Another classic example of yellow journalism by Yvonne Wingett
Full of lies

by Larkin Rose with all credit for an excellent piece of work, originally posted on freedomsphoenix.  Good food for thought on this lovely weekend.

A recent story regarding an “open carry” movement in California (of all places) gives a very telling glimpse into the mentality of the general public, and the state mercenaries (“police”).

Here’s the link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWz7BEEg1k

The actual substance of the story would be laughably mundane if people weren’t so indoctrinated. The “story” was: “Some people are carrying firearms, and not doing bad stuff with them, and they’re allowed to!” How brain-washed does a populace have to be for that to be “news”? What will the headline say the next day? “Man with axe chops up firewood!; no charges filed.”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad the open-carry folk are bringing the issue up; it’s just pathetic that the country has sunk so low (with California in the lead) that it’s even necessary. But what is interesting about the story is the mentality of the general public, and the cops, in California. For example, the news story plays a clip of what I assume was a 911 call, where someone reports a guy (brace yourself, this is scary) sitting around a Starbucks wearing a firearm. Oh, the horror! (The caller, demonstrating either profound ignorance of firearms, or her x-ray vision superpowers, says the semi-auto handgun “appears to be loaded.”)

I admit, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that carrying a firearm is still “legal” (allowed by tyrants) in California as long as the firearm is unloaded, and in plain view. (You can also carry clips and ammo, but they can’t be in or attached to the gun.) The California control freaks also require those carrying firearms to let state mercenaries inspect their firearms at random, without any “probable cause,” to make sure they’re not loaded. (Fourth Amendment? What’s that?)

But again, the “legalities” are less interesting than the mentality displayed in the report. For example, the news narrator explains that nothing brings a cop faster than a report of “a man with a gun.” Oh, horrors! Lock up the women and children! Wait a second … a cop is a “man with a gun”! Is there some reason, when you see one guy with a gun, that you really need to bring over a second one?

Of course, the terror of “a man with a gun” does not, in the minds of the peasantry, include a government mercenary with a gun. What actually scares the peasantry is “a man with a gun who isn’t pretending to be ‘authority‘.” But consider how weird that is. What it boils down to is this: “Oh my gosh, there’s a guy over there with a gun, and he doesn’t think he has the right to rule me!!” Um, isn’t that a good thing? Most Americans have no idea what they should and shouldn’t be scared of.

I’ve seen quite a few people carrying firearms in my lifetime. The only ones who ever invaded my home were “police.” The only ones who ever stole my stuff were “police.” The only ones who ever took me hostage were “police.” And frankly, the only ones whose firearms ever worried me were the “police”–the robots trained to do the bidding of the politicians, forcibly carrying out whatever arbitrary commands the government crooks might decide to make up.

If I heard someone say, “there’s a man with a gun,” my immediate question would be, “And what’s he doing with it?” (Well, my first though might be, “You mean a man with a gun other than me?“) If I heard about “a man with a chain-saw,” or “a man with a crowbar,” I wouldn’t automatically assume they were about to go on a killing spree. So why would anyone assume that of a man with a gun? The simple answer is: indoctrination.

Near the end of the “news” report, a propaganda specialist (“spokesman”) for the California mercenaries (“police”), while admitting that people have a “legal right” (never mind that that is an oxymoron) to carry unloaded firearms openly, said he doesn’t see what it adds to society. Hey, what’s that thing on his hip? Golly gee, it’s a firearm! I wonder what he thinks that “adds to society.”

In short, most state mercenaries today, having devolved deeply into the tyrannical mindset, think they should always outgun the general populace. From their perspective, it’s good for them to always have the ability to kill people, but it’s bad for you to have that ability. (Excuse me, officer, your fascism is showing.)

How sad that the public has been trained to fear those people who have taken on the responsibility to protect themselves and others from the predators of the world. And no, I’m not talking about “law enforcers,” who pretend to be protectors, but are in reality the hired thugs of the biggest gang of predators around.

I was happy, and somewhat surprised, that the news report included a comment from one of the “open carry” advocates, correctly pointing out that the state mercenaries (my word, not his), according to the Supreme Court, have no obligation to protect anyone. That being the case, if I see a guy in a Starbucks with a gun, I’m sitting in his general vicinity. Because, if some bad guy is unlucky enough to pick that time and place to play tough guy, I and the other “man with a gun” will have him outnumbered.