Despite Chicago receiving majority of publicity, Baltimore is actually more dangerous

9
1
While Chicago receives most of the attention around the country when it comes to shootings, gang-violence and overall homicides, Baltimore has a homicide rate that almost doubles Chicago’s.

In 2016 there were 762 murders in the city of Chicago compared to only 318 in Baltimore, but the two cities have vastly different population sizes.

If Baltimore had the same population as Chicago it would have a murder count of 1,390, close to double the murder count in Chicago.

A BBC report from from March, 1 details how dangerous the city of Baltimore has become.

President Trump has voiced his concerns for places like Baltimore saying, “At the center of my revitalization plan is the issue of trade. Massive, chronic trade deficits have emptied out our jobs. Just look at what has happened to Baltimore, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Cleveland.”

Trump has also addressed rising homicide rates in these democratically controlled cities stating, “Democratic policies have given rise to crippling crime and violence.”

The Truth About Gun Control

Alex Jones breaks down the attempted takeover by the disempowered hoard of zombies calling for gun control.

These impotent civilians are being manipulated by those at the top to achieve the disarmament agenda they have been slowly integrating into the fibers of society.


America is reaching a critical mass of people who support liberty
A Renaissance of Liberty Is Coming

Image Credits: Public domain.

by Eric Peters | Eric Peters Autos.com | May 3, 2015


Looking back on the American Revolution, John Adams (in 1813) wrote:

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people; a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.”

Those frustrated by the seemingly relentless advance of authoritarianism – especially those who’ve given up and are ready to “go down fighting” – might consider Adams’ words.

I grant that defensive force may become necessary at some point. Some of us, as individuals, may find ourselves with our backs to the wall and no better option.

However, I also maintain that absent a change of heart and mind, violence will solve nothing, ultimately. People forced to submit and obey only submit and obey for as long as you are able to force them to do so. But convince them, through moral persuasion, that a given thing is wrong and any laws to the contrary will be rendered nullities at a stroke. They will lose all legitimacy and thereby become unenforceable.

Why is chattel slavery no longer practiced in most parts of the world? It is not because it is against the law. It is because a critical mass of people find it morally repellent.

This is the key to everything.

The wheel turns, perhaps slowly.

But it does turn.

And we must be patient, else risk losing everything.

Consider the “war” on (some) drugs, for example. Year-to-year, it’s hard to discern the shift, but if you’re old enough to remember the ’80s, you will agree that general attitudes have markedly changed and with them, the laws. How many states have decriminalized or are on the path to decriminalizing the use/possession/sale of marijuana? This would have been inconceivable circa 1985 because very few people – most especially those seeking public office (who had a prayer of being elected) would openly defend/argue in favor of decriminalization, much less legalization.

Today, a critical mass of people no longer regard the possession/sale/use of marijuana to be criminal. And, accordingly, it has become very hard for the state to justify the brutalities visited upon those who do use/possess/sell marijuana.

The wheel turns.

Not perfectly, in fits and starts. But it is moving in the right direction. Probably, most people who currently agree that pot ought to be decriminalized (if not outright legalized) are not yet ready to extrapolate the principle to other arbitrarily illegal “drugs.” But – and here is the beauty of it – consciously or not, they have accepted, implicitly at least, that merely to ingest a substance, produce a substance, sell a substance – while perhaps a vice – is not a crime.

This is huge.

Similarly, while imperfect, more and more people have at least implicitly accepted that what consenting adults do in the bedroom – and even whom they choose to spend their lives with – is their business alone. We may not agree, some of us, with their activities or arrangements, but how many would wish to see people imprisoned or otherwise have violence done them on account of such things? In the past, you’d find many who would. Today, there are fewer such. A great deal fewer such. The changing attitudes are reflected in the changing laws.

Consider the philosophical – the moral – significance of this. Of the principle that’s been – so to speak – smuggled into people’s minds. It is a resurfacing of the old American ideal: He ain’t bothering you. Leave him alone. The importance of this cannot be overemphasized.

Because it scales.

If one accepts in principle that it’s no crime – though perhaps a vice – for adults to smoke pot or to engage in various consensual sexual acts – then it is only a matter of time before that principle begins to be applied to other things. It is the critical first step toward conscious acceptance of the non-aggression principle (NAP), the moral idea that using violence against peaceful people is always wrong. While you may disagree with your neighbor, dislike him personally, believe that he ought to do this rather than that … so long as he ain’t bothering you, leave him alone.

Once people grok this, everything will fallback into place. Demagogues (whether Team Red or Team Blue or some other team) will find increasingly less receptive audiences as people begin to recoil from aggressive violence, no matter how it is couched or justified.

It may take time for these baby steps to become galloping great leaps forward. But progress is being made. Whether they realize it or not, many people have already embraced non-aggression when it comes to a variety of things that – within recent memory – most people (a working majority, anyhow) fully agreed constituted criminal acts worthy of violent response. Having questioned the moral propriety of some of these things, they have necessarily taken the decision to question all such things.

It is no coincidence that “law enforcement” is sliding into general disrepute – even outright loathing. And the same goes for “authority” generally. People are questioning. And beginning, many of them, to see. Our task is to encourage this. And to be patient. To resist the temptation to lose hope – and lash out.

The wheel turns.

Give it time.

This post originally appeared at EricPetersAutos.com.

In what should be front page news blasted out nationwide as a breaking news alert, the DHS has openly established extensive ‘Constitution free zones’ in which your Fourth Amendment does not exist.

It’s not ‘conspiracy’ and it’s not fraud, the DHS has literally created an imaginary ‘border’ within the United States that engulfs 100 miles from every single end of the nation. Within this fabricated ‘border’, the DHS can search your electronic belongings for no reason. We’re talking about no suspicion, no reasonable cause, nothing. No reason whatsoever is required under their own regulations. The DHS is now above the Constitution under their own rules, and even Wired magazine authors were amazed at the level of pure tyranny going on here.

This ‘border’ even includes where the US land meets oceans in addition to legitimate borders with Mexico and Canada. As a result, you have over 197 million citizens suffocated in these 100 mile ‘border zones’ that include major cities like New York City, Houston, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. Checkout the graphic below for a visual representation, with the orange area representing the Constitution free zone as designated by the DHS:
Constitution free zone
An ACLU image showing ‘Constitution free border zones’.
100 mile zone
What’s even more amazing, is that this has been going on since 2008. That’s about 5 years of absolute unconstitutional abuse of power by the Department of Homeland Security that the media fails to even document. That’s 197 million citizens living without a Constitution as far as the DHS is concerned, and apparently the Department of Justice (DOJ) must be pretty content too. Amazingly, no one has challenged this besides the ACLU, which was contacted following the case of a man who was actually detained within the 100 mile ‘border’ area.

Not only was this man’s laptop searched for no reason, as is ‘allowed’ under DHS code now, but they ended up finding pictures designated to be linked up with ‘terrorist’ groups. In response, the man was thrown in a cell while DHS agents went through every piece of data on his entire laptop. The ACLU is now suing over this event, but there’s no telling how the case will go with such limited media exposure. The DHS is literally gutting the Constitution and declaring itself higher than the law of the land by doing this, and it spells out major trouble for the entire Bill of Rights at large.

DHS DISMISSES CONSTITUTION, BILL OF RIGHTS

Because if the DHS can simply ‘overrule’ the Fourth Amendment for 197 million citizens, it can also ‘overrule’ the First and Second Amendments as well. What’s stopping them? It’s highly illegal under the Constitution, but it appears they truly don’t care. And to demonstrate just how little they truly care, they have even gone and ‘reviewed’ themselves for their own actions following outcry from some legal experts.

To break it down: back in 2008 there was outrage from those who actually value the Constitution and understand how the bloated DHS entity works, so the DHS promised to prove within 120 days that what they were doing was constitutional and legal. Years later, the report came out to reveal that the DHS actually reviewed itself and determined that it was acting 100% properly. It also founds that everything it was doing was ‘constitutional’ because it was not actually removing the Constitution from United States soil, only the ‘border’.

The ‘border’ that expands 100 miles and includes 197 million people.

This news should be on the front page of every single news organization in the world, but the sad reality is that it’s not. It’s up to the alternative news, the real news, to report on this. It’s up to me to make videos about this, it’s up to the alternative news to syndicate it out, and it’s up to you to share this. It’s time to reclaim our Constitution and tell the DHS we won’t live in Constitution free zones any longer.

Come fund our Indigogo and support the 2nd Amendment.

CLICK HERE

J.D. Heyes
Natural News
January 2, 2013

It is being hailed as a victory by gun rights advocates that is perhaps sweeter than any previous pro-Second Amendment ruling.

photoPhoto courtesy of Webmaster102 at en.wikipedia

Following a recent trend in which successive federal courts have upheld an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, a federal appeals panel in Chicago has thrown out the state’s ban on carrying concealed weapons and ordered the Illinois Legislature to craft a law legalizing the practice within 180 days. Illinois was the only remaining state in the union that did not permit concealed carry.

“The debate is over. We won. And there will be a statewide carry law in 2013,” said Todd Vandermyde, a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, which has been pushing for concealed carry in Illinois for some time.

‘The Supreme Court has decided…’

In a 2-1 decision, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling in a pair of cases from the southern part of the state that upheld a longstanding prohibition against the carrying of a concealed weapon, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

“We are disinclined to engage in another round of historical analysis to determine whether eighteenth-century America understood the Second Amendment to include a right to bear guns outside the home,” Judge Richard Posner wrote in the court’s majority opinion.

“The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence (which overall is inconclusive) is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense,” he continued.

“Illinois had to provide us with more than merely a rational basis for believing that its uniquely sweeping ban is justified by an increase in public safety. It has failed to meet this burden,” Posner wrote.

“The Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment therefore compels us to reverse the decisions in the two cases before us and remand them to their respective district courts for the entry of declarations of unconstitutionality and permanent injunctions,” he wrote.

“Nevertheless we order our mandate stayed for 180 days to allow the Illinois legislature to craft a new gun law that will impose reasonable limitations, consistent with the public safety and the Second Amendment as interpreted in this opinion, on the carrying of guns in public,” the federal jurist said.

Writing as the minority, Judge Ann Williams said the state was within its right to ban weapons in “sensitive places” like government buildings, universities and churches, in the name of public safety – a typical anti-gun mindset which is as antithetical to the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment as it is illogical (the act of carrying a gun is, in and of itself, done to improve “public safety”).

No room for an appeal

“The Illinois legislature reasonably concluded that if people are allowed to carry guns in public, the number of guns carried in public will increase, and the risk of firearms-related injury or death in public will increase as well,” Williams wrote. “And it is also common sense that the danger is a great one; firearms are lethal.”

Economist John Lott, who has studied and written extensively on the issues of guns and gun crimes, disagrees. In a recent op-ed posted online at FoxNews.com, Lott wrote that the “Murder rates consistently rise when guns are banned.”

“This is not just a U.S. phenomenon in places such as Washington, DC and Chicago, but has been observed worldwide. When guns are banned, even in island nations such as the UK, Ireland, and Jamaica, the pattern has been the same. The problem is that gun bans disarm law-abiding good people, not criminals,” he wrote.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, a Democrat, said her office will examine the ruling before deciding whether to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court – which, as Judge Posner pointed out, has already decided the issue.

This article was posted: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 at 10:09 am

Posted on January 2, 2013 by Robert Farago

gun

gun

UPDATE: Two firearms-related bills are now headed for committee. Click here to read the texts.

The NRA’s Illinois rep confirms Illinois Senate President John Cullerton’s gun ban bill. Posting at illinoiscarry.com, Todd Vandermyde says “Not only are they going after semi-autos and magazines, but they are going after ranges . . . Sources say the new bills would require any range open to the public to be run by an FFL. That they would be licensed under unlimited rules and regulations by the State Police. If you see what the Governor did under his AV of SB-681, you can imagine what kind of rules/standards he would put in place to run a range.” The new bill would also prevent non-FOID card holders from getting firearm safety training with a live fire component. “At this time we have no bill numbers,” Todd says. “But we anticipate them using house bills passed over for floor amendments which would only take a matter of hours to clear committee and be ready for a final vote. Legislative offices are open today.” Any gun owner can call Senator Cullerton at 773-883-0770 to lodge their protest.
You may also like –

BREAKING: Illinois Bill to Ban All Modern Firearms
A Win For Illinois Gun Owners. No Really.
Illinois Senator Donne Trotter Is Not a Hypocrite. Really.
BREAKING: U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down IL Concealed Carry Ban
NRA: Illinois Will Be A Shall-Issue State

Erik Loomis wants gun group declared “terrorist organization”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
December 18, 2012

A professor at the University of Rhode Island has found himself embroiled in controversy after tweeting what many assumed to be a death threat against National Rifle Association President Wayne LaPierre.

Professor Erik Loomis got into hot water with second amendment activists when he tweeted, “I was heartbroken in the first 20 mass murders. Now I want Wayne LaPierre’s head on a stick,” in response to last week’s Connecticut school massacre.

Loomis followed up the tweet with a string of subsequent missives, including his most recent tweet in which he called on the Obama administration to “repeal the second amendment.”

Loomis’ desire to see NRA head LaPierre’s “head on a stick,” which in a historical context was used as a brutal way of using an executed dissident’s severed head to warn others against misbehaving, was taken by many as a direct threat but Loomis himself denied he was calling for LaPierre to be assassinated.

“Dear rightwingers, to be clear, I don’t want to see Wayne LaPierre dead. I want to see him in prison for the rest of his life,” tweeted Loomis, labeling the NRA a “terrorist organization” and complaining of there being a “rightwing campaign” against him.

The fact that the University of Rhode Island is a taxpayer funded state university only increased the vitriol directed against Loomis, leading him to complain that he was forced to “block 20 gun nuts from my twitter feed.”

“You are goddamn right we should politicize this tragedy,” Loomis remarked in another tweet. “Fuck the NRA.”

Given that Loomis is a professor of history, one finds it alarming that he fails to grasp the very reason the founding fathers included the second amendment as part of the US Constitution in the first place – to defend against the kind of tyranny imposed by the ruling British empire, which Americans once fought off with guns – and lots of them.

His obsession with portraying his political adversaries as violent extremists who cause school shootings is also ironic given Loomis’ history of violent rhetoric.

“In March of this year, he called for a “decades-long fight to the death [against conservatives]. That’s the nation’s only hope.” The questionable rhetoric appeared in an essay ironically titled, “Are Conservatives Any Crazier Today Than 50 Years Ago?” Clearly the professor, who has violent impulses is projecting his own character flaws onto conservatives,” writes Thomas Lifson.

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

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.

Barney Henderson
Telegraph.co.uk
December 18, 2012

Lanza killed 20 children aged six and seven and six adults at Sandy Hook elementary school having previously shot dead his mother Nancy last Friday. He then shot himself dead. Police are still searching for a motive.

It has emerged that Lanza spent his time in the basement of the family’s four-bedroom home in Newtown playing video games, such as Call of Duty and obsessing over guns and military equipment, according to an interview in The Sun with plumber Peter Wlasuk.

Call Of Duty is controversial because of its violent content. The Advertising Standards Authority in the UK banned daytime advertising of the game earlier this year.

Read full article

12.19.2012

Attacks individual right to keep and bear arms

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Dec 18, 2012


Barack Obama’s former head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, a long time advocate of eviscerating the Second Amendment, has penned a piece that essentially labels anyone who defends long standing gun rights in the US as “crazy”.

In the editorial titled Gun Debate Must Avoid Crazy Second Amendment Claims, Sunstein argues that the individual right to bear arms, supported and reaffirmed consistently by courts across the nation, constitutes “wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution.”

“Sure, it could fairly be read to support an individual right to have guns.” writes Sunstein of the Second, “But in light of the preamble, with its reference to a well-regulated militia, it could also be read not to confer an individual right, but to protect federalism, by ensuring that the new national government wouldn’t interfere with citizen militias at the state level.”

He then goes on to claim that for decades it was never recognized that the Second Amendment protected the individual’s right to keep and bear arms, and that it was only with the Supreme Court decision in 2008 that individual rights were established.

“We should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established, but a lot of gun-control legislation, imaginable or proposed, would be perfectly consistent with the court’s rulings.” Sunstein writes.

“It is past time to stop using the Second Amendment itself as a loaded weapon, threatening elected representatives who ought to be doing their jobs.” Sunstein concludes.

This constitutes an old argument that is used by big government gun grabbers and those politically motivated to erode individual rights. The Supreme Court decision in 2008 UPHELD the individual right to keep and bear arms, as many other court decisions and Justice Department memoranda has before. It did not ESTABLISH that right, as Sunstein argues.

In 2004, the Justice Department noted, “A ‘right of the people’ is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase ‘keep arms’ at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a ‘right of the people,’”

“Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals,” the DOJ’s report continued.

Sunstein’s argument against individual gun rights hinges on the notion that the Founders used the word “people” to mean “states”, a clearly ridiculous suggestion especially given that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned by the most meticulous wordsmiths in history.

Thomas Jefferson himself wrote in several drafts of the Virginia constitution, provisions that “no freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.”

In addition, state-level precursors to the Second Amendment made it clear that keeping arms was each person’s individual right “for the defence of themselves and the state.”

In his argument, Sunstein even wrongly cites the 1939 case of U.S. v. Miller, to argue that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms. In reality, however, the court in that case duly noted that the “militia” mentioned in the Second Amendment comprised all able-bodied males – ie individuals.

Sunstein, and those who have propelled the same argument about the Second Amendment are twisting its meaning. The founders explicitly crafted the Second Amendment as a bulwark against government tyranny. Armed militia — citizens of a country — were to defend against the possible rise of a tyrannical state, not only merely to organize for hunting expeditions or to defend against small scale criminal activity.

We have seen this kind of Rhetoric before from Sunstein. During a lecture at the University of Chicago Law School on October 27, 2007, he argued that “The Supreme Court has never suggested that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to have guns.”

Sunstein either misunderstands the original purpose of the Second Amendment or stands opposed to an armed citizenry guarding against tyranny.

Given that Sunstein has also argued that the First Amendment should be “reformulated”, and has called for taxing or banning outright, as in making illegal, opinions and ideas that the government doesn’t approve of, it is clearly only his views on the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are “crazy”, and not those of the Founders.
Cass Suunsteen