyone who compulsively has to 'answer' every single other post on a thread with their own viewpoint shows you are a know-it-all (my least favorite kind of person) and an egomaniac.

"Now to you Kenneth. (you idiot, I was responding to Walt. Is your name Walt? No but to a know-it-all that doesn't matter.)
" Rhetoric, those counties you mentioned all all part of the NWO agenda. It exists. Ask both Bush presidents, Clinton (both), Kissinger, Obama, the Pope and many more. One world government with one currency, one religion, one military. Sorry I want my sovereignty.
(Up your NWO obsession. To you your breakfast cereal is part of your NWO).

As to Switzerland with no standing army, they also don't have a gun ban or gun control laws on their citizens. Look it up
(So? Non-sequitur.)

Btw, I don't play the same way you do.

You are such an egomaniac you have hijacked this entire thread with your views and monopolized the entire conversation. Like walking into a room and a few people are talking and one goof monopolizes the ENTIRE conversation. They would walk out, and they have.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Friday January 18, 2013, 5:49 am

Indeed, Kenneth.

Dalai Lama XIV - "Silence is sometimes the best answer."

(But it is so unfair to the article submitter, as well as others who may have wished to join the discussion.)


Craig W. (2)
Friday January 18, 2013, 5:49 am
I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread, but with at least one gun in almost every home and no gun control laws Switzerland has the lowest crime rate in the entire world.

Kenneth L (314)
Friday January 18, 2013, 8:04 am
What is this with 'no gun control laws' in Switzerland? They have LOTS!

"To carry a loaded firearm in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragbewilligung (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.
It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.
Re gun carrying:
There are three conditions required to get a gun carrying permit---:
fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon
The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit.

Changes due to the Schengen treaty---
On 1 December 2008 Switzerland joined the Schengen treaty; and all member countries must adapt some of their laws to a common standard. Following the draft of the Swiss government for the new Waffengesetz (weapons law), these points will change:
Unlawful possession of guns will be punished.
Gun trade among individuals will require a valid weapon acquisition permit. Weapons acquired from an individual in the last ten years (which did not require a weapon acquisition permit) have to be registered. As a central weapons register was politically unfeasible, the authorities hope to get an overview of the market through this registration requirement.
Every gun must be marked with a registered serial number.
Airsoft guns and imitations of real guns will also be governed by the new law.
While the above mentioned "free arms" remain exempt from the weapon acquisition permit, the vendor is required to notify the local arms bureau of the sale.

And there are others. Anyone who thinks there are 'no gun control laws' in any democracy on the planet must be suffering from delusion. Otherwise there is some democratic country that allows ANYONE of any age, to own and carry ANY gun whatsoever ANYWHERE and shoot it anywhere they want.

That's what GUN CONTROL means!
"Gun control is any law, policy, practice, or proposal designed to restrict or limit the possession, production, importation, shipment, sale, and/or use of guns or other firearms by private citizens"


Craig W. (2)
Friday January 18, 2013, 8:41 am
My mistake and poor statement I got carried away with my on writing. Apologies to all. My point was that most homes in Switzerland have at least one weapon in them. And that county has the lowest crime rate per capita in the world.
When I was young you could walk into a gun shop and buy a new hand gun or any other firearm and walk out. The only outbreak I know of in those days was when Charles Whitman climbed the tower in Texas and started shooting. The man was a former Marine and it was later determined during his autopsy that he had a tumor that was pressing against an area of his brain that may have caused him to go off his nut.
After the first national mandate to register hand guns the crime rate in the country began to rise. As we progress the more anti gun laws that are passed the more crime in America increases. It is my personal belief that the cause for that is that a criminal will feel free to break into your home or rob you in public if he can be pretty sure that he will not have to pay the ultimate price for his actions.
You might consider that the biggest safeguard to another world war has been the threat of mutual destruction for the past sixty plus years.
As I previously stated criminals and lunatics do not obey gun laws. Also a human can be perfectly stable today and go insane tomorrow but he doesn't need a fire arm if he wants to commit murder or multiple murders.
Short of locking the world up in a 5x9 cell and throwing away the key there is not now nor will there ever be a perfect way to insure that violent crimes well cease.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Friday January 18, 2013, 8:59 am
Just C,
I know all Native Americans distrust the government but I will bet my bottom dollar the vast majority do distrust the government. Any comment on any group is obviously incorrect as no group regardless of who they are can be categorized with agreement on any one issue. I said ask Native Americans because the vast majority do not trust the government. Note that every treaty that the US made with Native Americans were broken.
I also stand by my assertion that Native Americans are the most abused people in the US the US goverment is the abuser.
Sorry if I did not convey that my remarks were not stated as stereotypical or came out that way.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Friday January 18, 2013, 9:25 am
To the point language of agenda 21

JL A (281)
Friday January 18, 2013, 1:02 pm
To return to the topic of this thread and article again:
"new ideas on gun control" or "apparently followers of Jones may believe he is the source of the claims Mother Jones investigated and found a multitude of experts who had reviewed extensively historical data, records, etc. and found at least a preponderance of evidence against the claims related to gun control (in the US)."

Thanks Kenneth for providing the facts about Switzerland

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Friday January 18, 2013, 3:36 pm
The topic is being discussed. New ideas on gun control. That is the topic. I am against any new or old ideas on gun control and am pointing out that position and why.

Kenneth was wrong about Switzerland and was very abusive against C2 code of conduct to me.

I also follow Mother Jones and and get emails sent tome from them. But like Alex Jones I don't follow his stuff blindly. But do so on the verified source of info. So don't stereotype me.

Kenneth L (314)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 5:51 am
You're out of your tree again Julian. I was not wrong about Switzerland. Google Switzerland guns and you will see all the gun control laws they have.
After hijacking a thread and monopolizing a thread which is completely ignorant to the person who posted the news article you have NO defense of using the 'Care2 Code of Conduct'. Up yours.
If you have any guts post your OWN news stories where you can post away to your heart's content. Understand that simple idea?

JL A (281)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 9:47 am
Care 2 Code of Conduct:
"Disruptive posts - No member may disrupt the discussion boards by posting repeatedly with the same information or by otherwise preventing the use of these boards by other Care2 members."

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 10:42 am
My posts are not disruptive, just contrary opinion to yours. Which is acceptable by COC. My info is not posted repeatedly but in reply to posts addressing content or source of my posts.
It is so laughable to say I am preventing others the use of these boards. Look at the thread and see how many people used this board.
Also because you dislike my position you just want me to be a yes man to your views and wanting to censor mine because you don't like them.
Yet you seem supportive of personal attacks on me. That is hypocritical so don't preach to me about COC.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 11:13 am
Sheriff Mack speaks out against gun control.

No more attempts for further gun control

Also see

JL A (281)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 11:38 am
Note: Julian's first post and several posts attacking Kit were removed by Care2. On some days Julian's number of posts was more than 50% of the total. 46 remain posted of a total of 138. Prior to purge, he had more than 50% of comments posted. So far today he was 4 of 6 comments. Yesterday 3 of 9. The afternoon of 1/17 he posted 21 of 28 comments (75%).

Kit B (276)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 11:44 am

Thanks Kenneth for adding the actual laws of Switzerland. Could the low population and other laws be contributory factors? Gun Control laws are for the public safety and for restricting a right to have a gun for protection within the home.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 12:01 pm

I agree, Kit.

The point of debate is for a person to consider points given, then counter with a response to them; and under any proper debate rules, the argument must be made to the POINT presented . . . NOT an attack on the person presenting the point.

Julian, while you FEEL you have not violated any Code of Conduct -- even though you felt you were "responding in kind," -- in order for you to remain not in violation yourself, you should have taken the higher ground. (Something you have NOT done.)

As was appropriately pointed out by Judi, you have INUNDATED this thread with your own opinions (backed up by YouTube videos, as evidence of your correctness . . . which is BIZARRE, considering that anyone -- qualified or not -- can post a YouTube video).

Julian, I wonder about your reasons for posting, because -- as I've already expressed -- the great thing about debate is to allow equal exchanges of dissenting opinions. (That means that, when you post an opposing opinion, you need to, at least, respect and consider the statements made.)

You really HAVE dominated this thread. I'm sure that come of the MANY people, who noted this thread -- but said nothing -- actually wanted to express their views. But, because you dismiss all of what they believe as lies (meaning ONLY YOU have truth) . . . they, not wanting to be publicly challenged, withdrew.

Rethink your people skills.


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 12:25 pm

Please . . .

Be more considerate of the Care2 community, to which you have, willingly, joined . . . and show some recognition of their own intelligence. If you have a position worthy of consideration, you must be cognizant of the self-worth of those reading your comments.

Otherwise, Julian, you are presenting yourself as insensitive.


Kit B (276)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 12:31 pm

Oops! Not for restricting the legal rights of individuals to own guns within the home for personal protection.

Maybe one of first unwritten rules of Social Media is to notice when you are not making the point you wish to make. Attacks do not work, sometimes even presentation of the set of facts (as one might see t hem) do not work. Berating the other posters doesn't work, so maybe it's time to try another tactic or leave the situation alone.

I have read some excellent articles, factual, presented well, contained no particular bias and yet the comments below the article were breathtakingly, remarkably unaware of the contents of t he article. Only the topic caught the attention of the "trolls".

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 12:57 pm

It is so frustrating and FRIGGIN' irritating to be "lectured."

Not every one posting here is completely unread and uneducated about this situation; and as such, is unwilling to be LECTURED by ONE opinion -- which, by the way, refuses to acknowledge the worthiness of any other opinion.

Care2 is, and in particular, any political forum visited by its members, is NOT a forum of undecided opinions. There are relatively few "sheeple" attitudes in this arena.

Yeah, sure . . . speak your YouTube-acquired opinions. But, when confronted with real opposition, at least be honest enough (if your in your quest is for knowledge) to seriously consider their veracity.

And then . . . Be prepared for substantive argument.


Walt G (2)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 9:55 pm
Sorry for the delay, worked a lot of hours this week. Whew…..where to start to correct your….yes…..rhetoric! Can you provide some credible source for your outlandish statements…I’d really like to see them. The ONLY people of any number in Canada who have handguns are cops and ‘some’ criminals??? Really? And, for long guns….only ‘hunters’ and ‘some farmers’??? Honestly? You typed that with a ‘straight face’?
Now…”” (whose research is supported by the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs) gives their numbers….and I strongly suspect that they are understated….but let’s go with them.
They declare that there are 3,500,000 (that’s THREE AND A HALF MILLION) rifles in civilian hands, some 2,600,000 (that’s TWO MILLION, SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND) Shotguns in civilian ownership, and some 1,100,000 Handguns (once again, that’s ONE MILLION, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND) owned by Canadian civilians.

Youi’ve ‘lived here 60 years and never even SEEN a handgun except in a cop’s holster????” Given your bias…I’m not surprised. What DOES surprise me is that you somehow think that this statement is meaningful in refuting anything I’ve said! NOT ONE of my neighbours, and few of my acquaintances even KNOW that I’ve owned firearms for nearly half a century….it’s not relevant to me to broadcast that information, ESPECIALLY to biased hoplophobes. Now…I’ve never seen even ONE drug addict ‘shoot up’, I suppose that, in your ‘logic’ would justify me in claiming we have no, or almost no drug addicts in Canadian society….after all, I’VE LIVED HERE FOR SOME 65 years…so if I haven’t seem them do drugs…then they don’t exist….right?
You further claim that Canadians ‘don’t like handguns, don’t want them, and don’t even THINK about them’. While I readily grant that this ‘may’ describe you…what gives you the warrant to extrapolate YOUR bias…and extend it to ALL OF CANADA? A recent (2010) poll taken in Canada (+ or – 3.08%, 19 times out of 20) showed that 75.8% of Canadians agreed that firearm ownership SHOULD REMAIN LEGAL in Canada. (lowest Province was Quebec at 71.8% to a high of 91.2 for Saskatchewan). Now, lest you or any of our American hoplophobes should immediately try to label these poll responders (random poll) by comparing them to the stereotypical residents of some southern states like Arkansas or Kentucky (unfairly, I might add)…. 78.9 % of those with a household of income under 65,000 were in favour vs. 87.5% with incomes over 65,000, while 79 % of high school graduates agreed vs. 82% of college grads. Likewise, lest you or others try to claim the poll was over represented by testosterone-laden males, 69.7% of FEMALES were in favor of retaining the right to firearm ownership.
It seems your ‘foot-in-mouth’ disease was running rampant the other day. You said… Don't try to project your dumbass U.S. gun mentality onto me or Canada.” Let me make a few pertinent observations about that, okay?
1. YOU do NOT speak for Canada, or (as I’ve shown) the preponderance of Canadians.
2. I am NOT an American….though I’ve travelled extensively in the US, and have known many Americans, including gun owners, I’m sure. (Heck, I even MARRIED one!) I, as a Canadian, take exception to your denigration of many millions of American Citizens as ‘dumb-asses’; what surprises me is that no American called you out for your blatant bias and stereotyping of their own fellow citizens.
Now, lastly, your statement: “What a warped view about how 'everyone must have guns or there will be rampant crime'. LIE. FALSE. NOT TRUE. Any Canadian knows that…”
Can you please show me where I made any such claim? I’ve already shown you that your claim about how you and your misguided ‘opinions’ do NOT represent Canadians in any substantive way…but you infer that I shared that sentiment you expressed and labelled as “LIE. FALSE. NOT TRUE.”….so I’d really like to see on what statement of mine you based that rabid response. Waiting….with bated (or…perhaps you consider it ‘baited’) breath for your response!


Walt G (2)
Saturday January 19, 2013, 11:03 pm
Oh, by the way, that same source clearly states that out of 179 countries...Canada ranks 13th in terms of private, civilian firearm ownership. So much for the uninformed claim that no one has them except cops, some criminals, and hunters and a few farmers. I DO wish people would take the time to ascertain that their opinions are based on verifiable fact, rather than rampant imagination. As a matter of note, in the past 11 years of available records, in seven of those years more homicides were committed in Canada with knives (all sorts of edged weapons) than with firearms, and in two more years, firearms tied with knives for homicides, and in only two years did firearms slightly edge out knives as the preferred tools of homicide. Perhaps we should licence or ban would 'save' just as many or more knives....IF indeed, banning an inanimate object actually DOES curb human behaviour.

Walt G (2)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 9:57 am
Whups...above statement should have read "it would 'save' just as many or more LIVES....IF indeed, banning an inanimate object actually DOES curb human behaviour

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 3:29 pm
I was attacked by you and Kit. She made misstatements about me, tried to put words in my mouth and both of you attacked youtube videos as not credible. Yet both of you commented on youtube video on Women Sue humiliating vaginal search by state troopers. So that youtube video is not credible? I btw hope the women win their suit and trooper goes to jail and gets labeled a sex offender. I do think youtube videos credible with source identified.

Kenny boy, I read what is said about me and respond because to let a lie go by is to let readers think they are true. It is called self defense but maybe rednecks are not aware of this concept. Also I overstated no gun laws in Switzerland when I should have said no gun ban. Refer to Diane Feinstein's admission she wants to take all guns.

Thank you Walt for your right on remarks and schooling Kenneth.

Just C I see no merit in your last comments. I also want to point out that the saying Ask an Indian if they trust the government has an unknown author but IMO I would say a FULL blooded Indian coined it. Read how Indian Lawyer thinks about trust.
Manataka™ American Indian Council


Indian Law professors ask: Is trust still valid?
by Kara Briggs / Today correspondent

PORTLAND, Ore. - Native American law professors meeting in early April in Portland called for the overhaul of U.S. trust responsibility to Indian nations, saying
that economic development in Indian country depends on it.

''Trust is costing tribes a lot, and it doesn't have many benefits. What is the future of
trust responsibility? We ought to get rid of it,'' said Kevin Washburn, a Chickasaw professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.

Washburn and a number of other law professors gathered for the Lewis & Clark Law Review Symposium at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland. The theme of the symposium was ''Indigenous Economic Development: Sustainability, Culture and Business.'' But talk centered on U.S. policies, laws and court decisions that affect Indian nations.

Washburn and others questioned the modern role of trust responsibility.

Federal trust responsibility to Indian nations was not expressed in the U.S. Constitution, he said. It first appears in U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's decisions in the 1830s. But trust as wielded by federal staffers of various experience levels, of varied efficiency, in a variety of government agencies is not something Indian nations can rely upon, Washburn said.

As they must rely upon it when the National Indian Gaming Commission holds up a tribal casino development for years because it doesn't approve of the financing package. Is the opinion of a mid-level government worker more credible, Washburn asked, than those of elected leaders of Indian nations and their advisers?

''In the Indian context, trust is always 'we are trying to save you from yourself,''' he said. ''In the Indian context, it only seems arrogant, paternalistic.''

"At what point,'' a Native woman in the front row called out, does 'all men are created equal' come into this?''

From the back of the room, Alexander Tallchief Skibine, an Osage professor at the University of Utah's S.J. Quinney College of Law, urged Washburn to consider carefully his argument.

Later, Skibine said, ''You can criticize the administration of trust, but if you get rid of trust relationship, what appears next is termination.''

Skibine related this discussion to work that Philip S. (Sam) Deloria, the Standing Rock Sioux director of the American Indian Law Center, has done on plenary powers. If not held by Congress, then who would fill the vacuum, Skibine asked. Probably states; probably not tribes.

The conversation was collegial, yet Washburn, who previously worked in the Department of Justice, said that dropping what he called the ''empty rhet oric''
of federal trust is a serious conversation among many Indian law professionals. The antidote to federal trust is self-governance, he said.

"Good government suggests that we follow tribal self-governance,'' Washburn said.
''The federal government has said we think tribes make better decisions.''

The move to self-determination coincided with the Indian gaming movement,
which opened the door to the new, modern federal regulations of Indian gaming

In 2006, Washburn exchanged words with Sen. John McCain, then-chairman of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. Washburn and Ernie Stevens Jr., National Indian Gaming Association president, had expressed concern in a committee hearing about the NIGC's trust responsibilities.

The commission ''does a good job of running background checks on employees,'' Washburn said. ''It does less of a good job on overseeing tribes financial decisions. I'm not sure it makes much sense for a G16 [a high-ranking federal worker] in Washington to make these decisions.''

At the time, McCain responded by saying I have ''82 reasons'' to keep oversight the way it is. ''He was referring to the $82 million extorted from tribes by Jack Abramoff. Abramoff was a U.S. government scandal, not a tribal scandal,'' Washburn said.

Yet the BIA has, since 1999, backed off trust, at least, on paper.

Since the Cobell trust funds case was filed, the BIA stationery, which used
to say ''We do this with trust responsibility to tribes,'' now has excised the

Others who spoke at the conference cast similarly skeptical eyes toward the U.S. government.

''It's dangerous to ask government to fix the problem unless and until you fix the
government,'' remarked David Haddock, a professor at Northwestern University
School of Law.

Richard Monette, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin and former chairman of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa, said in many cases tribes have no certainty whether trust will be applied in their favor or against.

''The history of the law has completely swamped us with America's inability to make up its mind,'' Monette said. ''We wake up every morning not knowing what law you live by today. That may be the biggest human rights abuse there is.''

Monette, who was twice removed as chairman of the Turtle Mountain Chippewa, related his removals to the complexity of current time for many Indian nations, as gaming brings money into many nations, sometimes creating chaos and confusion in nations that were used to only poverty. It's not only the nations that are confused: the U.S. is also.

The tensions felt in government over control of Indian gaming revenues, Monette said, remind him of three decades ago when tribal fishermen on the Columbia River near Portland were being prosecuted for selling salmon. As a young congressional aide, Monette visited Yakama fisherman David Sohappy, a visit that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was afraid to make. When the Corps did accompany Monette on a visit with the elder fisherman, Monette remembers Sohappy saying, ''I tried to put the fish in my gas tank, and my car wouldn't run. So I had to sell the fish.''

Monette continued speaking. ''The whole set of control issues we were seeing when the Sohappys of the world were selling salmon,'' he said, ''are the same set we're seeing now.''

Not stereotype.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 3:38 pm
Robert O,
Wednesday January 16, 2013, 1:07 pm
Do dictators try to disarm the public? Even the author admits this is true, but tries to argue that it didn't matter either way, it made no difference in the outcome of events. The author cannot prove that point, because we cannot know what the outcomes would have been had guns not been removed from the populace, or certain segments of the populace. I would argue that dictators would think twice about wars and repression when they know the populace is well armed. While i agree, we need to do something about "crazies' with guns, disarming the populace is Not the answer!

I tried to send you a green star but you profile did not open.
I agree something should be done about the crazies and start by banning gmo foods and poisons such as fluoride as well as pysch meds shoved down our kids throats. Gun control is not the answer. History proves that you cannot legislate morality.

JL A (281)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 4:06 pm
Link to the Code of Conduct:

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 4:14 pm
FactCheck: the Data and research links posted above showed the results of the actual data collected are the stricter the gun laws, the less the crime--and especially fewer gun homicides.

That is not true. I would have to research less gun violence not counting reckless police shooting that is so rampant in Los Angeles and elsewhere.
But it is proven that crime rate greatly raises in ares which gun control laws.

JL A (281)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 4:19 pm
5 of 8 posts today with continued distruption seemingly planning to respond to every post of anyone else and some of the responses, like those previously removed, include personal attacks--continued disruption so extreme several have said so in this thread

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 4:23 pm
I did not ask for that. I have access to that. I asked for the findings you claim made on This thread. Show the results and how many of your and Kits remarks removed. Show me what statistics you are referring to.

JL A (281)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 4:28 pm
I counted what was present. None of mine have been removed. I haven't had reason to check for Kit's and thus cannot be sure whether or not any were removed when yours were removed.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 5:19 pm
Sorry cop out. I am supposed to believe this crock. Go back and show your statistics or you are just blowing smoke.

JL A (281)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 5:28 pm
To return to the topic of this thread and article yet again:
"new ideas on gun control" or "apparently followers of Jones may believe he is the source of the claims Mother Jones investigated and found a multitude of experts who had reviewed extensively historical data, records, etc. and found at least a preponderance of evidence against the claims related to gun control (in the US)."

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 6:55 pm
Is you head too thick not to understand opposition and reasons stated as to WHY is on topic. You made a claim about coc removing my posts but refuse to show how many yours or Kits were removed. You can make claims off topic but I can't question your source. Get real.
On topic again on this tread.

JL A (281)
Sunday January 20, 2013, 7:27 pm
Please stop with comments related to C2 enforcing the code of conduct. When others have responded with a comment only related to a comment found to have violated the rules, those are also frequently removedt to try to preserve the thread's continuity for other users. Any further questions about the enforcement actions taken by Care2 seem more appropriate to address with them via messaging.
To return to the topic of this thread and article yet again:
"new ideas on gun control" or "apparently followers of Jones may believe he is the source of the claims Mother Jones investigated and found a multitude of experts who had reviewed extensively historical data, records, etc. and found at least a preponderance of evidence against the claims related to gun control (in the US)."

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 21, 2013, 4:34 pm
Tuesday January 15, 2013, 4:04 pm

“I just watched my dog chase his tail for ten minutes and I thought, ‘Dogs are easily entertained’ – and then I realized I had just watched my dog chase his tail for ten minutes.”

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.
Alvin Toffler

So you now equate me to a dog, I don't have a mind and I am illiterate. Look in the mirror for answer to your assertion.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 21, 2013, 4:54 pm
As I said, all I said is related to the topic. My opposition and reasons why. Yet I am continuously attacked and then those attackers denying the attacks then blame me for attacks. Typical false flag tactics. Those that try to discredit Alex Jones attacking me as a blind follower. Yet you love to refer to Mother Jones as the all credible source. Like Alex Jones I research Mother Jones statements (I am subscribed to them) and verify if they speak the truth or are blowing smoke. I don't blindly follow anyone. I respond to those who attack me or discredit me. Kit has attacked me lots of times and so has Kenneth. So have you. I am on topic and express my position with reasons why.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Monday January 21, 2013, 5:24 pm
Just C
You made comment on debates. This C2 site encourages debate. Did you follow the so called Presidential debates and find them calm?
As your fellow commenters say to me, get a grip.

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:02 am
As JLA said: "Note: Julian's first post and several posts attacking Kit were removed by Care2. On some days Julian's number of posts was more than 50% of the total. 46 remain posted of a total of 138. Prior to purge, he had more than 50% of comments posted. So far today he was 4 of 6 comments. Yesterday 3 of 9. The afternoon of 1/17 he posted 21 of 28 comments (75%)"

Hijacking a thread is no idea of mine that I created. Google it. You've been doing it obsessively on this thread. Anyone can see that. Except you. Oh well.


Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 9:19 am

I was specifically talking about HANDGUNS IN CANADA, could care less about long guns. So your BIG number quotes of rifles and shotguns HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.

Per; I already excluded hunters with long guns. Obviously some criminals, not all, use handguns (long guns comparatively speaking are hardly ever used in crimes).. Cops have handguns and the military has their own firearms. As for a million handguns that's not many compared to the population of 35 million people. AND they have to be registered and have a permit.

I'll let that sit as an anecdotal statement of mine for others to evaluate, not just you Walt---"I've never seen a real handgun except in a cop's holster in 60 years of living in Canada' (how many Americans have seen a real handgun? Either their own or someone else's? A whole hell of a lot I would say).

If you're trying to equate the number of guns in the U.S. per capita with the number of guns in Canada per capita you absolutely lose big time, and you know it. 88.8 per capita in the U.S. compared to 30.8 in Canada. And again that would have to be broken down into HANDGUNS PER CAPITA.
So for all your blow against me you are proven WRONG by the statistics.

As far as your '75% of Canadians' want firearm ownership to remain legal, WHAT firearms? Firearms of any kind? Not in Canada. Lots of laws against what type of guns can and can't be owned in Canada. And 'should remain legal' as opposed to what--- firearm ownership 'should be/remain ILLEGAL? That poll probably had to do with the GOV'T. LONG GUN REGISTRY PROGRAM, most of which (long guns) are owned by hunters.

As for your significant sounding pretty little term "hoplaphobia'. RICH! ROTFLMAO. These neologisms are used all the time by anyone wanting to squash the opposition. I have been around long enough in environmental advocacy to know all the tactics used on both sides to squash the other side. All anyone has to do in response is create and use a phobia term for the opposite picture "an irrational phobia concerning others who are against guns'. ROTFL! You lose.

As for the rest, I don't care whether you like me saying the U.S. has a dumbass gun mentality. And yes that would include millions of Americans. You don't like it, so what. It's called opinion, and everyone has one. Just like 'hoplaphobia'!.

Forget trying to 'shame' me or something for insulting Americans. LOL! Lots of Americans do the same. But I suppose your opinions are 'better' than anyone else's right?

And tell me again that you then DON'T support the idea that more guns equals less crime?



Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 9:27 am
Got cut off above---

Julian read Just Carole's last post. She was too kind to not use your name, but I would say it was directed at YOU.

As I said elsewhere, be a man and post your own C2NN stories where you can run rampant with every pet idea of yours. Have some guts. Have some consideration. Don't be a nerd.

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 9:56 am
And let's just take a closer look at Walt's BIG IMPORTANT SOUNDING 'Hoplophobia' and 'hoplophobe'.

A clinical sounding, 'scientific' term. Was it created by a doctor? No. A scientist? No. A psychiatrist, psychologist, mental health professional? No, no, no. It was a word created in 1962 by a FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR. LOL! Used as a pejorative by those such as Walt against 'anti-gun nuts'.

Thank you Walt! Give us more!

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 11:02 am
And before Walt responds about Hoplophobia---
The term 'Hoplophobia' as created by a FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR named Cooper in 1962 was used by a couple of psychiatrists in a book they wrote in 2006 called 'Contemporary Diagnosis and Management of Anxiety Disorders' (leave it to Psychiatry to use a term created by a firearms instructor without any science to back it up) but the fact is--
----"Hoplophobia is not a true phobia, and it is not recognized as a mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. The meaning and usage ascribed by Cooper falls outside of the medical definitions of true phobias" Wikipedia

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 11:29 am
"The US has a higher rate of gun ownership, particularly of handguns, than any other industrialized country in the world. Approximately 45 percent of U.S. households have firearms and it is estimated that there are more than 270 million firearms owned, one-third of them handguns.
In Canada, approximately 18 percent of Canadian households are known to have firearms, and there are now approximately 8 million registered firearms, and it is estimated that only 450,000 handguns are owned here".

So depending on statistics used, there may only be half a million handguns in Canada in a population of 35 million people. AND some are illegal to possess and all require registration and a license. Permission to carry requires a special license which is extremely difficult to obtain.


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 5:00 pm
Mother Jones and its non-profit publisher, the Foundation for National Progress, does not endorse any political candidate, political organization, commercial product, process or service, and the views expressed in this communication do not necessarily constitute an endorsement, recommendation or favoring by Mother Jones.

Kenneth L (314)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 5:47 pm
You're as dense as they get aren't you Julian. The first mistake anyone made on this thread was actually taking you seriously ABOUT ANYTHING. Big mistake.

Btw, I didn't take Cooper out of context whatsoever. It was Walt who used it to label me as 'a 'biased hoplophobe' LOL.

And at Walt again, you could never dig up a tactic to use against me that I haven't seen. How about that 'I'll call him biased and pretend I'm not' little thing. You've had guns for half a century and you're not biased? Grow up..


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 6:05 pm
The words of our founding fathers

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 7:06 pm

Julian, you are undeniably correct in one statement.

I have never given any person -- other than myself-- permission to speak (or interpret) on my own behalf.

That said, however, Kenneth was correct in his assumption as to whom I addressed my cited comments.

I really DO wish that -- instead of countering arguments to which we disagree; all members (in respect to the article poster, and all those who wish to interject their -- equally valid -- opinions) can do so without being subjected to name-calling; and their thoughts (which are all equally worthy of consideration) minimized . . .

Another good quote: "You have not conquered a man because you have silenced him.' (Anon)

If we feel that this world is unresponsive and unhearing . . . we do more harm, considering our feelings of disrespect, by copying that same behavior.


Because dissenting views should be welcomed and treated as worthy of consideration . . .

We are, as members coming from various backgrounds and disciplines -- and some with more restrictions than others -- are sometimes more educated on certain "facts," and, as such, have the same rights to voice those same opinions, without fear of harsh judgment.

It's enlightening, but equally challenging, to weigh the merits of the thoughts of others.

Equally, we show ourselves as considerate and knowledge-seeking when we give (even opposing views), the unprejudiced moment of questioning our own beliefs by respecing and mulling over their reasoning for forming that opinion.

I would like to hear others voice those thoughts without fear of being berated for conceptualizing and freely expressing themselves.

Whether you agree, or not, that is a basic premise of the FIRST AMENDMENT.

Wise words: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' (Questionably accredited to Voltaire.)


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 7:35 pm
Just C,
So you say I am not being harshly judged. I beg to differ. So you think Kenny boy is justified in calling me a nerd, an idiot, dense and climbing down out of a tree as respecting my views. The 1st amendment is for free speech and is granted to all. A person is free to yell fire in a crowed movie theater. But that does not relieve the speaker from prosecution of abuse of that said free speech. However the government is going way beyond legal right to free speech and going desperately going after the 2nd amendment.
Please refer to founding founders words and intent of the second amendment. Refute their words. Also included are quotes from Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Dispute those facts.


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:03 pm
In the words of Founding Fathers battling the gun grabbers from the grave. Video posted above and this is dialog from from the post.

The Founding Fathers were clear in their intent: an armed population makes good government, because it can restrain those seeking to abuse power.

Numerous quotes from the revolutionary era show how much these key figures agreed on the 2nd Amendment— that individuals were meant to keep and bear arms for the protection of the country and the defense of its Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights explicitly states that these amendments to the Constitution were put in place to restrain the federal government and discourage abuse. Ratified Dec. 15, 1791, it reads:

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution. "

-One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic. - Joseph Stalin
-The Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. --Samuel Adams
-Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. -Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... -- Tench Coxe 1788.
-"The Constitution preserves "the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." (James Madison, The Federalist, No. 46)
-The only real power comes out of a long rifle. -Joseph Stalin
-The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. --Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government." - Thomas Paine
-"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
-Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. -- Ben Franklin
-A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington
-Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. --Patrick Henry.
-Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? -- Patrick Henry
-If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government... -- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist (#28) .
-To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them. -- George Mason
-The balance of power is the scale of peace. - Thomas Paine, July 1775.
- "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong, 1938.
- To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. - Richard Henry Lee, 1778
- The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible. - Hubert Humphrey, 1960
- The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. - Adolf Hitler (April 1942)
- If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying . -Orrin Hatch
- After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military. -William S. Burroughs, 1991
- "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
- A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now this is on topic as answer to was Hitler really against gun control and banning guns.
His own words on the subject as well as Stalin's and Mao's words.
That should prove my point. Go ahead and research the founding fathers quotes and the tyrants own words.
Dispute those irrefutable facts and quotes.

Carole Sarcinello (338)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:19 pm


No, I think your feelings regarding arming (or dis-arming citizens) of the right to protect themelves is being overtaken by the common sense of recognizing that you are challenging a force much better enforced == with firepower and intelligence superior to common citizens.

Seriously, I have HUGE doubts as to the "fear" of this government kow-towing to citizens being armed with copy-cat superior weaponry (basically, knock-offs of the real -- much more powerful original.)

If you have chosen yourself to be a leader . . .you may wish to rethink your position.

With all of my disrespect for fascism, I have the presence of mind to understand futility.

(Looking forward to your response.)


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Tuesday January 22, 2013, 8:33 pm
Here is News Max poll results on Federal gun control.
You are the minority.

Tuesday January 22, 2013






The Wire

Sci & Tech




Should Obama's Gun Ban Be Approved? Vote Here Now in Urgent Poll
Should the federal government regulate guns of any type?
Yes, it should

No, it should not

Should Congress ban semi-automatic weapons?
Yes, it should

No, it should not

If Congress does not act, should President Obama use an executive order to ban or strictly control the sale of semi-automatic weapons?
Yes, he should

No, he should not

Do you agree that the Second Amendment gives citizens the right to own and bear guns without infringement?
Yes, I agree

No, I don't agree


Carole Sarcinello (338)
Wednesday January 23, 2013, 4:19 am


I happen to live with a Vietnam vet in a log cabin in the Cherokee National Forest (Tennessee). He's also a hunter, so this household has handguns and long guns accessible; and I have spent time at a shooting range and have fired all of the weapons . . . so please do not assume I'm against guns . I happen to support the Second Amendment.

Also, I agree with you that doctors are decreasingly healers -- but have, increasingly, assumed the role of pharmaceutical representatives and legalized dope peddlers. In fact, pretty much every person I know has a prescription for some kind of "mood altering" drug. (And many of them have children who do as well -- a fact that I find to be quite distressing.)

Those are also the reasons I feel there needs to be SOME restrictions (to the extent that it is possible) on the availability of rapid-fire arms.

I absolutely do NOT feel the government should unarm ALL citizens. BUT (and that's a big BUT), I'm also not buying the conspiracy theory that they're trying to. As I've stated in this lengthy discourse, I think the opposite is true. They are -- through their use of fear, the NRA and propaganda machines -- actually PROMOTING the sale of even more weapons to citizens. (You are aware that this country is a corporate state, aren't you?)

You do realize that gun dealers, since even the hint of stricter gun regulations, can barely keep their shelves stocked, don't you? Have you considered the possibility that reactionary citizens, buying these arms and ammo are only generating even more profit for gun manufacturers?

If the government really wanted to render the public helpless, they ALREADY have the power and equipment to do so. WHY would they, in essence, issue a warning in advance, giving people the time to increase their own arsenals.

Think about it. Weapons suppliers are benefitting from business on both the side of the government AND the citizenry.

Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Wednesday January 23, 2013, 3:33 pm
Just C,
First thank you for the civil discourse even parts of disagreement. The disagreement to rapid fire weapons, I refer to the words of Tench Coxe.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. -Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... -- Tench Coxe 1788.
History shows many small armies defeating much larger and better armed armies. Revolutions are fought with better weapons taken or stolen from the enemy. Lastly not all US soldiers or police is going to participate
in power grab.
You ask if I know this country is a corporate state. Yes this Country is corporate owned. See my profile and did you get my ecard regarding making a constitutional amendment to over turn Supreme Court decision that corporations are people and money is free speech? If not I can resend it if you want.
Yes the people are arming themselves but if the Government tried to render the public helpless there would be a revolution and government would lose its support.
Also government GAVE thousands of assault weapons to Mexican Drug cartels with some of those rifles used to kill border patrol agents. Why did SS, Post Office and Homeland (non) Security buy over a billion hollow point bullets?
If the government uses those manufacturers so should the people.
I will end with the words of George Washington
-A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. -- George Washington
I hope that conveys my stance to you.
Btw I don't hunt but respect your family right to do so.


Julian Robert Gonzalez (112)
Wednesday January 23, 2013, 3:59 pm
Just C,
A bit off topic but answer to corporate untouchables and they run the country.
PBS Frontline video
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Health & Wellness

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.