Last week two bills were passed the legislative process in California which seek to tighten up gun laws and make it possible for registered gun owners to have their weapons taken from them by court order—and never given back. This is in light of the Elliot Rodger “shootings” which occurred in Santa Barbara a few months back.
Now, as we have gone over down to the most minute details before, both in a huge write up and an hour and a half long breakdown interview with Jeff C. of Free Radio Revolution, the Elliot Rodger shooting was a complete hoax; the witnesses were actors; law enforcement and the university were involved with the event and cover up; and it never happened. We predicted back then that exactly what just happened with the passing of these bills would happen—and what do ya know?
If you are confused about this I implore you to read that article and listen to that interview. If you can walk away believing this event actually happened the way the news told us it did then you must not have paid attention, so read and watch again. For now, if you are a believer in the Elliot Rodger lie, instead of recanting the hundreds of facts to prove this was a hoax, I will just show these photos and you can try to explain them to yourself:
Now, before going any further I would like to state my personal opinion on guns so the reader isn’t confused. I basically hate guns. I definitely hate gun violence. I hate violence of any kind. I’m a city kid—well I was a kid at one point—and I’ve never hunted or even fished. I’m not a vegetarian, and maybe it’s hypocritical or cowardice, but the day I have to kill something to eat it is the day I become one. The honest truth is, I wish guns didn’t exist. But, unfortunately guns do exist, and there is no chance in hell I would want the only people able to get their hands on them being government serving law officials—the same government which invades other countries and sends their citizens to die for them no questions asked—or outright criminals who could care less about a registration; both of which are examples of groups of people who only use guns to kill other people. I feel it is every person’s right to be able to defend themselves by any means of protection they can find, and therefore I believe as long as guns exist, every person should have the right to own them. Who is to say they have the right to protection which if you need you must seek from them? Is this not the system’s way of enforcing your utter dependence on it?
A real gun debate went out the window the day I noticed these “school shootings” and “massacres” were propaganda campaigns to trick the public into giving up their rights. The evil they speak of doesn’t exist. The “lone gunmen” are apparitions. Registered gun owners don’t use guns on people—except Dick Cheney—criminals do, and they don’t register them first, and they’ll also be able to get them whether they are legal or not. To finalize my point, let’s not forget who has taken guns away in the past and why:
Simply put, those who take away their citizens’ guns do it for a reason: absolute, unchallengeable control and utter dependence. What do you think 9/11 was the beginning of? Do you still think it was 19 Muslim hijackers who hated America’s “freedom” that coordinated all that? Maybe you should look a little deeper into what’s really going on in your world right now. Start with the Patriot Act and get ready for your mind to be blown; but I warn you, the rabbit hole is deep and it is very real.
In any case, back to the story at hand. Here’s how the LA Times reported these new bills:
“With support from families who lost loved ones in the Isla Vista massacre in May, the state Senate on Wednesday approved legislation aimed at taking guns away from people seen as a danger to themselves or others. The bill…would allow law enforcement and family members of people they suspect to be dangerous to petition the courts for a restraining order barring possession of firearms…The legislation was acted on just three months after a disturbed man, Elliot Rodger, went on a rampage and killed six UC Santa Barbara students and wounded 13 other people. The killer had purchased firearms even though his family and others worried he might be a danger to himself and others…The vote was 23 to 8.”
Let’s remember before continuing that Elliot Rodger—whose father was a director on the Hunger Games, a movie made out of a book written by a military man’s daughter from Sandy Hook, Newtown, Connecticut—reportedly killed six people from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), and three of those people they say he killed with a blade, not a gun. Gun violence therefore can only be referenced as half of the problem. Whether or not guns existed wouldn’t have prevented this crime; had this crime even happened to begin with. Why are the guns the only part of the problem being focussed on? Well, because this whole situation was set up by former Head of the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, who is now the president of the University of California, using the staff under her and the politicians now in government who used to work for the school to disarm the American public. Isn’t it funny how people went from high ranking positions in government to positions in the university, or vice versa, right at the time of these “shootings”?
Besides all that, with all of the gang and drug related killings being perpetrated every single day in America one would think unregistered guns would be the big issue when it comes to firearms; and in reality it is, though no politician has an agenda with which to personally gain from talking about it, so it is a dead issue. That’s how the thinking person who doesn’t take the TV’s word as the ultimate truth can tell this was a contrived event, because the press all over the world whored this story out not for the sake of integrity in journalism, but instead to form public opinion and sway people into willingly forfeiting their constitutional rights; and this is what is now happening.
There are two bills that passed last week. The first was introduced by Santa Barbara Assemblymember, Das Williams, a recent UCSB graduate who got his connection into politics from working under Hannah-Beth jackson, who was the former policy maker at UCSB before becoming a member of the California State Senate—what a coincidence, huh? According to The Independent:
“Williams’s bill — which he cosponsored with Assemblymember Nancy Skinner — would allow law enforcement, blood relatives, or roommates of someone suspected of posing a serious threat to themselves or others to seek a judge’s order to remove any firearms from that person’s possession.”
Here’s a quick lesson in public propagandizing mind-control for you. Take a look at how this last statement is worded. It’s designed to to trick the reader by adding a semi-logical thought process to a very scary fact: “This would allow law enforcement, blood relatives, or roommates of a person suspected of posing a serious threat…to seek a judges order to remove…firearms…from that person’s possession.” The casual reader will see that statement and walk away thinking, “Well, only people who know the person very well, like family members or roommates—people who really know them—have the power to report them to have their guns taken away.” Wrong. The keyphrase that will be skipped over by 9 out of 10 of the readers of the above article—or any other corporate news article on the topic as they are all worded the exact same—is the first line in the listing of people who who can automatically take away people’s constitutional rights: “law enforcement,” who don’t know these people personally. Take away the family members and roommates part and we’re left with this statement—which, to prove this is crafted propaganda, doesn’t even make grammatical sense:
“Williams bill…would allow law enforcement…of someone…to seek a judge’s order to remove any firearms from that person’s possession.”
There’s the key. This bill is designed, obviously, to give the police the power to disarm any person they want to, or are ordered to—legally. All they have to do is “Suspect” you. And to clear it up, there is such thing as “blood relatives of someone”; and there is such thing as “roommates of someone”; but “law enforcement of someone” doesn’t make any sense at all and the words shouldn’t have been combined with “blood relatives” or “roommates,” which shows you the words “law enforcement” were stuck in a place they don’t belong to be brushed over and connected with “family members” and “roommates,”—generally trusted people—making this bill seem less invasive. But think about it, how many family members and roommates do you think are actually going to be exercising their new rights and reporting their roommates and direct family members to judges? I would guess little to absolutely nobody would do such a thing. But, how many law enforcement types—ie. the local police—will be seeking judge’s orders to unarm private citizens? I would bet a lot.
The second bill passed comes from Hannah-Beth Jackson herself. Once a UCSB policy maker, now a California lawmaker passing laws on citizens based on events that transpired at UCSB. Wow! This bill has tyranny written all over it. When the Elliot Rodger fiasco was going on, and written into his manifesto, there was mentions of the police going to Rodger’s dorm at his mother’s request to see if he was going to kill people. Apparently his mother saw his videos posted on Youtube and called the police. The dates Youtube shows of when Elliot’s videos were posted don’t correspond with the dates given in the manifesto, but aside from that blunder, I wondered why the writers of this event would even have that as part of the story. Now it makes sense:
“Jackson’s bill seeks to encourage law enforcement personnel, when conducting welfare checks, to find out whether the individual owns a gun. Had the Sheriff’s deputies conducting a welfare check on Rodger — at the instigation of his mother — looked up his name for gun registration, they would have discovered he’d purchased three handguns within months of the melee.”
No, that doesn’t mean if someone wants a welfare cheque they have to give up their guns. It means if the police are called to someone’s house they can find out if they are gun owners first and then move to take away their right to own them. For the record, the police can check if a suspect has a registered gun already, it’s public information, so this bill was not put in place to give the police the freedom to do that; it was put in place allow police more means to accuse someone of being a potential threat with court orders behind them to confirm it permanently.
I personally live in a place which has for the last decade been riddled with gun violence. As I have stated before, I hate guns for this reason; but never has there been a shooting or murder in my area that involved gangsters leaning out of SUV windows basting bullets from registered firearms. Criminals don’t register their guns. Why would they? There’s a surefire way to get caught after killing someone. No, of course the people using guns to commit crimes don’t have paper trails leading back to them. Registered gun owners, when one looks at it logically, have nothing to hide.
These bills in California and ones similar in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Colorado, and even Canada now are designed for one purpose: to disarm the public from protecting themselves, making them completely dependent on the police and government. Don’t get it confused. Use your own real life as a reference and cut through these imaginary fictions you’re being told. Don’t let the news fool you into thinking these lone-wolf false flag shootings are real; demand evidence, call them out for contradicting reports and scientific inaccuracies, and pay attention to what’s going on in this world, because it literally depends on you.
by Olan Thomas of http://www.CUT2THETRUTH.com
This article was for the purposes of education, criticism, and opinion, and was not intended for profits of any kind. Your only issue should be spelling and missing words due to lack of editing.
Thanks for reading! Please subscribe and SHARE. 🙂