Charles Parker is one of those quintessential “American Dream” stories whose business success was forged during the War Between the States and America’s subsequent western expansion. It’s a rags-to-riches tale that combined ingenuity, hard work, and determination to create a multi-generational, family-owned business known for both introducing small-bore shotguns and producing collector pieces. His firearms were so inspiring that nearly 90 years since the company was sold, and over 75 years since a gun has been crafted with the Parker name, these high-quality guns are still sought out among collectors and the Parker Brothers name is considered a classic among gun enthusiasts.
The eleventh of 12 children, Charles Parker was born on January 2, 1809, in the town of Cheshire, Connecticut. Although the family was poverty-stricken, Charles was not deterred in his ambitions and always strived for success. To help make ends meet, Charles started working as a farmhand during his teen years, and as he grew into adulthood, he worked as a button maker and then made coffee mills.
After four years in the coffee mill industry, Charles decided he was tired of working for others and was determined to create his own business. At the age of 23, with 70 dollars in his pocket, Charles Parker started a coffee mill plant. The original plant ran on literal horsepower (which rumors claim was blind and half lame) until 1844 when sales increased to the point that consumer need demanded he switch to steam engine power.
The Beginning of Parker Brothers
This same year, Parker joined forces with Oliver Snow and formed Parker, Snow, Brooks, & Company, which would eventually become known as the Meriden Machine Company and later include Parker Brothers, a side company that would manufacture the iconic Parker shotgun. A machinery and foundry, the company employed 120 men and produced coffee mills, lamps, tools, silverware, and grain mills. It also helped put Meriden, Connecticut, on the industrial map, where it would stay for years to come.
Always a shrewd businessman, Parker released a catalog that showcased not only items crafted from his plants but also goods that other companies were selling. These companies included in Parker’s catalog were companies he had invested in, allowing him to provide a secondary source of income for himself and his family.
But in 1860, the American Civil War broke out and the Parker Snow Company, as it was then called, was contracted to produce 15,000 Springfield rifled muskets for the Union army. As he knew little about firearms, Parker hired gunsmith brothers, William and George Miller, who assisted in the transition to manufacturing arms.
By the end of the Civil War, Charles was joined by his brothers Edmund and John, and the three of them, intrigued by the success of their war gun sales, decided to continue manufacturing long guns.
While the company continued to manufacture the breech-loading rifles that had been commissioned by the Union forces, the brothers started work on a design for a shotgun, which they figured could be marketed to those “going west,” who would need reliable and effective firearms to both protect and provide.
Parker Brothers’ Innovative Shotguns
Around 1867, Charles was elected as the first Mayor of Meriden and his three sons, Wilber, Charles Eddy, and Dexter, all took a company role to the newly rebranded Parker Brothers – the division of Meriden Machine Company that would continue to make firearms. The following year, they released the first Parker shotgun, an innovative double-barrelled breech-loading percussion hammer gun. Parker Brothers eventually offered shotguns in various configurations, including 8 gauge, 10 gauge, 11 gauge, 12 gauge, 14 gauge, 16 gauge, and 20 gauge.
Charles Parker Senior died on January 31, 1902, just a few weeks after he turned 93, but the companies he built continued to thrive for decades.
In 1903, Parker Brothers released the first-ever 28 gauge, a small-bore shotgun at only 0.550 inches. Even with its small size, the 28 gauge proved effective and became a trusted standard in both upland hunting and competition shooting.
In 1926, Charles’ grandson Wilbur Parker Junior and Wilber’s son Charles debuted the first .410 bore Parker shotgun, which Charles had actually crafted in 1924 while apprenticing at Gun Works.
The manufacturing of firearms continued at Parker Brothers until 1934 when the impact of the Great Depression led to the sale of the company to Remington Arms, which continued to use the Meriden, Connecticut plant for another four years. In 1943, the last Parker shotgun left the Remington plant, ending an era that lasted 80 years and accounted for an estimated 245,000 shotguns.
Charles Parker’s company and the guns it created are highly prized additions to any gun collector, and many bring in upward of $100,000. Parker shotguns are considered by many to be the best and most collectible shotguns in America. They’ve graced the shooting shoulders of American icons like Annie Oakley and her husband Frank Butler (who were rumored to have owned at least 12 Parker shotguns), Clark Gable, and Ernest Hemingway.
Today there is even a Parker Gun Collectors Association, which celebrates and memorializes Parker muskets and shotguns.
The ATF isn’t all bad. In fact, they had a policy of letting illegal gun purchases go between 2006 and 2011. It ended up getting U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry killed on December 14, 2010, and let Mexican criminals get enough guns that they were found at over 150 crime scenes where Mexican citizens were either killed or maimed. And some of the guns were used in the November 2015 terrorist attack in Paris at the Bataclan. But other than that, it turned out just fine.
(In case you’re not picking up on it, we’re laying on the sarcasm very thick right now.)
You probably know what was officially called “Project Gunrunner” as “Operation Fast and Furious.” Started under George W. Bush, this ATF policy audaciously grew under President Obama and became indicative of the perceived attack on American gun owners by both policymakers and their friends in the establishment media.
It’s one of many scandals of the Obama Administration that was never given as much press attention as, for example, Russia buying Facebook ads about NoFap and Pizzagate. Given that the guns run by the ATF were allowed to kill hundreds and that subsequent Congressional investigations resulted in Eric Holder, President Obama’s Attorney General, becoming the first sitting cabinet member to be held in criminal contempt of Congress ever, this is shocking. At least for anyone still under the illusion that the establishment media is a fair and impartial source of information.
Sit down and get ready to dig into what is perhaps the most egregious scandal of President Drone’s administration – and there’s a lot to pick from.
What Was Project Gunrunner?
Project Gunrunner was a project of the ATF, designed to intercept weapons bound for Mexican criminal organizations. The ATF (the same people who entrapped peaceful, law-abiding citizen Randy Weaver into selling them a single sawed-off shotgun, then pursued him as if he was mounting an armed insurrection, shooting and killing his wife, son, and dog) decided to allow straw purchases (which are technically legal but often involve the crime of providing false information when purchasing a firearm) to happen in the hopes that these purchases would end up in the hands of Mexican criminal organizations.
The thinking was that, rather than going after crimes considered to be small potatoes, the ATF could focus on bigger fish – organizational gun-running in the Southwest and over the border in Mexico. By letting guns purchased illegally to “walk” (i.e., not be prosecuted), the federal government can keep an eye on them, arresting people for much more serious crimes later. That’s the idea, anyway, but the execution ended up being something much different.
Beginning in 2006, the Phoenix Office of the ATF not only allowed but also facilitated and encouraged, straw purchases of firearms to known weapons traffickers. They then allowed the weapons to “walk” to Mexico. Gun Owners of America has stated that they believe this was an attempt to boost statistics for the ATF, thus securing more funding – most of the funding for this came from $40 million in competitive grants from the 2009 “stimulus package,” which was largely a giant giveaway to large banks.
(Such self-serving actions by the ATF are not unheard of. During the congressional inquiry following the ATF’s siege of the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Henry Ruth, one of the three independent reviewers from the U.S. Treasury Department, testified that: “The ATF needed good publicity. With its appropriations hearings a week away, a successful raid this size would produce major positive headlines to counter the ATF’s reputation as a rogue agency whose debacles blackened the reputations of other agencies. And it would scare the public enough about fringe groups to create political pressure on Congress to increase its budget.”)
Some legitimate gun dealers objected to being involved in Project Gunrunner, as did some ATF agents, but they were strongarmed into participation by top brass. What’s more, the practices that became associated with Project Gunrunner were in opposition to long-established ATF operating procedures.
What Was Operation Wide Receiver?
What later became known as “Operation Fast and Furious” is actually only one operation among many under the umbrella of Project Gunrunner. Another was known as Operation Wide Receiver, which ran from early 2006 to late 2007, on George W. Bush’s watch.
In this case, a licensed firearms dealer notified the ATF of a suspicious purchase and was subsequently hired as a confidential informant. The ATF began monitoring straw purchases made through this dealer. During the operation, the dealer sold 450 weapons, including AR-15s chambered in .223, AKs chambered in 7.62×39, and Colt .38s. The lion’s share of these weapons were lost after moving south of the border – only 64 of the weapons were seized before crossing the Mexican border. Most of the cases for the prosecution were so flimsy that the U.S. Attorney’s Office was reluctant to pursue prosecution in any of them. The Bush-era Department of Justice declined to prosecute any of these cases.
The Obama Administration began prosecuting cases in 2010, three years after the project ended. Eventually, nine cases were prosecuted, all for process crimes, with one case dropped, five defendants pleading guilty, one sentenced and two remaining fugitives.
What Was Operation Fast and Furious?
As stated above, Operation Fast and Furious was only one of several such operations. The name itself, “Operation Fast and Furious,” is related to the fact that the suspects were involved in car racing together.
Operation Fast and Furious simply picked up the gun-walking practices which had been going on previously, as if they were new again. Once again, the operation began when a firearms dealer contacted the ATF about a suspicious purchase. Unlike Operation Wide Receiver, many of these purchases involved hundreds of weapons. What’s more, there was no official collaboration between the firearms dealers and the ATF. Perhaps most disturbing is that both Mexican law enforcement officials and the Mexico City Office of the ATF were left completely in the dark about what was going on.
In January 2010, the ATF applied for and received additional funding, and was reorganized as a strike force that included members of the ATF, FBI, DEA, and ICE, run through the United States Attorney’s Office rather than under the jurisdiction of the ATF.
The weapons dealers started raising red flags because they kept seeing the same straw buyers over the course of months purchasing the same weapons over and over again, which is highly unusual. Standard practice is that the dealers tend to only see straw buyers again at trial, if at all. What’s more, the ATF generally arrests the straw buyer and members of the larger criminal organization at the point of transfer, confiscating the weapons in the process. Not only did this not happen under Operation Fast and Furious, but top brass within the ATF prevented agents on the ground from following standard operating procedures.
All told, by June 2010, suspects surveilled under Operation Fast and Furious had purchased over 1,600 weapons at a total spend of over $1 million. At that time – not at the end of the operation – the ATF was aware of over 300 of these weapons being found at crime scenes, 179 in Mexico and 130 in the United States.
To put it bluntly, the ATF facilitated gun trafficking that resulted in crimes on American soil.
The Death of Brian Terry
On December 14, 2010, U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, along with other members of the United States Border Patrol, was on patrol about 11 miles from the Mexican border. When they came across five suspected illegal aliens, they fired bean bags and were responded to with live ammunition. During the resulting firefight, Terry was killed. Four of the suspects were arrested and two AKs found nearby were traced back to Operation Fast and Furious within hours.
The bullet that killed Terry was too damaged to be conclusively linked to the operation. The Acting Deputy Attorney General and the Deputy Chief of Staff were notified but did not think the murder of a United States Border Patrol Agent was important enough to contact the Attorney General. Eventually, ATF Agent John Dodson contacted Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who was the major force behind investigating the ATF’s practice of gun-walking.
This effectively marked the end of Operation Fast and Furious. When all was said and done, approximately 2,000 weapons were purchased through straw buyers that the ATF let walk. Of these, 389 were recovered in the United States, 276 in Mexico, with the balance remaining on the streets. In at least one case, ATF Agent John Dodson was directly involved in the transfer of firearms to a known weapons trafficker.
The Fate of the Furious: What Happened to All Those Guns?
Weapons transferred with ATF compliance and assistance have continued to turn up at crime scenes long after the end of Operation Fast and Furious. Former Attorney General Eric Holder has stated on the record that he believes the weapons will continue to turn up for years to come. The weapons have been used in several high-profile crimes in Mexico, including the use of a .50-cal against a Mexican police helicopter and the murder of a Mexican beauty queen.
The most noteworthy crime the weapons have been used in, however, is the coordinated Islamist attacks on Paris in 2015, including the famous attack against the Eagles of Death Metal concert at the Bataclan. The ATF itself tracked weapons used in the attack to a Phoenix dealership known to be associated with Operation Fast and Furious.
There is virtually no way to know how many people and American citizens are dead because of the unethical actions of the ATF.
Congress Investigates Operation Fast and Furious
A Congressional investigation was led by Representative Darrell Issa of California, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. This was done at the behest of ATF whistleblowers.
Attorney General Eric Holder claimed ignorance about the operation, something that was later called into question by a number of sources. Meanwhile, ATF Agent Vince Cefalu was fired in June 2011, likely for his role in exposing the operation to the general public. He later testified before Congress that purchases of AKs and .50-cals were happening “daily” and that nothing was done, saying, “I cannot begin to think of how the risk of letting guns fall into the hands of known criminals could possibly advance any legitimate law enforcement interest.”
Several of those in charge of the operation were promoted and transferred to Washington – not fired nor even reprimanded. U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona Dennis K. Burke admitted to leaking sensitive documents about Dodson, the chief whistleblower, to the public. Senator Grassley believes that Burke was falling on his sword to protect his superiors in the Justice Department. Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee laid the blame not on any senior officials within the ATF or the Justice Department, but squarely within the Phoenix Office.
Attorney General Eric Holder almost certainly withheld documents and concealed evidence, continuing to deny any knowledge of gun-walking. He was threatened with Contempt of Congress and strongarmed into appearing for the seventh time. A Congressional report on Holder described his view of the murder of Agent Terry as “a nuisance.” The report further stated that Holder knew about gun-walking in general and Operation Fast and Furious in particular – he even knew that the weapons involved in the shootout resulted in the death of Agent Terry – as far back as 2010. The Congressional report further accused Attorney General Holder of stonewalling Grassley’s investigation.
On June 20, 2012, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted to recommend holding Holder in contempt of Congress. This was related to 1,300 pages of documents that the Department of Justice refused to hand over to Congress. Earlier that day, and at the request of close personal friend Holder, President Barack Obama invoked executive privilege for the first time during his administration.
On June 28, 2012, Holder received the dubious distinction of becoming the first sitting member of the Cabinet of the United States to be held in criminal contempt of Congress. The House voted 255-67 in favor of Holder’s refusal to disclose internal DOJ documents in response to a Congressional subpoena. Congress, likewise, voted on a civil contempt measure by a 258-95 margin. This allows the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to go to court with a civil lawsuit testing the executive privilege claim.
In March 2017, the Justice Department’s Inspector General found that the Dallas Office of the ATF could have arrested some of the men involved in ICE Officer Jaime Zapata’s death, but refused to act.
The civil case was eventually settled in 2019, with the Justice Department agreeing to release more documents at long last.
The ATF’s budget is currently frozen at 2016 levels (an effective budget cut given inflation and built-in increased expenses, like salaries and rent) and it does not have a Senate-approved director, in part because of this scandal and what some believe is a Trump Administration directive to slowly choke off the government alphabet agency – which is one of the most hated among his base.
As a parting thought: It is worth noting that this is the worst thing that the ATF has been caught doing since the attack on Randy Weaver’s family or the incineration of women and children at Waco. This raises the important question of what it is that they’re doing that we don’t currently know about.
The Culpeper Flag is often mistaken as a modern variation of the iconic “Don’t Tread On Me” Gadsden Flag – and rightly so. What many don’t know is that the Culpeper Flag was inspired by its Gadsden counterpart, and both have become touchstones of the Second Amendment Movement.
While remarkably similar to its Gadsden relative, the flag of the Culpeper Minutemen is arguably cooler – and significantly more obscure. While it has the same coiled rattlesnake and “Don’t Tread on Me” legend, the Culpeper Flag is white, it carries the additional motto “Liberty or Death,” and when historically correct, a banner bearing the name of the Culpeper Minutemen.
The rattlesnake had been a symbol of American patriotism since the time of the French and Indians Wars. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin wrote an editorial satirically proposing that, in return for boatloads of convicts being shipped to the American Colonies, that the Colonies should return the favor by shipping back a boat filled with rattlesnakes to be dispersed. Three years later in 1754, Franklin published his famous “Join or Die” comic. This early symbol of American unity urged colonists in Albany to join the collective defense of the American Colonies during the French and Indian Wars. The rattlesnake symbol once again became a popular mascot of American unity after the Stamp Act.
The Origins of the Culpeper Militia
The Culpeper Minutemen were formed on July 17, 1775, in a district created by the Third Virginia Convention. This district consisted of the Orange, Fauquier and the titular Culpeper counties. In September of that year, 200 men were recruited for four companies of 50 men from Culpeper and Fauquier, with an additional 100 men for two companies from Orange. By order of the District Committee of Safety, the Culpeper Minutemen met under a large oak tree in a large field currently part of Yowell Meadow Park in Culpeper, Virginia.
When the Revolutionary War came, the Culpeper Minutemen chose the Patriot side. It was at this time that they also adopted their standard-bearer that can be seen adorning pickup trucks of modern-day patriots from sea to shining sea. Their first action during the American Revolution was to defend Virginia capital Williamsburg after the Royal Governor, John Murray, Lord Dunmore, confiscated the gunpowder.
The Culpeper Boys Arrive in Williamsburg
They cut quite a sight arriving in the aristocratic capital, wearing heavy linen shirts dyed the color of the local foliage and carrying tomahawks and knives for scalping. Philip Slaughter, who served with the Culpeper boys as a 16-year-old, said that the colonists looked at them much as they might the Indians themselves. The Culpeper Minutemen, however, were no roughnecks, but a disciplined and orderly squad who quickly earned the respect of their new charges.
During the Revolutionary War, the area where the Culpeper boys were organized was still the frontier. So they were often called to more populated and settled areas. For example, the Culpeper Minutemen fought in Hampton when the British tried to land troops there, at the request of the local authorities. The Culpeper Militia successfully mounted an attack on the arriving ships, shooting the men who were manning the cannons and guns on the ship, preventing the British from landing.
The Battle of Great Bridge
The Culpeper Minutemen were also involved in the December 1775 Battle of Great Bridge, which is one of the places where historians agree that their flag was carried in battle. Here they met the troops of their old enemy Dunmore. This was an American rout. It marked the final gasp of colonial power in Virginia.
While it doesn’t get as much attention in history books, the situation in Revolutionary Virginia was arguably as tense as it was in Revolutionary Massachusetts. Dunmore had dismissed the colonial assembly, the House of Burgesses, as well as the aforementioned confiscation of gunpowder. The gunpowder was confiscated without incident, but Dunmore feared for his life and fled the colonial capital, placing his family on a Royal Navy ship in the harbor.
In October, Dunmore had finally gained enough military support among Loyalists in the colony to begin military operations. This included attacks on the local civilian populations in an attempt to confiscate military materials that might be used by the rebels. On November 7, Dunmore declared martial law and even went so far as to offer emancipation to all slaves willing to fight in the British Army. Indeed, he was able to raise an entire regiment to that effect.
The local forces numbered a scant 400. However, reinforcements from neighboring areas, including the Culpeper boys, helped to balloon this number. Dunmore, however, had old intelligence that left the numbers at the original 400. The battle ended with the British forces spiking their guns to avoid capture by the Revolutionary forces.
When all was said and done, there were 62 British casualties by British count and 102 by the count of the rebels. The rebels had only a single casualty – a slight thumb wound. The Virginians considered this to be their Bunker Hill. The Patriots refused to allow the overcrowded ships (where the Tories sought refuge) to be resupplied, which resulted in the bombardment of Norfolk and its looting and destruction by rebels. Dunmore, considered the greatest threat to the Revolution by many senior rebel officers, was eventually forced out of Virginia entirely in August 1776.
Reports indicated that the British were highly intimidated by the reputation of the frontiersmen who would be arriving at the battle. This undoubtedly provided them with a psychological advantage in what was an important battle.
The Death and Resurrection of the Culpeper Minutemen
The Committee of Safety ordered the group to disband in January 1776, however, almost all of the Culpeper boys kept on fighting – either as Continental militiamen or underneath senior officers such as Daniel Morgan.
The fourth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, John Marshall, was one of the first Culpeper boys.
When the War Between the States came, the Culpeper Minutemen were reconstituted under the old oak tree where they first organized generations prior. This was in 1860, and they once again carried the same flag as their forefathers. They were eventually integrated into the regular army of the Confederate States of America, as part of Company B of the 13th Virginia Infantry, where they served for the duration of the Civil War.
The Minutemen came together again during the Spanish-American War but were never activated. During World War I, the Culpeper boys organized once again, this time under the auspices of the 116th Infantry. The modern-day Alpha Company Detachment, 2nd Regiment of the Virginia Defense Force, considers themselves to be a descendent of the Culpeper Minutemen, probably with their roots in the First World War.
While many of the Revolutionary War flags flown by Patriots today have dubious origins, the Culpeper Flag is one of the few banners that we know for certain was flown by Patriots during the Revolutionary period. It also offers a succinct statement of the values of the American nation: Liberty or Death – and a stern warning to those who would threaten our liberty.
By: Publius Huldah
The Globalists have long been in the process of setting up a dictatorial and totalitarian oligarchy over the United States. Now they are putting the last pieces in place. That is what is behind the pushes for the USMCA “Trade Agreement”, an Article V convention, and red-flag and other laws to disarm the American People. The Globalists want to move the United States into the North American Union.
USMCA “Trade Agreement”
The USMCA “Trade Agreement” is, in reality, a Transfer of Sovereignty Agreement. It provides for the economic and financial integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. In addition to putting the three countries under global regulation of a host of issues such as patents, environmental regulation, labor, immigration policy, prohibition of discriminatory practices respecting sexual preferences and “gender identity” in the workplaces; 1 it puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in control of our economy and binds us to submit to an international monetary system which is to be administered and enforced (at least initially) by the IMF and which will replace our collapsing Federal Reserve system.2
Every word, clause, sentence, paragraph, page, chapter, and appendix of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is in blatant violation of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
North American Union
The North American Union brings about the political integration of Canada, the United States, and Mexico. The Task Force Report on Building a North American Community [link] sponsored by The Council on Foreign Relations provides for (among other horrors):
- increasing the “cooperation and interoperability among and between the law enforcement agencies and militaries.” The Report thus indicates that the plan is to combine the functions of law enforcement and the militaries of the three countries, so as to create a militarized police force consisting of Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans (pages 10-12). 3
- a North American Advisory Council, with members appointed by Canada, the United States, and Mexico, to staggered multiyear terms to “provide a public voice for North America”; and a “North American Inter-Parliamentary Group” which will have bilateral meetings every other year; and a trinational interparliamentary group to meet in the alternating year (pages 31-32).
To merge the functions of our police and military and combine it with those of Canada and Mexico; 4 and to permit a Parliament to be set up over and above the United States, is altogether repugnant to our existing Constitution. But this is what the Globalists and the Political Elite of both parties want. Before they can impose it on us, they need to get a new Constitution for the United States.
An Article V Convention
And that’s the purpose of an Article V convention – to get a new constitution for this Country which legalizes the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and transforms the United States from a sovereign nation to a member state of the North American Union.
But Americans don’t want another constitution, and they don’t want to be moved into the North American Union.
So! Some of those pushing for an Article V convention, such as the “Convention of States Project” (COS) are marketing a convention to appeal to conservatives. COS and their allies such as Mark Levin claim to be for limited government and say they want a convention to get amendments to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”. Sadly, those who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the power and jurisdiction of the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers [they are listed on this one-page Chart] fall for the marketing.5
But some of those pushing for an Article V convention, and certainly those financing the push for a convention, 6 actually do intend to “limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government”; and they intend to do it by transferring the powers our Constitution delegates to the federal government (plus the powers reserved to the States or the People) to the global government which they are setting up over us.7
This Flyer shows why Delegates to an Article V convention (called for the ostensible purpose of proposing amendments to our existing Constitution) have the right and power to ignore their instructions and impose a new Constitution which puts us under a completely new Form of government – such as the North American Union.
Red flag Laws & Gun Confiscation
When Americans finally see what has been done and how they have been deceived, they will be angry. That’s why they must be disarmed now. But all federal gun control laws for the Country at Large are unconstitutional as outside the scope of powers granted to Congress; as in violation of Article I, §8, clauses 15 & 16; and as in violation of the Second Amendment. And any pretended State law which contradicts its State Constitution or which interferes with Congress’ power (granted by Art. I, §8, cl. 16) to “organize, arm, and discipline, the Militia”, is also unconstitutional [link].
Red flag laws also violate the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV, §2; and the due process clauses of the 5th Amendment and §1 of the 14th Amendment. US Senator Marco Rubio’s (Fla.) malignant red flag law [link] appropriates a total of $100 Million to pay to States and Indian Tribes which pass the red flag legislation set forth in Rubio’s bill.
And Trump says respecting red flag laws, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.” [link].
Stop the Globalists: Oppose the USMCA “Trade Agreement” and an Article V Convention
While the Trump Administration hammers the Globalists’ nails into our coffin, his trusting supporters censor criticism of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” – even though the Agreement is so long and incorporates so many other Agreements it is unlikely that any of them (including Trump) have read it.
And demagogues in the pay of Globalists have convinced constitutionally illiterate Americans that the solution to all our problems is to get an Article V convention.
2 Publius Huldah: So You Think Trump Wants To Get Rid Of The Fed?
3 Meanwhile, the UN is building a global military & police force. See “United Nations Peacekeeping” [link] and think of the ramifications of such a militarized global police force. Who will be able to resist?
4 Mexico’s culture is notoriously criminal. If we permit Globalists to get an Article V convention and a new Constitution which moves the United States into the North American Union, you can expect to see militarized Mexican police operating within our [former] Country. And soon, they will be wearing blue helmets.
5 It is possible that Mark Levin and the hirelings promoting a convention (such as Mark Meckler, 6 Tom Coburn [link], and Jim DeMint [link]) don’t know what the actual agenda is. And it is almost certain that COS’s constitutionally illiterate celebrity endorsers and lemmings don’t know. People who don’t know that our Constitution already limits the federal government to a tiny handful of enumerated powers and that our problems are caused by ignoring the Constitution we have are easily deceived by the ridiculous claim that we must amend our Constitution to make the federal government obey it.
Our Framers always understood that the purpose of an Article V Convention is to get a new Constitution [link]. This is why James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and four US Supreme Court Justices, among others, warned against it [link].
6 It is the Globalists, primarily the Kochs and George Soros, who are funding the push for an Article V convention. See, e.g.,
- Kochs Bankroll Move to Rewrite the Constitution [link].
- George Soros assault on U.S. Constitution [link]
- Mark Meckler is president of “Citizens for Self-Governance” which launched the “Convention of States Project”. This website discusses funding for Citizens for Self-Governance.
- Koch brothers from Conservapedia [link]
7 The transfer of power from our federal government to global government by means of the USMCA “Trade Agreement” is illustrated here.
By: Alex | Ammo.com
Oliver Winchester was born in Boston, on November 30, 1810. He started his career with a clothing company based out of New York City and New Haven, Connecticut. After successfully running this aspect of his business, Winchester began to look for new opportunities. Horace Smith and Daniel Wesson (yes, that “Smith & Wesson” who later formed the Smith & Wesson Revolver Company) acquired and improved a rifle design with the help of shop foreman, Benjamin Tyler Henry. Talk about a genius cluster! In 1855, they began to manufacture what would be known as the “Volcanic” lever-action rifle. The company would become incorporated as the Volcanic Repeating Arms Company; its largest stockholder was Oliver Winchester.
After limited success with this new rifle, Winchester seized the opportunity to take control over the failing company and renamed it the New Haven Arms Company. Although initial returns were slow, Benjamin Henry, the company’s leading engineer, improved the Volcanic repeating rifle’s design by enlarging the frame and magazine to accommodate the all-new brass-cased .44 caliber cartridge. This ingenuity put the company on the map, and in 1860, the patent for the infamous Henry rifle was issued. The next six years of production produced over 12,000 Henry, many of which were used in the Civil War. In the following months, Benjamin Henry, who was angered over what he believed was inadequate compensation, filed a lawsuit for ownership of the company. Oliver Winchester hastily reorganized the company as the Winchester Repeating Arms Company to circumvent this issue.
The Model 1866 soon rolled out as the first Winchester rifle. Based on the Henry rifle, it came with an improved magazine and a wooden forend. In the following years, larger caliber rifles such as the infamous Model 1873, “The Gun That Won The West”, brought more notoriety and foundation to the company. Although Mr. Winchester would miss the opportunity to see his company’s greatest achievements; he passed away in December of 1880.
Winchester Repeating Arms Company’s collaboration with John Browning brought about much success with a host of shotguns, including the still produced Model 1885. The turn of the 20th century hosted a series of new arms developments, many from the top engineer at the time, T.C. Johnson. But it was the start of the First World War that set development and production requirements into full force. The company became a major producer of the .30-06 M1917 Enfield rifle for the United States military and worked once more with Browning to develop the .50 caliber BMG.
During the war, the company borrowed heavily to finance the expansion. In an attempt to pay down its debt following the war’s end, they used their surplus production capacity to manufacture consumer goods such as kitchen knives, roller skates, and refrigerators. The strategy was a failure, and the Great Depression sent the company into bankruptcy. John M. Olin’s Western Cartridge Company purchased the Winchester Repeating Arms Company at auction in 1931, with plans to restore the brand to its former glory. The Second World War helped this cause tremendously as Winchester produced the U.S. M1 Carbine and the M1 Garand rifle during this time period.
Over the following decades, the Olin Winchester-Western division struggled with rising labor costs and other companies’ cast-and-stamped production methods. By 1980, Olin decided to sell the company back to its employees, which re-incorporated as the U.S. Repeating Arms Company. Olin retained the Winchester ammunition business. U.S. Repeating Arms went bankrupt in 1989, and after a number of sellouts to foreign holdings companies, the New Haven plant closed its doors on January 16, 2006, after 140 years of producing rifles and shotguns.
In August of 2006, Olin Corporation, owner of Winchester trademarks, entered a new license deal with Browning to make Winchester brand rifles and shotguns once again. The Model 1885, Model 1892, and Model 1886 are all produced by Miroku Corporation of Japan, then imported to the U.S. by Browning. Currently, Fabrique Nationale d’Herstal (FN) makes the remainder of Winchester’s rifle and shotgun lineup in various locations around Europe.
Winchester-branded ammunition continues to be produced by the Olin Corporation. Some of the most successful cartridges ever invented have been under the Winchester name: the .44-40 WCF, the .30-30 WCF, the .32 Winchester Special, the .50 BMG, the .270 Winchester, the .308 Winchester (the commercial version of the 7.62x51mm NATO), the .243 Winchester, the .22 WMR (aka the .22 Magnum), and the .300 Winchester Magnum. In North America, the .30-30 and .308 Winchester are some of the best selling cartridges in firearm history.
Through its history, the Winchester name has experienced great successes and significant failures; but it’s truly an important story to know in the realm of firearms. Here’s to the man that started it all, happy birthday to Mr. Oliver Winchester.
The USA PATRIOT Act provides a textbook example of how the United States federal government expands its power. An emergency happens, legitimate or otherwise. The media, playing its dutiful role as goader for greater government oversight, demands “something must be done.” Government power is massively expanded, with little regard for whether or not what is being done is efficacious, to say nothing of the overall impact on our nation’s civil liberties.
No goals are posted because if targets are hit, this would necessitate the ending or scaling back of the program. Instead, the program becomes normalized. There are no questions asked about whether the program is accomplishing what it set out to do. It is now simply a part of American life and there is no going back.
The American public largely accepts the USA PATRIOT Act as a part of civic life as immutable, perhaps even more so than the Bill of Rights. However, this act – passed in the dead of night, with little to no oversight, in a panic after the biggest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor – is not only novel, it is also fundamentally opposed to virtually every principle on which the United States of America was founded. It might not be going anywhere anytime soon, but patriots, liberty lovers and defenders of Constitutional government should nonetheless familiarize themselves with the onerous provisions of this law, which is nothing short of a full-throttle attack on the American republic.
What’s Even in the USA PATRIOT Act?
What is in the USA PATRIOT Act? In the Michael Moore film Fahrenheit 9/11, then Rep. John Conyers cracked wise about how no one had actually read the act and how this was in fact par for the course with America’s laws. Thus, before delving into the deeper issues surrounding the PATRIOT Act, it is worth discussing what the act actually says. Here’s a brief look at the 10 Titles in the PATRIOT Act:
- Title I: Enhancing Domestic Security Against Terrorism: This provision dramatically expands the powers of the President, the military and the intelligence community whenever the specter of “terrorism” is invoked. Bizarrely, it contains a provision condemning discrimination against Arabs, Muslims and South Asians, which seems to have very little to do with protecting Americans from terrorism.
- Title II: Enhanced Surveillance Procedures: Title II contains the meat of the Act with regard to massive, industrial-scale surveillance on the American public. Beyond the simple spying on Americans and their communications, Title II increases the ability of federal intelligence agencies to share your private communications with one another.
- Title III: International Money Laundering Abatement and Financial Anti-Terrorism Act: Not simply a section of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title III is an Act of Congress in its own right. You might have noticed how much more difficult it is to open a bank account or send a wire transfer after 9/11. You can blame this provision, which shredded banking privacy rights in the United States.
- Title IV: Protecting the Border: Other than expanding the number of federal employees (of course), the provision of the USA PATRIOT Act charged with protecting America’s borders does little other than point toward paths for future action and study. It is worth noting that the weakest provision of the act is the only one explicitly authorized by the Constitution — protecting the border.
- Title V: Removing Obstacles to Investigating Terrorism: Title V authorizes bounties for the apprehension of alleged terrorists, broadens government power to conduct DNA analysis, allows for greater data sharing between law enforcement agencies and, perhaps most disturbingly, requires private telecommunication carriers to comply with government requests for electronic communication records whenever requested by the FBI. It also expands the power of the Secret Service to investigate computer fraud.
- Title VI: Providing for Victims of Terrorism, Public Safety Officers and Their Families: Perhaps the most innocuous portion of the USA PATRIOT Act, Title VI provides for a victims’ fund for victims of terrorism and their families.
- Title VII: Increased Information Sharing for Critical Infrastructure Protection: The subtitle of this section of the act is a rather wordy way of saying that the United States federal government is allowing for law enforcement agencies to share information across jurisdictional boundaries in an easier fashion than was previously legal. To that end, the Bureau of Justice Assistance was given a $50,000,000 budget for 2002 and a whopping $100,000,000 budget for fiscal year 2003.
- Title VIII: Strengthening the Criminal Laws Against Terrorism: Title VIII is where the rubber meets the road: What exactly is terrorism, according to the federal government? Unfortunately, this Title does little to clarify what terrorism is, instead focusing on declaring a number of actions (such as attacks on transit) as “terrorism,” regardless of intent.
- Title IX: Improved Intelligence: The section subtitled “improved intelligence” largely expands the powers and responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence.
- Title X: Miscellaneous: When the federal government titles a segment of a law “miscellaneous,” you know it’s going to include everything and the kitchen sink. And so it does: The definition of electronic surveillance, additional funds for the DEA in South and Central Asia, research on biometric scanning systems, a limitation on hazmat licensure and infrastructure protections are all addressed in Title X, which is a catchall for everything the federal government forgot to address in the first nine sections of the law.
Most of the provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act were set to sunset four years after the bill was passed into law. However, the law was extended first by President George W. Bush and then by President Barack H. Obama. The latter is particularly scandalous given that, at least in part, a rejection of the surveillance culture that permeated the Bush Administration was responsible for the election of Obama in 2008.
Passing the USA PATRIOT Act
Next, it’s important to remember the environment in which the USA PATRIOT Act was passed: Post-9/11. It is not the slightest bit of exaggeration to label the environment in which the PATRIOT Act was passed as “hysterical,” nor is “compliant” a misnomer for the Congress of the time. Opposition to the Act was slim and intensive review of one of the most sweeping acts of Congress in American history was nonexistent.
All told, Congress took a whopping six weeks drafting, revising, reviewing and passing the PATRIOT Act. That’s less time than Congress typically spends on totally uncontroversial and routine bills that don’t gut the Fourth Amendment. The final vote found only 66 opponents in the House and one (Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold) in the Senate. The entire passage of the PATRIOT Act, from start to finish, took place behind closed doors. There were no committee reports or hearings for opponents to testify, nor did anyone bother to read the bill.
“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” is the bloated and overwrought full name of the bill, crafted by a 23-year-old Congressional staffer named Chris Cylke. This ridiculous name puts the focus not on the surveillance aspects or the erosion of basic civil liberties enshrined in Western society since the Magna Carta, but on patriotism. At the time of its creation, the messaging was very clear: Real patriots support massive intrusions on civil rights. As President George W. Bush said at the time, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” This sentiment very much seemed to apply to American citizens.
While the argument that if you have nothing to hide you shouldn’t fear investigation is anathema in a Constitutional republic with regard to citizens, it should be standard operating procedure when it comes to our organs of government. If we cannot expect transparency from the United States Congress – elected officials charged with representing the will of the people and protecting the Constitution – then we certainly can’t expect it anywhere else.
The Unfortunate Growth of the USA PATRIOT Act
It’s no surprise to those in the liberty movement that given an inch, the government (in particular the military-intelligence community) took a mile. Even the nebulous definition of “terrorism,” largely centered around a long litany of acts rather than the motivation behind them, has expanded to include receiving military training from a proscribed organization (without actually committing any terrorist acts or even acts of violence of any stripe) as well as “narcoterrorism” – the latter particularly convenient, as the United States government continues its losing “War on Drugs.”
Indeed, in many ways, the War on (Some) Drugs was the template for the War on Terror. Both wars have no defined enemy, no defined terms of victory. Instead, they are waged against a nebulous concept, while enjoying bipartisan support for their ever-expanding budgets. What’s more, it didn’t take long for the Feds to start using the USA PATRIOT Act for things it was never intended for, including prosecuting the War on Drugs.
Perhaps the silliest application of the USA PATRIOT Act is the prosecution of Adam McGaughey. McGaughey maintained a fansite for the television series Stargate SG-1. The Feds charged him with copyright infringement and computer fraud. In the course of their investigation, the FBI leveraged the PATRIOT Act to get financial records from his website’s ISP. This was made possible by the USA PATRIOT Act amending the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, allowing for search and seizure of ISP records.
The New York Times discovered in September 2003, that the USA PATRIOT Act was being used to investigate alleged drug traffickers without what would otherwise be sufficient probable cause. These were investigations into non-terrorist acts using a law ostensibly designed to investigate terrorism. There was some suspicion that the Act was being used to investigate crimes occurring before the act was passed, violating the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution.
In one of the biggest power grabs (excluding virtually everything we know from Edward Snowden – more on that below), the FBI sent tens of thousands of “national security letters” and procured over one million financial records from targeted businesses in Las Vegas. These businesses were primarily casinos, car rental bureaus, and storage spaces. The data obtained included financial records, credit histories, employment records, and even people’s personal health records.
The FBI maintains and databases this – and, indeed, all information collected through the USA PATRIOT Act – indefinitely. In the good old days before the PATRIOT Act, the Feds were compelled to destroy any evidence they collected on someone later found not guilty of a crime. Note that the aforementioned data collection brought to public attention by Edward Snowden (which, again – we’re getting to that) falls under this provision. Not only is the government collecting obscene amounts of private and personal information about you, they’re also storing it indefinitely with no plans to stop.
What’s more, the FBI has approached public libraries to turn over the records for specific terminals, collecting information not about specific users who might be under investigation, but about anyone who has ever used the computer at the public library. Libraries, to their credit, have been very much at the forefront of resistance against the PATRIOT Act, with some litigating compliance despite operating on small budgets and others posting “canary letters,” which effectively say “The FBI Hasn’t Been Here Yet.” The removal of such a letter would warn patrons that the FBI has been sniffing around in their records.
Indeed, the greatest criticism of the PATRIOT Act is the simplest and perhaps most obvious: Why does an act ostensibly passed to fight terrorism so drastically expand the government’s power to investigate virtually everyone else? The PATRIOT Act is not merely unconstitutional, it is an unprecedented expansion of state power in the Anglosphere, a culture based on restricted government and the primacy of individual rights.
An excellent example of this is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) expansion. Most people are familiar with the term “FISA court,” but very few people actually know what it is – a special federal court created under the Carter Administration that grants approval of electronic surveillance of both citizens and resident aliens in the event that they are accused of acting in the service of a foreign power. The last part of this sentence is very important: The FISA courts are not simply for allowing surveillance of anyone that it might be expedient to collect information about. The scope of their powers is very, very limited.
The PATRIOT Act lowered the burden of evidence required to obtain a FISA warrant for electronic surveillance and expanded the overall scope of the FISA courts. Any savvy federal agent can now drape his charges in the garb of (what else?) “national security” and obtain electronic surveillance privileges hitherto only dreamed of by investigators. FISA courts have become pliant tools in the hands of the Feds, gladly approving their requests to monitor phone and internet surveillance, as well as access to medical, financial and educational records.
The Future of the USA PATRIOT Act
Do we still need the PATRIOT Act? Did we ever? All laws are certainly a product of their times. But this seems much more acutely true of the USA PATRIOT Act, which was passed in a rush and under duress without due consideration.
Particularly in light of the revelations from Edward Snowden – that the government is spying on everything they possibly can – it’s worth asking if there’s any walking back. He points out that the police state apparatus was originally for drug dealers, then for terrorists, but ultimately ended up being applied to anyone and everyone.
What’s more, Bob Bullard notes another frightful aspect of the USA PATRIOT Act: Terrorism-related cases are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This means that there is little or no oversight. There is no surer hallmark of a police state than an all-powerful domestic surveillance agency with no transparency or oversight. While the USA PATRIOT Act might not create an American Stasi as such, it certainly paves the way for one.
“I have repeatedly told CNN and our other media the following if you don’t want to propagate more mass murders: Don’t start the story with sirens blaring. Don’t have photos of the killer. Don’t make it 24/7 coverage. Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story. Localize the story to the affected community. And make it as boring as possible in every other market.”
Video games. 4chan. “Toxic masculinity.” These are just a few of the media’s favorite folk devils when it comes to assigning blame for mass shootings in America. However, there is startling evidence that how the media covers these tragedies makes them culpable in perpetuating future ones.
This might sound like an outlandish claim, but it’s supported by evidence from no less an authority than the National Institutes of Health. It’s related to a well-established phenomenon of copycat suicides known as the Werther Effect. Other countries’ medias have taken steps to minimize the Werther Effect through self-imposed industry standards on suicide reporting, and many of these standards have parallels with the coverage of mass shootings.
The American media currently has no industry standard practices for how to cover either suicides or mass shootings. However, one can easily see the difference between how mass shootings and suicides are covered. Whereas suicides are treated as sombre tragedies, mass shootings often have the sensationalism turned up to 11. There’s a detailed discussion of the shooter’s life story, motives and methods. Strong evidence suggests that this both encourages and instructs potential mass shooters.
Statistically speaking, mass shootings represent a tiny portion of all deaths in the United States. For example, 2017 was the deadliest year for mass shootings in America with a total of 117 people killed. For context, 102 people die from automobile accidents every day according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Institute.
Despite the low frequency of these tragedies, the media pays outsized attention to them for self-serving reasons, which are both political and economic: There’s a demonstrated anti-gun agenda amongst America’s media. And there’s the ongoing shift in the media’s business model to attention-based revenue that results in ever-more sensational news coverage and “clickbait” headlines.
The lurid attention to mass shootings is profitable for America’s press, cable news networks, and social media companies – despite the consequences encapsulated by the Werther Effect. Thus a look at the role the American media plays in perpetuating these rampage killers is in order.
Ask yourself: Can suicides be contagious? Some studies say yes. It’s known clinically as the Werther Effect, after Goethe’s novel The Sorrows of Young Werther. This is a particularly important topic in the era of the so-called “mass shooter” and the phenomenon of “suicide by cop.” Researchers at Northeastern Illinois University and Arizona State University found that as many as 20 to 30 percent of all mass shootings are copycat shootings inspired by media coverage of other shootings.
The history of the Werther Effect is quite curious. Goethe’s novel was a cultural phenomenon at the time. Melancholic men were dressing in blue jackets and yellow pants in emulation of the novel’s protagonist, Werther, who was effectively a stand-in for Goethe himself. Some men took their love of the novel one step further by committing suicide with a pistol in the same manner as Werther, who ends his life at the end of the novel after being rejected by the woman he loves. This led to the book being banned in several places.
The term “Werther Effect” was first coined by researcher David Phillips in 1974. Further studies in 1985 and 1989 by Phillips and his team found that suicide rates, as well as other accidents, increased after a well-publicized suicide. The Werther Effect impacts the young and the elderly – but not the middle-aged. Those who commit copycat suicides tend to be of a similar age to the original suicide they are copying.
The timeline for a copycat suicide is generally weeks and months, though in the case of a high-profile celebrity suicide, it might be as long as one year. Some of the most famous suicides that have caused a spike in the overall suicide rate include Marilyn Monroe (that August had about 200 suicides more than was typical for the month) and the Tunisians street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi, whose self-immolation kicked off the Arab Spring. The Netflix series 13 Reasons Why saw a 26-percent increase in searches for “how to commit suicide,” an 18-percent increase in searches for “commit suicide” and a 9-percent increase in searches for “how to kill yourself.” The teen suicide rate itself spiked after the release of the show.
The Werther Effect for mass shootings was found to be 13 weeks by the study conducted by Arizona State University and Northeastern Illinois University.
For his part, Phillips mostly blamed the media. He believed that people who were having a hard time felt that in some way they had been given “permission” to end their life by a high-profile suicide. He compared this with similar studies about other risk-taking behaviors such as taking drugs. People were more likely to engage in such activities if someone else had done so first.
In the case of a mass shooting, potential shooters are not just given a sick kind of “permission,” they are also given a script from which to follow – a ready-made game plan that they can copy and tweak to best fit their purposes. The shooter in El Paso, Texas directly referenced the manifesto of the Christchurch mosque shooter, for example.
Suicides due to the Werther Effect, in addition to being similar with regard to age group, were also similar with regard to method. This is important to remember when considering those mass shootings which are, in effect, a highly dramatic form of suicide. Some shooters seek to get out alive. But for many, the intended effect is being killed by police in the act of shooting other people.
Curiously, the Werther Effect is not an inevitability, but is largely a function of how the media reports on the suicide in question. For example, there were fears that the suicide of Kurt Cobain would lead to a rash of suicides. However, in the media coverage of Cobain’s death, the focus was primarily on the need for mental health care and the suffering of his family due to his suicide. The result was that there was actually a decrease in the suicide rate around the time of his death.
The United States is anomalous when it comes to coverage of suicide, in that it has no national professional code on how suicides should be covered. Norway forbids publicizing suicide in any way in its media, while other countries have a much more moderate, but sensible, approach. For example, in the United Kingdom, journalistic practice is to not romanticize the death, use lurid photos, or use the word “suicide” anywhere in a headline.
Not only does the United States not have rules against celebrating or glamorizing suicide – either as an industry-standard journalistic practice or by government fiat – the United States media has a lurid fascination with suicide in general as well as suicide by cop and its close cousin the mass shooting.
There is an equally lurid motto for this principle in the American media: “If it bleeds, it leads.”
Note the coverage in the New Zealand media of Brenton Tarrant, the Christchurch mosque shooter. His face is blurred out in all media coverage. The government of New Zealand requested that other countries not show footage from the shooting, which was live streamed. While the jailing of no less than eight people who shared the shooters video is an extreme reaction that infringes upon freedom of speech and free exchange of ideas, it shows just how committed New Zealand was to prevent any glorification of the shooter.
The media does this for two reasons: First, it moves units. Newspapers and other media are businesses and do what creates the greatest profits. However, there is another, more sinister and cynical reason that can be credibly put forward: The American media has a left-wing political agenda that includes the wholesale banning and confiscation of private firearms.
Mass shootings are, in terms of sheer number of deaths, a blip on the radar. The euphemism “gun violence” is often used to mask this, which lumps murders and suicides into the same statistic. While suicides are undoubtedly tragic, they’re not what one thinks of when hearing the term “gun violence.” All told, there were 11,004 gun homicides in 2016. While this sounds like a lot, some context is in order: 34,436 died of car crashes in the United States in the same year.
Neil deGrasse Tyson came under fire for pointing this out – that not only do gun deaths not amount to a lot in the grand scheme of things, but “mass shootings” are even less.
Indeed, what counts as a “mass shooting” is a political game that deliberately excludes mass shootings. Vox, Mother Jones, The Washington Post and the Congressional Research Service all keep detailed records of mass shootings. Each of these deliberately exclude gang violence in their tallies.
For context, a total of 888 people have died in mass shootings since 1982. That’s a total of 1 percent of all gun deaths, approximately two-thirds of which are suicides. In 2017 alone, police killed 1,189. Americans should be concerned about mass shootings and any other topic where public policy might be able to reduce the number of deaths.
But Mark Manson and others have discussed how mass shootings are not only something virtually every American doesn’t have to worry about, but panicking and virally boosting the incidents might also be creating more of them (along the same lines as the Werther Effect). Sam Harris has discussed how new legislation is probably not the answer, but a different view of public social violence is.
It’s worth noting that, like terrorism, the intended effect of a mass shooting is attention and fear. When society reacts hysterically to mass shootings without proportion, it is playing into the hands of the agenda of the mass media as well as the intended shooter.
That the Werther Effect has some analog with mass shootings is difficult to dispute. First, mass shootings are largely a product of the post-1968 world – i.e., the world after gun control. What’s more, shooters have studied the actions of other shooters to understand how to commit their crimes.
“You will notice that I am not using the killer’s name and I will try not to do that. Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory, and I don’t want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families, and so that other twisted minds don’t think that this is a path to fame and recognition.”
More than simply a desire to see these shootings not reported, the FBI is actively investigating potential copycat criminals in the wake of mass shootings, such as the ones that took place in Dayton and El Paso. A study conducted by Mother Jones located no fewer than 74 copycat killings (attempted or executed) of the 1999 Columbine shooting alone. The casualty toll of these attacks included 89 deaths, 126 injuries and nine suicides.
There is more than just circumstantial evidence to suggest that there is a Werther Effect for mass shootings. Indeed, this has been studied. The National Institute of Health produced a meta-study of mass shootings that concluded what most people probably already suspect: that there is an imitative effect. It’s not that mass shootings are “contagious” as such. Contagion is something belonging to the world of epidemiology and virology, not psychology. It’s that mass shooters tend to imitate one another.
Where do they get the information to imitate one another? While the National Institute of Health hedges a bit on whether or not mass shootings are “contagious” in the same way that other violent and dangerous behaviors are, it is very clear that the media plays a key role in disseminating the information about how to commit a mass shooting.
Gang bangers might observe how to commit a mass shooting first hand, but we know of no mass shooter in a non-gang related sense who witnessed a mass shooting personally, then used that knowledge to commit his own. On the contrary, they learn what they know about mass shootings from the media.
What’s perhaps most interesting is that the NIH study found that it didn’t matter if the portrayal of a mass shooting was even factual or realistic to be an influence on a mass shooter. Even merely describing the behavior of a shooter had the effect of influencing later shooters.
The report specifically called out the media’s portrayal of mass shooters, however. They cite the reporting ad nauseum of the personal life details of the shooter, his crimes, and even the manifesto (an increasingly de rigeur part of any mass shooting) that have an imitative effect on future mass shooters.
Government censorship need not be the answer. Consumer pressure as well as a voluntary industry-wide set of standards could literally save lives.
Consider the portrayal of mass shooters in the media. The very act of being the obsession of the news and social media is a sort of social status attractive to the type of person flirting with the idea of being a mass shooter. The life story of a mass shooter can provide a point of resonance and relatability, as similar criminals tend to fit a similar profile. The portrayal of shooters wielding guns or even looking menacing in photographs projects an aura of danger and toughness that can be attractive to those who are hanging on the edge. Manifestos can inspire further action, especially if one of the goals of the manifesto is to create terror and panic – mission accomplished. Detailed reports of what happened can provide a sort of instruction manual for future shooters.
All of this combined provides a very powerful and attractive cocktail enticing further mass shootings.
Note that the suggestion here is not to ban the reporting of mass shootings. This would also be a mistake. The public has a right to be informed of significant events and mass shootings are no exception. However, the manner in which mass shootings are reported on is the problem – the emphasis on the personal narrative of the shooter, the views that motivated him to commit the crime, and the gory details of his dubious success are what is at issue.
The report from the NIH is unambiguous in its belief that a change in media policy could very well directly lead to a decrease in mass shootings in the United States:
“If the manner with which the media (legacy, new, social) report a mass shooting event plays a role in promoting further mass shootings, changing these reporting methods could decrease imitation.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has specifically requested that the media stop naming mass shooters, but this plea has thus far fallen on deaf ears.
There are likewise alternatives with regard to the portrayal of mass shooters in the media beyond tactics like withholding their names or blurring their faces. For example, mass shooters are often treated as dangerous, powerful men. This makes mass shooting attractive to a certain unstable psychological profile. On the other hand, shootings could just as easily be portrayed as the shameful act of a cowardly individual. Coverage could likewise emphasize punishment in cases where the shooter is apprehended alive.
What’s more, the shooter’s rationale could be downplayed in coverage. Descriptions could be very surface, for example “Islamic jihad” or “white nationalism.” Eschewing discussion of the personal and biographical information about the shooter would likewise have a similar effect. The NIH points out that repeatedly reporting years of bullying as the motive portrays rampage killing as the only response to being bullied.
Finally, there is the question of duration and frequency on which mass shooters are reported. When a mass shooting occurs, the coverage tends to be wall-to-wall for days. This certainly belies an agenda on the part of the media. What’s more, coverage of the shooting as it unfolds could be eschewed entirely, which would not only lessen the coverage, but also prevent conspiracy theories arising later when inconsistencies between “breaking news” and the full story arise.
The main thing, however, is to make the coverage as general and nonspecific as possible. This is the best way to reduce the overall “excitement” and “prestige” (such as it is) enjoyed by the shooter and his actions. Even seemingly innocuous terms like “lone wolf” can glamorize a shooter.
No one is suggesting that the Werther Effect is the primary or even the only cause of mass shootings. It is, however, a contributing factor. As such, working against it should be explored as a means of harm reduction overall. Given that mass shootings have only increased since the introduction of gun control measures, it is arguable that working to combat the Werther Effect will do more to prevent future mass shootings than will taking away guns from law-abiding citizens. While violent crime in general is down sharply since the 1990s, mass shootings are up.
One does not have to call upon the federal government to institute speech codes to impact the behavior of the media. Consumer pressure can move things in this direction in the same way that, for example, consumer pressure has largely ended animal testing among boutique cosmetic brands. What’s more, one can begin taking personal responsibility for how one shares information about mass shootings in social media. When one has the urge to share an article about a recent mass shooting, particularly one with gory or lurid details or detailed information about the shooter’s biography or ideology, one can simply choose not to do this. Finally, one can inform one’s friends and family about the Werther Effect of mass shooting media coverage (for example, by sharing this article) in the hopes that they will begin similarly refusing to share this information.
A big contributing factor in the viral spread of mass shootings is not just the increased role of social media in how people get their news. It’s also the decline of a centralized news media. While this certainly has a number of positive attributes (most people reading this probably get a significant portion of their news from alternative and independent media sources), it also has its downside.
For example, legacy media no longer relies on subscribers for the lion’s share of their revenue. Instead, they get their money from page clicks on the Internet, which are then pitched to advertisers as a symbol of their overall strength as an advertising avenue. This means that the business model of the average newspaper or magazine has shifted from getting long-term subscribers to getting as many clicks as possible. Studies have shown that people are far more likely to click on sensationalized news stories and “clickbait” than anything else. What this means is that legacy media has a high incentive to publish the most outrageous, sensational, and lurid version of events when reporting the news.
Mark Mason calls this principle the Kardashian Rule. It is also known as the Attention Economy. Social media, round-the-clock cable news coverage, and both new and legacy media now operating on a page-view economy all contribute to this phenomenon.
Put simply, whatever gets the most attention then spreads the furthest and generates the greatest amount of income for the company in question, be it Facebook or the New York Times. Mass shootings generate big business for the media, so they help to fuel the attention directed toward them.
Refusing to share articles about mass shooters can be one way that consumers begin reversing this trend.
When it comes to the problem of mass shooters and other rampage killers, there is no set of easy answers. This is perhaps what is most frustrating about the problem. However, it is also empowering to realize that small choices made by consumers every day of their lives can start making an impact on how the media portrays mass shooters, and in turn reduce the number of mass shootings in the United States. It might not have the visceral impact of a new, shiny piece of legislation, but ultimately it’s more effective – without trampling on the liberties of others.
A final thought: What do suicides and mass shooters have in common? The common denominator might well be a loss of all hope caused by social isolation and depression. Both underscore the need for a healthy civil society and social connections. In addition to refusing to participate in the viral outrage mill, reaching out to people around you who seem to be having a hard time can be seen as doing your part.
None of this is “sexy” or high profile, but these are arguably the only effective weapons we have to stop mass shootings.
If you are feeling suicidal, thinking about hurting yourself, or are concerned that someone you know may be in danger of hurting himself or herself, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline at 1-800-273-TALK(8255) or the Suicide Hotline: 1-800-SUICIDE (1-800-784-2433).
It’s unusual to think that Second Amendment proponents and members of the freedom movement would celebrate the day that a tax took effect. But that’s precisely what the Pittman-Robertson Act is – a tax often celebrated by gun enthusiasts, patriots and pro-freedom elements in the United States. Its story is one of the more fascinating in the history of American legislation.
Signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on September 2, 1937, the Pittman-Robertson Act, known officially as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, does not establish a new tax. Instead, it commandeered an existing 11-percent excise tax on rifles, shotguns and ammunition, and a 10-percent tax on pistols. Rather than going into the general fund of the United States Treasury, the Pittman-Robertson Act earmarked this money for the Department of the Interior and its wildlife preservations efforts. The money is then distributed to the states and can be spent how they see fit.
This was a coup for the Second Amendment and liberty movements. Rather than the money going toward a federal government interested in stripping them of their rights, it went to the Department of the Interior, with interests in keeping the American wilderness wild at heart. With this bill, hunters and firearms enthusiasts continued their role as the unsung heroes of the American conservation movement. In fact, Federal Ammunition was instrumental in getting the bill made into law.
By: T.F. Stern | Self-Educated American
That’s a heck of a way to start off, Following the Prophet at all times is a challenge. But that’s as true a statement from me as you’ll get. The Prophet is the mouthpiece of the Lord and speaks only what the Lord would have said if He were addressing us; this I believe and so I do my best to be obedient.
I consider all the knowledge obtained in my years of mortality, mix in the wisdom of the Lord which I may or may not yet possess as gleaned from the scriptures and Prophets and try to figure out if it makes sense as I move forward in my journey to become more like the person the Lord would have me be.
That brings us to the topic of the day, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints recently announced the newest policy regarding the carrying of concealed weapons in church buildings.
“Churches are dedicated to the worship of God and as havens from the cares and concerns of the world. With the exception of current law enforcement officers, the carrying of lethal weapons on church property, concealed or otherwise, is prohibited.”
This new policy is a minor, yet significant change from the previous policy; the previous rule said the carrying of lethal weapons was inappropriate. Why, I asked myself, why did the policy go from “inappropriate” to “prohibited”?
I ask this for a number of reasons; but there are a few that come mind, some of which are in the form of posters commonly available.