Washington Shooting – The Real Target is the Second Amendment

Washington Shooting - The Real Target is the Second Amendment

The ongoing attacks on the Second Amendment are carefully planned and orchestrated through the means of  mass shootings, the latest one at the Washington Naval Yard on September 16th, 2013. The target is the constitutional right to bear arms.

The scenario is very similar to the previous, tragic ones, albeit this one was much worse than most with more senseless murders.

An unstable man, Aaron Alexis, who was discharged from the Navy, had run-ins with the law over minor gun violence and who was being treated by the Veterans Administration (VA) for mental problems killed twelve people and wounded many others.

The question still remains – what was he being treated with? For the probable answer, we go to the fact that most of the school and other shootings were committed by shooters on psychiatric drugs. Actually, most of them had no history of violence until they started taking these deadly drugs. Many were happy, normal and outgoing teenagers.

While the bodies at this latest shooting were practically still warm, Senator Diane Feinstein was lamenting another shooting and promising one more time to push gun control. The fact is, though, this shooting as well as the Sandy Hook shooting were done in “gun-free zones”. Does this not make it easier for a crazed killer to enter the scene where he would be relatively safe from unarmed victims?

At the same time, President Obama was promising another executive action to establish stronger background checks.

What is the real purpose behind these background checks? Is it really to protect us? The more likely reasoning is that if the government knew who had and didn’t have guns, they could so much more easily be taken away from us. So if you tried to hide them, you would be out of luck. Transparency at its worst.

In an article entitled, “Why are mass shooters becoming more common?” one of the speculations the writer offers is that they were mentally ill. Yes, true. But the real question becomes, not so much why so many senseless shootings as – why so many mentally ill people who commit senseless killings?

The Citizens Commission on Human Rights details several lawsuits against certain drug companies for causing tragic violence and death. For example, one man on Paxil killed his wife, granddaughter and himself.

Another on Zoloft, a peaceful man, turned into a killer. There are many other examples.

There are more current lawsuits but as of 2004, these drug companies had paid out $4.9 billion in settlements.

The statistics on how many people are on psychiatric drugs is staggering and now includes millions of children under five years old.

The point, however, is not to belabor the perils and tragedies of taking psychiatric drugs but to see the pattern and the correlation. In other words, how related are they to this Washington shooting and the Second Amendment?

According to Mike Adams from Natural News, Eric Holder and the government provided guns to Mexican drug lords in hopes they would commit more violent shootings in the Unites States. The plan, as always, is to scare enough people into agreeing to take their guns away.

Written by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to John Cartwright, 1824, “The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that…it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”

The Nazi Weapons Law of 1938 prohibited Jews from having guns and did house to house searches looking for “subversives.” What happened after that?

So the point of the Second Amendment is not just to be able to have guns but to preserve our freedoms, the Constitution and our very lives, as well as to prevent deaths such as the ones that occurred at the Washington shootings. If that was not a gun-free zone, consider how many lives could have been saved by people able to defend themselves.

Written by Lucille Femine


Source 1

Source 2

Source 3

Source 4

3 Responses to "Washington Shooting – The Real Target is the Second Amendment"

  1. Mick Johanssen   September 19, 2013 at 6:39 am

    Diamondback… Trying the argument in an “attempt to clutter the wording” of the US Amendments…? I get it- Democrat- left side idealism… For a better understanding… It Reads clearly,,, “THE RIGHT TO BARE ARMS…” The United States Forfathers just came from a society situation where Others Thought They Knew How to Better Run People’s Lives… And So They Defected- thus Building, The Greatest Country on Planet Earth- the Very One that Allows You To Think, and Write Opinions like the one of your Post… And Not die or go to jail for It… And me to counter Argue- The United States of America. My opinion lies in that with Guns and Ownership… If the Govt. gets Rid of Theirs… Then, we will Get Rid of Ours… It’s NOT Gonna happen- So, the true argument comes to Responsibility… If you obtain any Freedom or Right- people have to understand that there also lies Accountability, and Any Mis-use of this freedom or Right will result into swift, justified and equally heinous response in action to the perpetrator or one who abuses the right shared by all. Our Bloated Legal system is much to blame. If there were not so much to gain, Money, $Fees, notoriety, etc… Common sense would take over and dispatch Quick, effective, and publicized punishment – As a public reminder to those- that if you Commit Such and So Act… Then, the Consequence is __X__… If we did this, there would be a lot less of those committing crimes. Guns are but a tool… Man will – and always HAve, tried to kill each other for many & No reasons, (way before Video simulation games) throughout all time. Guns or No guns, if they want to do it – They Will- to off-set the balance of some over others- The right to Defend one’s Self is Paramount… And recently become Understood by civilized and successful societies…

  2. Lucille Femine   September 18, 2013 at 10:39 am

    Understand, I agree. Thanks for the input.

  3. Diamondback   September 18, 2013 at 8:53 am

    It’s NOT a “constitutional right” Lucille. It’s a constitutionally PROTECTED CIVIL right that comes originally from natural law and is NOT subject to government approval or denial.

    In other words, even if they repeal the 2nd Amendment, the CIVIL right does not go away. It still exists and is still subject to enforcement by the people. Nothing much changes really.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.