Assault Weapons?

[accadacca]

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.

[hank moon]

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

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."

[oldno7]

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"

[accadacca]

I understand that hank, but you really need to watch the whole thing. Especially if you expect me to READ all that text.

[oldno7]

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.

[ratagonia]

Since you have quoted(unintentionally) most of my prior made points on SCOTUS, thanks, glad your following along.

You made a slight though, but I'm sure unintentional on your behalf. I never mentioned congress or the president passing unconstitutional law as "ILLEGAL", as you suggest in bold print. I stated it was unlawful. BIG difference!!

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?

I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".

It's just that neither can do it lawfully and in accordance with the Bill of Rights.

I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".

[oldno7]

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?

[oldno7]

I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".



[/COLOR] I am unclear on the distinction of "neither can do it lawfully" and "illegal".

lawful--

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'

[oldno7]

Just curious where the response came from? I wrote all three of my congressmen last week and have not recieved a response to date.

Yesterday, I received the same letter from Stewart.

[oldno7]

And something to ponder:

Do the police have a duty to protect you???

[oldno7]

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?

[stefan]

a little comic relief from the daily show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf

[oldno7]

I have better relief:

[stefan]

I have better relief:

uh ... what she needs is a deadbolt lock, dude

[accadacca]

uh ... what she needs is a deadbolt lock, dude

[oldno7]

uh ... what she needs is a deadbolt lock, dude

Didn't seem to work so well in this case.

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"

[Iceaxe]

Do the police have a duty to protect you???

The Supreme Court has ruled "NO", the police are not obligated to protect you. Police carry firearms to protect themselves.

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).

Read the book "Columbine"

Good book isn't it.

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.

[oldno7]

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.

[stefan]

a little comic relief from the daily show

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf

somehow my post was abridged, should have had 2 links:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...-goes-the-boom

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/we...the-boom---atf

[2065toyota]