Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


On October 29, 1994, Francisco Martin Duran shot between 25 and 30 rounds from a semiautomatic rifle at the north face of the White House. Some law enforcement officers theorized that Duran–whose truck reportedly was adorned with anti-gun-control bumper stickers–may have been motivated by Clinton’s support for recent gun control legislation. However, in one of his December 1994 columns in Shotgun News, the NRA’s Neal Knox wonders aloud whether the attack was actually part of a conspiracy by gun control advocates to create a public demand for further gun control legislation.

From the “Neal Knox Report” in Shotgun News:

…The press and Handgun Control, Inc. are crowing that the White House shooting shows “how right” those politically threatened Congressmen were to ban so-called “assault weapons.”

Someone has said: “Once is happenstance; twice is coincidence; three times is enemy action.”

In 1962, with Sen. Tom Dodd’s mail order gun ban beginning to move, President John F. Kennedy and a Dallas police officer were killed with mail-ordered guns.

The day the Senate Judiciary Committee voted on the Dodd bill, two votes were changed–and the bill came out–because Martin Luther King was murdered.

Two months later, the day the House was expected to kill the bill, Sen. Bobby Kennedy was assassinated. The bill became law.

…In January 1989, with model “assault weapon” legislation from HCI having been filed in several states, and with the California Attorney General already having asked police for evidence to support his planned “assault weapon” ban, Patrick Purdey killed five kids and wounded 31 on a Stockton, Calif. schoolyard, using an AK-47S.

…There have been many other such cases–as many as five within a year–each seeming to come at the best time for anti-gunners to pass legislation by dancing in fresh blood.

If the availability of military-style guns were the culprit, we would have been seeing such mass murders regularly throughout American history…

…Why have almost all the horrible incidents with those guns occurred within just the last ten years?

Is it possible that some of those incidents could have been created for the purpose of disarming the people of the free world? With drugs and evil intent, it’s possible.

Rampant paranoia on my part? Maybe. But there have been far too many coincidences to ignore.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate