I think this may have been posted earlier...I just had a chance to watch it. It is long, but damn interesting if you've been following this thread. :popcorn:
http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8
Printable View
I think this may have been posted earlier...I just had a chance to watch it. It is long, but damn interesting if you've been following this thread. :popcorn:
http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8
i did not watch the entire video. I watched a few of the alleged "damning" segments, such as Robbie Parker [08:40] supposedly "getting in to character" before giving his statement. The video (what I saw of it - about 5 min) is loaded w/speculation and very little fact. Seems a bid by the author for his 15MOF, nothing more.
Next up: proof that the video was actually produced by the NRA.
http://gawker.com/5976204/behind-the-sandy-hook-truther-conspiracy-video-that-five-million-people-have-watched-in-one-week
Behind the ‘Sandy Hook Truther’ Conspiracy Video That Five Eight Million People Have Watched in One Week
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17rl.../avt-small.jpg Max Read
"This is a simple, logical video," the text on the screen reads. "No aliens, holigrams, rituals or anything like that, just facts." (All sic.) There's some light piano (from Guns 'n Roses' "Estranged") playing in the background. "New information comes up every single days, so by the time you see this video there may be a lot more evidence that has come to light." In a few seconds, the guitar solo kicks in.
You're watching "The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed," the most comprehensive summary of the bizarre "Sandy Hook Truther" movement you can find on the internet. It's also the most popular: in the seven days since it was posted, it's racked up 5.5 million hits. (Less than 24 hours after this article was first published, it jumped to 8.5 million.) "I... honestly would have spent more time on it if I had known it would explode," the guy who created the video told me.
It only took a few days after Adam Lanza opened fire inside Sandy Hook Elementary School for conspiracy theories to pop up on the internet. We covered a bunch of them at the time, each less likely than the last: Lanza's father was due to testify in hearings about a banking scandal, and the shooting was a distraction; Obama orchestrated the shootings to enact gun control laws;The Dark Knight Returns and/or Hunger Games predicted the shooting.
As it turns out, the one that stuck was maybe the most unlikely of all: the Sandy Hook elementary shooting never happened at all. Or, that it did, in some way, but not as it was reported — there was more than one shooter, or not as many children died, or the parents we saw on television were actors.
Over the last month or so, the "Sandy Hook Truther" movement has taken hold in the usual channels of internet conspiracy — sites like InfoWars and Natural News, message boards like Godlike Productions and Above Top Secret, and most importantly, on YouTube, where self-produced mini-documentaries like "The Sandy Hook Shooting - Fully Exposed" can make the leap from obscurity to viral success without any mainstream coverage at all.
"[I]t all started when me and my friends used to research 9/11 in high school," the auteur behind the video told me over email. (He declined to give me a name or personal information, "due to the sensitivity of the channel and my concern for my security," and signed his emails T.O.T.V., after his YouTube channel's title "ThinkOutsidetTheTV.") "That's what really got me started when it came to researching government cover ups [...] Once I learned about all the false flag attacks in history that have been proven to be true, I knew it was only a matter of time before another came a long."
The "false flag attack," in which the true belligerents of an attack conceal their identities, is a common trope among conspiracy theorists, especially 9/11 Truthers, who believe the U.S. government (or another actor) destroyed the Twin Towers and pinned the attacks on Al Qaeda. While there are plenty of documented false flag attacks in history — all fervently cited by 9/11 true believers — they tend to be regarded by conspiracists as the rule and not the exception. Spend enough time in the YouTube conspiracy dregs and you see them everywhere.
"When Sandy Hook first happened i just had a feeling like it was all too perfect," T.O.T.V. continued. "I just had this feeling deep down that these people and the whole town had this artificial vibe about them." The perceived "artificiality" of the grieving parents is a cornerstone piece of "evidence" produced by Sandy Hook Truther: SandyHookHoax.com, the premiere Sandy Hook Truther site on the web, has an entire section called "All Actors," under an enormous header reading "NO TEARS," devoted to videos of families deemed insufficiently grief-stricken.
And not just families. Gene Rosen, a Newtown man who sheltered six children at his home near the school and later gave an emotional television interview, appears in T.O.T.V.'s video accompanied by the caption: "FUN FACT: Gene is a member of the Screen Actors Guild, look it up!" (He's not — the widely-circulated "proof" shows a 62-year-old SAG member named Gene Rosen; Gene Rosen of Newtown is 69.) As Alex Seitz-Wald, owning the Sandy Hook Truther beat at Salon, writes, Rosen has been the subject of harassment and accusation from Truthers:There have been phony Google+ and YouTube accounts created in his name, messages on white supremacist message boards ridiculing the "emotional Jewish guy," and dozens of blog posts and videos "exposing" him as a fraud. One email purporting to be a business inquiry taunted: "How are all those little students doing? You know, the ones that showed up at your house after the ‘shooting'. What is the going rate for getting involved in a gov't sponsored hoax anyway?"The idea that the U.S. government is somehow behind the shooting is widespread. Jay Johnson, who runs SandyHookHoax.com, thinks that the operation may have been a cover-up for the murder of Adam Lanza's mother, who "was costing his dad a lot of money": "Peter Lanza is reportedly an executive with GE, which is locally into genetic research and closely tied to the Obama regime." (Lanza does work for G.E., which is not "into" genetic research, and is not particularly "closely tied" to the current administration.)
Like many of his fellow conspiracists Johnson, who describes himself as "the New Age Messiah" and "the only person in the world to solve LOST" — the TV show — cites the confusion around the initial reports as a reason to believe his conspiracy. "There were early reports [Peter Lanza] was killed, and that is an impossibility, that such a thing would be randomly falsely reported. So, there has to be an unseen hand (unnamed law enforcement officials) feeding disinformation and misinformation, maybe to form an incomprehensible web to dissuade or confuse investigations?" There's an odd but unsurprising overdetermination to this line of thought — if early reports are conflicting, it's evidence of a conspiracy of misinformation; if everyone agrees on the story, it's a cover-up.
But mostly Johnson sticks to I'm-just-asking: the conspiracy is "offered as food for thought." For his part, T.O.T.V. takes the same stance, in email as in his video. "I really try to stress this video was about putting together a bunch of evidence and raising questions that others could research and answer," he wrote."I never intended to expose who was behind it because I dont know, and I could be wrong. But history repeats itself and i'm really glad people are waking up to it. [...] People seem to mistake my video for exploitation of victims and children and that is totally wrong. As I said in the beginning of the video, we in no way claim this shooting did not take place and our hearts go out to anyone affected by the tragedy, weather one person was responsible or another. [... S]tay tuned for part 2, we have learned from the first one how to improve upon the delivery so hopefully it will be even better than the first."
Scott and any others viewing this.
Read the book "Columbine" it goes into detail of how media is so adept at creating sensationalism, that the very kids who witnessed these crimes(Columbine), started to believe the media's portrayal. It took many years and lots of investigating to learn of these fabrications and actually uncover the real truth. Initial reports will always be all over the spectrum. Many who saw the exact same thing will describe it completely different.
Having said that, there are some serious inconsistencies with these reports. Were this investigation has now taken on a political cloak, the truth may never be divulged. It will likely always be the "assault rifle" with high capacity mags was used exclusively. It compliments an agenda of "letting no good crisis go to waste"
I understand that hank, but you really need to watch the whole thing. Especially if you expect me to READ all that text. :lol8:
I sometimes find it ironic that when liberals argue, they want all your points backed up with scientific documentation.
These same liberals will post their "facts", derived from an internet "blog" and insist it is accurate.:facepalm1:
I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".
:moses:
So tell me tom, Why do you, as the owner of imlay canyon gear, fear lawful gun owners?
Have you been attacked in Mt. Carmel by armed madmen? Have you been accosted by armed groups passing through the Zion tunnel?
Seriously, why do YOU fear an individuals right to own a gun?
lawful--Quote:
Originally Posted by ratagonia
- Conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
So the mere act of writing law from the Executive is not ILLEGAL(although our system was not designed that way), he will not "likely" be prosecuted for such and serve jail time.
I personally believe that EO's are a tool that Presidents have used for a long time, that are not backed by the Constitution and should be abolished.
But theres certainly no lack of precedent.
And to note--my thoughts are based on years of study at Parowan School of Law.
Which by the way seems to be a more intelligent law school than the Ivies, that are responsible for teaching Senator blumenthal that teflon is capable of penetrating steel! Just sayin'
Yesterday, I received the same letter from Stewart.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
And something to ponder:
Do the police have a duty to protect you???
And while I don't see it as necessary to defend my right to own a modern rifle and standard 30rd magazines, I could go this route, which I wrote elsewhere.
I need 30 rds because it has been recently reported that 5 was not enough.
Not only was 5 not enough but after the perpetrator left with 5 shots in his face, he went to the hospital, criminals in hospitals cost the tax payers money.
Upon removal from hospital, criminal gets free meals and lodging, this costs the tax payers money.
While enjoying their free lodging, they get to go through the court system, running felons through the court system cost the tax payers money.
After being found guilty, said criminal gets free meals, lodging, medical treatment for life, costing the tax payers money
So in the end, if this fine lady had used a gun with a 30rd magazine, the criminal would have not been able to flee and use all the free shit that criminals have grown accustomed to.
So the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is---Standard 30rd magazines save the tax payer money and who doesn't like lower taxes?
a little comic relief from the daily show
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf
I have better relief::mrgreen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BQHWTfFV3Vc
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
uh ... what she needs is a deadbolt lock, dude
:lol8:Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
Didn't seem to work so well in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local...ntruder/nTm7s/
But I see your point, you could sit on your couch and tell the intruder--"dude, you can't come in here, I have a deadbolt"
The Supreme Court has ruled "NO", the police are not obligated to protect you. Police carry firearms to protect themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) Police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals (in other words, safe gaurding the President's children).
Good book isn't it. :2thumbs:Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
For those playing along at home the book was written by an FBI agent who was a first responder. I thought the book was very fair as the FBI does not have a political agenda, they just enforce policy.
I wonder if some might find it disconcerting to know, the police have NO obligation to protect you.
"Columbine" should be a must read. There was a police cover up that didn't come out for 5years, that likely would have prevented the Columbine massacre.
somehow my post was abridged, should have had 2 links:Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-goes-the-boom
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf
FWIW: I was talking with the head of SLC Swat during the Trolly Square shooting. He told me everything has changed with regards to police and SWAT tactics since Columbine. He told me that so long as there is gun fire the officers are now taught to charge toward the gunfire. If the shooting stops they are to stop their advance and secrure the perimeter. At the time of Columbine officers were taught to first secure the perimeter, which is why officers stood in the parking lot at Columbine and watched the rampage through the school windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stefan
I know this is supposed to be part comedy.... but there is a lot of misinformation in those video...
for example... as an FFL holder (gun dealer), we have been inspected every year, they look at our books, and they had better be in order.
Now one positive... during the Clinton years the relationship between FFL holders and the ATF became very combative, which is why a lot of what now appear to be silly laws were added to the books. FFL holders were being harassed with the intention of forcing many to give up their FFL. Shit like being inspected every day type of crap.
After Clinton the ATF was revamped and instead of becoming the FFL holders enemy they became their support system. At the current time the working relationship between the ATF and FFL holders is very good (which is what it should be).
And while we do not have a Federal registry, guns used in crimes can still be tracked beginning at the manufacturer, through the distributors to the dealers, to the buyer.... remember I told you your records had better be in order.
The reason we don't have a Federal registry is gun owners do not trust the Fed's intention. Now if folks would stop proposing and threatening to take away assault rifles and forcing owners to sell all magazines holding over 7 rounds the gun owners would be more trusting and establishing a Federal registry would be practical... so it's kind of a catch 22.
I hate seeing any misinformation spread with regards to firearms, even in comedy, because some folks (like my dumbass brother) believes everything Jon Stewart's says is gospel.
Anyhoo.... just a little insight some might find interesting...
I'm still waiting for an idea or policy from the anti gun crowd that would have actually had some possibility of stopping the Sandy Hook incident.
Background checks? Nope, he stole the gun.
Registered weapons? Nope, he stole the gun and didn't indicate caring whether it was on some government database.
Harsher penalties for gun owners if they aren't kept safe? Well, the gun owner (the shooter's parent) is dead, so that's a pretty bad penalty
MORE gun free zones? Still trying to figure out how that could have stopped the Sandy Hook incident. Slaughters happen in these zones so LET'S MAKE MORE! :crazy:
Limit magazine capacity? Nope, well unless you assume that a first grader could have tackled him in the 1.5 second reload time. And the physical impossibility of 30 round magazines crumbling to dust once a ban is in place.
Ban "Assault Weapons" (that is, if any politician has any idea how to classify one). Nope, for somebody who murdered the gun owner, ignoring a ban is like rolling through a stop sign on a deserted intersection.
Are there any policy changes offered that would have had some little twinkling of a possibility of stopping or curbing the Sandy Hook carnage? Even a little?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sombeech
There is something that would have eliminated the Columbine massacre, likely Aurora shooting, and likely Sandy Hook.
Eliminate Dr.--Patient confidentiality. I believe zero has this as one of his EO's(haven't read them all in their entirety.
Nice. Thanks for bringing a valid, relevant video full of facts to this discussion. Not!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
It's a bunch of adults pretending to be all indignant and disgusted. It's like when toddlers fake cry to get attention. Pretty weak...
I don't see anything wrong with that ad.
These people get all incensed as a bit of acting to convince you, the viewer, that you should also be disgusted. Its nothing more than the latest feeble move in the smear campaign against the NRA. Classic example of the media telling you how to think and feel. The ad is absolutely true, and sometimes the truth is hard to hear.
They use a good catch phrase like "political pornography" to make it appear as something that is vile and perverse, making the insinuation that someone actually derives sexual pleasure from it. They take it a step further and try to induce the idea that its a form of pedophilia by telling you the ad is about Obama's kids. It's a nice bit of acting is all it is. A completely emotional response, devoid of any rational, critical thinking. The conversation they are having is the platter on which this ad is presented to you, and presentation is everything, their show is like a dirty plate. Their charade is pretty transparent to anyone who has a rational approach to this issue.
^^^THIS^^^Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
And in addition all states should be forced to submit their mental records into the background check system. Currrently less than half the states make any mental records avaiable.
Of course none of this would have helped Sandy Hooks, as the guns were stolen. Also wouldn't have helped Columbine as the kids were underage and bought guns on the black market..... hmm criminals with guns... where have I heard that before.
x2Quote:
Originally Posted by Bootboy
The ad was designed to make a point and start people talking. It did exactly what it was designed to do.
This is easily the biggest joke of the year... the NRA put out a press/ web release criticizing the President's upcoming gun control legislation, pointing out that unlike most citizens, his daughters have around the clock armed protection including at school. The White House issued a statement expressing outrage that the NRA would use children, especially the Presidents' for political purposes. So you know what happened. At the Noon press conference, the White House trotted out four children asking for gun control.
:roflol:
Nothing I hate in the world more than Hypocrites.
http://msnbctv.files.wordpress.com/2...pg?w=400&h=300
Except for 4th graders make national policy... :roflol::roflol:
Can you judge the success of liberal rags by the current condition of their business?
msnbc is the liberal, tv, version of time, hopefully their fate is similar
But certainly people in this country don't vote with their $$$$---do they?
http://www.businessinsider.com/time-...decline-2013-1
They do when they're slaughtered by someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
That has yet to be seen....Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
I hope the dumbasses seeking gun control just keep tacking more items on to their wish list. Every time they tack a new item on it diminishes the chance of anything getting past. Too bad several positive things they could actually do to help the problem will be lost in their ridiculous demands.
March can't come soon enough as far as I'm concerned. Congress and the president have three huge "finacial cliff" type budgets that will need to be dealt with come March one. I just don't think the gun control advocates have the muscle to do much. The pro-gun groups are doing an excellent job of educating the public in a speedy fashion.
And just for giggles...
Senator Rand Paul to Introduce Legislation to Nullify Executive Orders Signed by President Obama
2013 January 17
According to Politico.com, Sen. Rand Paul is pledging to undo some of President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns that the Kentucky Republican believes overreach.
“In this bill we will nullify anything the president does that smacks of legislation,” Rand said Wednesday on Fox’s “Hannity,” referencing his legislation that is slated to be introduced in Congress next week. “And there are several of the executive orders that appear as if he’s writing new law. That cannot happen.”
“I’m afraid that President Obama may have this ‘king complex’ sort of developing, and we’re going to make sure it doesn’t happen,” Paul said, adding that the Founding Fathers specified that Congress should make laws.
“I think there are a few Democrats that will worry about going home to West Virginia or other states like that and voting for a ban on guns,” Paul said. “So, I think there is a good chance we can stop his legislative action. I’m concerned he will try to do the regulatory fiat, what he can’t pass through legislation.”
And for the record.... the gun business is still going insane.... I was just up to my dad's and his comment was "you wouldn't believe how much money I've made in the past month". He has been buying "assault rifles" and "high capcity magazines" and turning around a day later and selling them for twice what he paid.
I might slightly disagree and be open for correction if I'm wrong:Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
Klebold and Harris were being treated, at least harris was on the anti-depressant Luvox.
harris was a great psychopath(per FBI investigator), there were signs all along, they just were not heeded. Of course those looking back have clear 20/20 vision.
holmes showed similar signs and was seeing a psychiatrist at the school, Dr. Lynne Fenton.,
Fenton alerted University officials that holmes could pose a threat to others. After he dropped out of school, Fenton claimed they had no authority to respond to his behavior.(sounds like the ball was dropped here)
Some say lanza snapped when he learned of his mothers intentions to have him committed, that would certainly involve a Dr's evaluation.
So I have to think that had any of the Dr's involved in these 3 cases, pursued their determinations, it would be likely these murderers could have been avoided.
Certainly well open to discussion here.
What I posted is correct.... and what you posted is correct.... I don't think a doctors note would have made any difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I was pointing out that in addition to failing the mental part of owning a firearm that it really didn't matter as all three obtained their guns illegally. In other words, no amount of background checks or gun registration would have made a difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian in SLC
This is "political pornography"
Attachment 62858
And THIS is not.
Attachment 62859
Thank you for your cooperation
Agree, what I was pointing out was that if it wasn't politically incorrect, these 4 could have been committed in one form or the other and these murders may not have happened.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
But the aclu and drug companies wouldn't favor such action.
Isn't it interesting, the constant cry for "Right to Privacy" except when it comes to Gun Ownership, the Liberals want to create a nice database?Quote:
Originally Posted by oldno7
I guarantee you won't see this in the general media....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec
:popcorn:
WOW--Well stated, I thought I had seen most but I missed this one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Iceaxe
I just got this, my 2nd response.
http://email.iconstituent.com/images/letterheadimg1.jpg
Office Building
(202) 225-9730January 17, 2013
Mr.
Dear Mr.
Thank you for contacting me regarding the issue of gun control. This is a crucial issue and I appreciate the time you took to express your thoughts.
Recent and saddening acts of violence, such as those in Newtown and Aurora, have brought guns to national attention. These acts of violence, as terrible as they are, should not be used as justification to revoke rights outlined in the United States Constitution.
While I share your concern about gun violence, I believe that we must protect the rights of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms. I strongly believe that we need to look into the status of our country
Keep Writing folks!!!!