Friday, December 28, 2012

Gun Free Zones = Helpless Victim Zones

The recent CN shooting tragedy is horrendous, and the typical reaction of authoritarian Collectivists is deplorable.

Will these bureaucrats ever acknowledge FACTS — will they never cease in spreading lies in order to instill FEAR into the psyche of ignorant masses as they continue violating their oath of office, which is to uphold the US Constitution and defend the rights of the individual?  Will they never cease in waging war against LIBERTY?

We the People must continue to pressure these anti-gun nuts until they put aside their partisan duopoly folly and get to the heart of the issue BEFORE any further innocent victims are put at needless additional risk of losing their lives due to such anti-liberty legislation which only serves to foster further acts of domestic terrorism.

The question everyone should not be asking:  "What do we need to ban now?"

The question everyone should be asking:  "Has history shown that 'Gun Free Zones' reduce violent crimes where implemented?"

According to the statistics presented by Grass Roots NC in its recent alert, "GRNC Alert 12-15-2012: Newtown Victims of ‘Gun Free’ School Zones Act" [], since the "Gun-Free Schools Act" was passed in 1994 there has been a 370% increase in the rate of school shooting deaths.

So, is GRNC accurate in its reporting of these statistics or not?  It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to determine the truth here, yet apparently some bureaucrats seem to be having great difficulty distinguishing truth from fiction.

If their statistics are even close to being accurate, those who supported the "Gun-Free Schools Act" and any other similar anti-liberty legislation should be held partially liable for the outcome of such shootings which occur wherever they have usurped the rights of the individual to defend himself — as boldly stated in a recent article from the Oath Keepers, The Federal Government is Guilty Accomplice in School Shooting in Newtown Connecticut [].

Let's consider other FACTS, some of which are included in the STOP the Obama Gun Ban Petition [].

There is no such thing as an "assault weapon" or "assault rifle".  All weapons — not just firearms — can be used for offense or defense.  Classifying any weapon as "assault" is erroneous at best and deceptive at worst.  GRNC is most likely correct in assessing that the word "assault" has been used by anti-gun biased media and bureaucrats in order to confuse the public masses regarding the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic firearms, while also asserting that only murderers and terrorists would "need" one.  Even NYC Mayor Bloomberg in a recent ABC News interview [] stated "assault" to mean "fully automatic" until the reporter corrected him.

Beyond this however, the word "assault" means: a crime that involves causing a victim to apprehend violence.  Therefore, by erroneously attributing the classification of "assault" to the most common of all firearms, the anti-gun biased media and bureaucrats are implying that everyone who owns a semi-auto firearm is a potential mass murderer.  This is extremely offensive to ALL law abiding Americans who are merely exercising our unalienable individual right to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our fellow man!

Plato said, "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws," and this is a statement having perpetual truth.  Most rational Americans have by now learned from the failed "War on Drugs" and 20th Century Prohibition that legislation cannot prevent individuals from acquiring whatever one desires on the black market, nor from engaging in any particular willful action.

Therefore, no legislative ban on any weapon or weapon accessory will ever prevent an individual from acquiring the prohibited item and using it according to their will.  Such bans only prevent law abiding citizens from having the same means of personal defense by which a criminal might use for assaulting a helpless victim.

Americans should have also learned from tragedies like hurricane Katrina that we cannot always depend on our law enforcement to protect us in every situation — we have to be able to protect ourselves.  If criminals are able to procure semi-automatic firearms with high capacity magazines, then we must have the same ability or we risk being severely outgunned.

The notion of preventing potential future mass shootings by assigning security guards — especially in school zones — is well intended, but can never equal the deterrent of the criminal not knowing who in society is carrying a concealed firearm.  Further, the last thing we need is yet another largely ineffective Federal bureaucracy (like the TSA) to give a mere appearance or illusion of safety.  If the people of a given locale desire armed guards at their public schools, effective security would be better served by their local Sheriff's department.

Regardless, it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence or common sense to understand that any location which has been deemed by bureaucrats as a "Gun Free Zone" effectively only creates a "Helpless Victim Zone".  Any criminal who calculates a mass shooting would rather plan to do so at any such "Helpless Victim Zone" where they will have the best chances of taking out as many helpless victims as possible before ending their own life.  This has also recently been exemplified in the Oregon Mall shooting [] which was stopped short by a licensed firearm carrier.

How many more helpless victims would have been shot there if an armed law abiding citizen wasn't there to defend them?  Yet the anti-gun nuts are currently attempting to persuade Congress to create more "Helpless Victim Zones" — this is an absurdity that should warrant accountability for violating the fundamental natural right to protect oneself.  Anyone who needs more evidence need only witness the testimony of Suzanna Gratia Hupp [] which she gave before bureaucrats in her state who should have been tried for being at least partially responsible for the deaths of her parents.

We the People of the United States of America have both enough intelligence and common sense to call this nonsense for what it is... so with all due respect, Mr. President, regarding your recent message about reducing gun violence... BULLSHIT!

We law abiding Americans will not remain silent while deceptively and falsely being accused of being potential mass murderers and we will not obey any of your tyrannical bans on firearms or firearm accessories.  While the authoritarian Collectivist anti-gun biased media and bureaucrats stand on deceptive lies and fear tactics as they wage war against our unalienable Creator-given individual liberties, We the People will continue to stand on TRUTH, JUSTICE and LIBERTY in this United States of America as we defy your tyranny in a mass action of civil disobedience!

Always in liberty,


bernard baruch carman
* * *
- truth seeker/seeder • • ∞Liberty
infinityGAMES ∞ audio/Mac specialist
∞ ∞ ∞

(inspired by President Obama's message:)

The White House wrote:

A Message from President Obama about Your Petition on Reducing Gun Violence

By Bruce Reed, Chief of Staff to Vice President Biden

In the days since the tragedy in Newtown, Americans from all over the country have called for action to deter mass shootings and reduce gun violence. Hundreds of thousands of you have signed petitions on We the People.

I'm writing you today to thank you for speaking up, to update you on an important development, and to encourage you to continue engaging with the White House on this critical issue.

First, you should know that President Obama is paying close to attention to the public response to this tragedy. In fact, he sat down to record a message specifically for those of you who have joined the conversation using We the People. Watch it now:

On Wednesday, the President outlined a series of first steps we can take to begin the work of ending this cycle of violence. This is what he said:

"We know this is a complex issue that stirs deeply held passions and political divides. And as I said on Sunday night, there's no law or set of laws that can prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. We're going to need to work on making access to mental health care at least as easy as access to a gun. We're going to need to look more closely at a culture that all too often glorifies guns and violence. And any actions we must take must begin inside the home and inside our hearts.

But the fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing. The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence, and prevent the very worst violence."

Vice President Biden has been asked to work with members of the Administration, Congress, and the general public to come up with a set of concrete policy proposals by next month -- proposals the President intends to push swiftly. The President asked the Vice President to lead this effort in part because he wrote and passed the 1994 Crime Bill that helped law enforcement bring down the rate of violent crime in America. That bill included the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004.

As the Vice President's Chief of Staff, I'm going to do everything I can to ensure we run a process that includes perspectives from all sides of the issue, which is why I wanted to respond to your petition myself. Two decades ago, as domestic policy adviser in the Clinton White House, I first worked with Joe Biden as he fought to enact the Crime Bill, the assault weapons ban, and the Brady Bill. I will never forget what a key role the voices of concerned citizens like you played in that vital process.

The President called on Congress to pass important legislation "banning the sale of military-style assault weapons," "banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips," and "requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all."

An issue this serious and complex isn't going to be resolved with a single legislative proposal or policy prescription. And let's be clear, any action we take will respect the Second Amendment. As the President said:

"Look, like the majority of Americans, I believe that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to bear arms. This country has a strong tradition of gun ownership that's been handed down from generation to generation. Obviously across the country there are regional differences. There are differences between how people feel in urban areas and rural areas. And the fact is the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible -- they buy their guns legally and they use them safely, whether for hunting or sport shooting, collection or protection.

But you know what, I am also betting that the majority -- the vast majority -- of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would be some of the first to say that we should be able to keep an irresponsible, law-breaking few from buying a weapon of war. I'm willing to bet that they don't think that using a gun and using common sense are incompatible ideas -- that an unbalanced man shouldn't be able to get his hands on a military-style assault rifle so easily; that in this age of technology, we should be able to check someone's criminal records before he or she can check out at a gun show; that if we work harder to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people, there would be fewer atrocities like the one in Newtown -- or any of the lesser-known tragedies that visit small towns and big cities all across America every day."

The President said it best: "Ultimately if this effort is to succeed it's going to require the help of the American people -- it's going to require all of you. If we're going to change things, it's going to take a wave of Americans -- mothers and fathers, daughters and sons, pastors, law enforcement, mental health professionals -- and, yes, gun owners -- standing up and saying 'enough' on behalf of our kids."

So let's continue this conversation and get something meaningful done. If you have additional ideas and are interested in further engagement with the White House on this issue, please let us know and share your thoughts here:

Thank you for speaking out and staying involved.

Stay Connected

This email was sent to
Sign Up for Updates from the White House

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy

Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111


  1. I can agree to having our local law enforcement be present at our public schools. Such an action would certainly give some degree of deterrent for criminals considering a mass shooting, because it will at least ensure there is ONE armed good guy on the premises.

    However, I am not satisfied with this as an effective enough deterrent as our national social and economic conditions worsen. The truth is that mass shootings like these will never be minimized again in this country as it was prior to the passage of the Federally mandated "Gun-Free Schools Act".

    History seems to prove that anywhere deemed a "Gun Free Zone" merely turns into a "Helpless Victim Zone". The greatest deterrent for any criminal is the anonymity of individuals with concealed carry permits who have been trained in firearm safety and proficiency.

    Over time, let us continue in a reasonable discussion over how to minimize "Helpless Victim Zones" in our localities and provide the best protection our children can have.

    And let us also re-consider the negative effect that psychotropic and other various legally prescribed drugs might be having on our children, as well as adults. Might BIG PHARMA, its lobbyists and Federal Government itself be more responsible for these mass shootings over the decades than the firearm and ammunition manufacturers?

    This really is a complex matter which is all too often viewed from a biased perspective. Let us try to remove our personal bias and consider effective solutions rather than blindly threatening everyone's individual liberties and worsening the situation.

  2. let's see if the national mainstream media reports this shooting in a theater where a good guy had "an assault weapon" (a semi-auto handgun, no doubt) and was able to take out the bad guy before he had the chance to murder anyone...? (i hope it does, but i'm not holding my breath) ;-)

  3. is their data accurate? let us continue searching for truth here...

    Gun group says active killer events quadrupled after Gun Free School Zones Act

  4. ANY attempt by the State to take away firearms from the People supports the necessity of the People to possess firearms equivalent in capability to those of the State's military.

  5. noteworthy is another point of dishonesty among the "gun grabbers": AR-15's are NOT "high powered" rifles. the .223 round is not all that much more powerful than a .22 in the larger picture: it has far less power of the "AK round" (7.62 x 39mm), and no ways near the power of a common .308 round. so why are so many reactive people — and media (who should know better) — deceptively calling the AR-15 .223 round "high powered"???