Albert Lea Discussion Forum » Printable Version of Topic

Forum: Current Events
Topic: Dead Children in Connecticut
started by: Botto 82

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 14 2012,12:33 pm

12:57 p.m.: Fatality numbers continue to rise. More than 25 people, mostly young children, killed in Newtown, Conn. school shooting, sources tell ABC News.

1:09 p.m.: Twenty-seven people, or more, most of them children killed in shooting, sources tell ABC News.

< Live Updates >

My God. America is sick, and this is a symptom...

Posted by hairhertz on Dec. 14 2012,12:37 pm

OMG, this is insane. :angry:

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 14 2012,12:42 pm

Official: 27 dead in Conn. school shooting
Published 11:55am Friday, December 14, 2012

NEWTOWN, Conn. — A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left 27 people dead, including 18 children, an official said.

The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation was still under way. Another official, speaking on condition of anonymity for the same reason, said the gunman at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown was killed and apparently had two guns.

Stephen Delgiadice said his 8-year-old daughter heard two big bangs and teachers told her to get in a corner. His daughter was fine.

“It’s alarming, especially in Newtown, Connecticut, which we always thought was the safest place in America,” he said.

The superintendent’s office said the district had locked down schools in Newtown, about 60 miles northeast of New York City. Schools in neighboring towns also were locked down as a precaution.

A dispatcher at the Newtown Volunteer Ambulance Corps said a teacher had been shot in the foot and taken to Danbury Hospital. Andrea Rynn, a spokeswoman at the hospital, said it had three patients from the school but she did not have information on the extent or nature of their injuries.

State police said Newtown police called them around 9:40 a.m. A SWAT team was among the throngs of police to respond.

A photo posted by The Newtown Bee newspaper showed a group of young students — some crying, others looking visibly frightened — being escorted by adults through a parking lot in a line, hands on each other’s shoulders.

Mergim Bajraliu, 17, heard the gunshots echo from his home and raced to check on his 9-year-old sister at the school. He said his sister, who was fine, heard a scream come over the intercom at one point. He said teachers were shaking and crying as they came out of the building.

“Everyone was just traumatized,” he said.

The White House said President Barack Obama was notified of the shooting.

< ADH/AP Article >

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 14 2012,1:26 pm

Extremely sad.

Posted by Santorini on Dec. 14 2012,1:44 pm

OMG

So incredibly sad and gut wrenching.

Posted by hairhertz on Dec. 14 2012,3:26 pm

Who would commit such a heineous act? This is totally incomprehensible. Sick bastard!

Posted by Santorini on Dec. 15 2012,10:22 am

I know there is no answer but...why babies?
This whole thing is unfathomable.

Posted by White Pride on Dec. 15 2012,3:08 pm

Shock value

Posted by This is my real name on Dec. 17 2012,4:39 am

Sick people do things like this for the notoriety. That way, even if they die, they live on in a way. Sad and sick, but true. Even when the media stops covering this and moves on to the next thing, the families won't forget.

If not for notoriety, then it could simply be because "hurting people hurt people". This person was mentally ill and hurting himself and wanted to hurt as many other people as possible.

Either way, this was a terrible tragedy.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,6:01 am

Sure didn't take the politicians long to start grabbing the spotlight.

Posted by This is my real name on Dec. 17 2012,6:39 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,6:01 am)

QUOTE

Sure didn't take the politicians long to start grabbing the spotlight.

As disgusting as it is to see them crawl out of the woodwork, their opposition would take them to task for not doing it had they not.

You can either exploit it for your own attention, or your opponent in the next election will run an attack ad about how you did nothing.

Integrity in politics is long gone.

Posted by pepi-lapew on Dec. 17 2012,7:41 am

This will really bring out the ANTI gun nuts. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE DO!!! :oops:

But left wingers dont care they want everyone gun free, except the criminals.

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 17 2012,7:41 am)

QUOTE

This will really bring out the ANTI gun nuts. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE DO!!! :oops:

But left wingers dont care they want everyone gun free, except the criminals.

You're an idiot. Nobody but the fringe wants to get rid of the guns. Fringe, like the tea party; nobody pays them any attention. The people who are looking for an actual solution want mental health screenings (for the PEOPLE), registrations (for the PEOPLE), buy-back programs (for the PEOPLE), gun training (for the PEOPLE), and bans on assault weapons. But sure, keep spouting "guns don't kill people, people do!" like it's an original idea.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,8:14 am

^ the epitome of naivety.

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,8:25 am

Explain. I'm all ears.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,9:07 am

The assault weapons ban in '94 did squat, so here we are again. Be it blamed on lack of parental guidance or blamed on video games or a host of other reasons this is nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction and gun grabbers like Feinstein and Schumer want to take advantage of it.

Posted by pepi-lapew on Dec. 17 2012,9:08 am

Well simple,if the gun nuts get there way my 22 long rifle would be considered an assult weapon, because its a semi auto, every time I pull the trigger it shoots. The anti gun nuts think all the guns should be banned. I spent 22 yrs carring a full auto M-16 I know what damage they can do? But in the right hands thay are safe.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 17 2012,9:19 am

I think the two big questions that have arisen from this mess are:

1) Why was someone that obviously volatile and dangerous NOT in an institution, and

2) Why did Mom have an assault rifle, knowing how volatile and dangerous her kid was?

Posted by Santorini on Dec. 17 2012,9:24 am

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am)

QUOTE

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 17 2012,7:41 am)

QUOTE

This will really bring out the ANTI gun nuts. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE DO!!! :oops:

But left wingers dont care they want everyone gun free, except the criminals.

Simple, actually the headline I read said: Feinstein leads Democratic Senators in call to renew gun debate--vows legislation. Didnt see anything from the fringe you are talking about! Besides this horrific incident has nothing to do with politics...leave it alone.
Look what happened in China that same morning! A knife wielding guy attacks 23 primary school students after first assaulting an adult. Fortunately no one was killed. BUT...the point is it doesnt matter if its guns or knives or an idiot driving a bus into a school...if someone wants to do it they will find a way.
You are right though about the mental health issue. But thats a slippery slope too. What yard stick do we use to measure that with?

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,9:25 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,9:07 am)

QUOTE

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004, but the assault weapons he used would have been included in the ban were it still in effect today.

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,9:26 am

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 17 2012,9:08 am)

QUOTE

But in the right hands thay are safe.

EXACTLY. Thank you for agreeing with me. So, how do we keep them out of the wrong hands?

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,9:27 am

(Santorini @ Dec. 17 2012,9:24 am)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am)

QUOTE

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 17 2012,7:41 am)

QUOTE

This will really bring out the ANTI gun nuts. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE DO!!! :oops:

But left wingers dont care they want everyone gun free, except the criminals.

Pepi, actually the headline I read said: Feinstein leads Democratic Senators in call to renew gun debate--vows legislation. Didnt see anything from the fringe you are talking about! Besides this horrific incident has nothing to do with politics...leave it alone.
Look what happened in China that same morning! A knife wielding guy attacks 23 primary school students after first assaulting an adult. Fortunately no one was killed. BUT...the point is it doesnt matter if its guns or knives or an idiot driving a bus into a school...if someone wants to do it they will find a way.
You are right though about the mental health issue. But thats a slippery slope too. What yard stick do we use to measure that with?

I like the way you gloss over the fact that NOBODY WAS KILLED IN THE CHINA ATTACK. 22 injuries versus 26 deaths. You don't think that's significant?

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,9:30 am

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,9:25 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,9:07 am)

QUOTE

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004, but the assault weapons he used would have been included in the ban were it still in effect today.

Columbine happened in 1999

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,9:45 am

Pearl Miss. 1997

Pudukah Ky 1997

Jonesboro Ark. 1998

Springfield Ore.1998

And the list goes on, assault weapons ban did nothing to stop these.

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,10:02 am

Assault weapons bans are only part of it. No one thing is going to fix the gun problem in this country. That's not even high up on my list of cares because if you're a responsible person with a shotgun you're more than likely going to be just as responsible with an AR-15. You have to figure out a way to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill. Japan only allows shotguns only after getting a license including a background check, completion of safety course, passing a written and practical test, a psych test, and verifying that they have secure storage. They've had 11 gun homicides in the last year, compared to the +9,000 in the US. Their policy is on the extreme side and would die a painful death if anyone tried to enact it in the US, but Australia and the UK also passed huge gun reform after massacres in their countries with huge decreases in the numbers of gun deaths. In the US, what, you need to just apply for a gun license, and as long as you don't have a history of shooting people up or extremely violent behavior you can get one? Really?

Posted by Santorini on Dec. 17 2012,10:19 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 17 2012,9:19 am)

QUOTE

You bring up 2 valid points!
Legislation from the 60s and 70s called for community based clinics vs hospitalizion for those considered mentally ill. Community based clinics were thought to be more cost effective and with the introduction of psychotropic drugs -- problem solved! Reintegration was a focus, however funding was a problem and many released patients had nowhere to go and no resources or follow up. Plus many dillusional patients didnt think they needed their meds so they didnt take them. It was suppose to be considered a more humane and cost effective answer to the overcrowed institutions. Many consider the legislation a failure.?. This brings up current questions. How do we treat those with mental illness? How do we get them treatment?
Do we force those with diagnosed mental illnesses into hospitalization? Do we have court mandated drug administration? Who decides what mental health diagnoses warrents institutionalization? Who decides which patients poses a risk vs a non-risk patient? A doctor? a panel? a family member?
Its a slippery slope for sure. Mental illness is so prevalent in our society and to varying degrees. Who knows what the answer is :dunno:

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 17 2012,10:23 am

QUOTE

Pearl Miss. 1997

Pudukah Ky 1997

Jonesboro Ark. 1998

Springfield Ore.1998

And the list goes on, assault weapons ban did nothing to stop these.

Those weapons were obviously pre-ban weapons. :dunce:

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 17 2012,10:27 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 17 2012,9:19 am)

QUOTE

Where did you hear that the man was volatile, or dangerous prior to this?

Posted by Santorini on Dec. 17 2012,10:33 am

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,9:27 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Dec. 17 2012,9:24 am)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am)

QUOTE

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 17 2012,7:41 am)

QUOTE

This will really bring out the ANTI gun nuts. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE DO!!! :oops:

But left wingers dont care they want everyone gun free, except the criminals.

I like the way you gloss over the fact that NOBODY WAS KILLED IN THE CHINA ATTACK. 22 injuries versus 26 deaths. You don't think that's significant?

So its the numbers that matter to you?
7 children stabbed to death..8 children and 2 adults hacked to death in kindergarten...Yea, Simple, this time no one was killed in China!

You missed the point though.
If someone wants to perpetrate this kind of evil they are going to find a way.

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,10:44 am

(Santorini @ Dec. 17 2012,10:33 am)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,9:27 am)

QUOTE

(Santorini @ Dec. 17 2012,9:24 am)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am)

QUOTE

(pepi-lapew @ Dec. 17 2012,7:41 am)

QUOTE

This will really bring out the ANTI gun nuts. GUNS DONT KILL PEOPLE PEOPLE DO!!! :oops:

But left wingers dont care they want everyone gun free, except the criminals.

I like the way you gloss over the fact that NOBODY WAS KILLED IN THE CHINA ATTACK. 22 injuries versus 26 deaths. You don't think that's significant?

So its the numbers that matter to you?
7 children stapped to death..8 children and 2 adults hacked to death in kindergarten...Yea, Pepi this time no one was killed in China!

You missed the point though.
If someone wants to perpetrate this kind of evil they are going to find a way.

But you can't kill 26 people in minutes with a knife. Or a hammer. Or a machete. Or whatever other weapon people are throwing around as an example.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,10:56 am

(Liberal @ Dec. 17 2012,10:23 am)

QUOTE

Pearl Miss. 1997

Pudukah Ky 1997

Jonesboro Ark. 1998

Springfield Ore.1998

And the list goes on, assault weapons ban did nothing to stop these.

Those weapons were obviously pre-ban weapons. :dunce:

Sure about that?

There's little difference between a pre and a post ban weapon.

My point with that is that you never rid the country of all guns. There are enough magazines here to last infinitely.

Blame the person, not the tool.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,10:58 am

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,10:02 am)

QUOTE

Are you one of those peoe that believe the 2nd amendment is about hunting?

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 17 2012,11:08 am

QUOTE

Sure about that?

There's little difference between a pre and a post ban weapon.

OK, work with me here. You claim during the assault weapons ban there were multiple murders committed with guns that were banned from being sold at the time. So, how could they be post ban weapons when they were still banned?

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 17 2012,11:14 am

(Liberal @ Dec. 17 2012,10:27 am)

QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 17 2012,9:19 am)

QUOTE

Where did you hear that the man was volatile, or dangerous prior to this?

Mark Tambascio, another family friend, said he believed Lanza's mother, Nancy, had become increasingly concerned in the last few months about Lanza's emotional and behavioral issues.

< ABC News Story >

Not the kind of kid that I would let access firearms. Would you?

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 17 2012,11:16 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,10:58 am)

QUOTE

Are you one of those peoe that believe the 2nd amendment is about hunting?

Are you one of those people who thinks the Second Amendment is about overthrowing a corrupt government? 'Cause I don't see that happening. Ever.

Posted by pepi-lapew on Dec. 17 2012,11:39 am

Simple, Why do you need gun locks for. I had two sons and i never had no probl. with them with two pistols, 1shot gun ,two rifles around. They were taught about them. with 5 min and a hacksaw that gun lock is off.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,11:49 am

(Liberal @ Dec. 17 2012,11:08 am)

QUOTE

Sure about that?

There's little difference between a pre and a post ban weapon.

First, post ban weapons didn't have pistol grips or bayonet lugs. How that reduces it from being an assault weapon is beyond belief and just proves the politicians were just self- gratifying themselves.

Second, I see you still have your signature line up, I've asked you about this before, never got an answer.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,11:51 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 17 2012,11:16 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,10:58 am)

QUOTE

Are you one of those peoe that believe the 2nd amendment is about hunting?

Are you one of those people who thinks the Second Amendment is about overthrowing a corrupt government? 'Cause I don't see that happening. Ever.

Nope, defense.

So you're one that thinks the 2nd is about hunting.

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,1:06 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,10:58 am)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,10:02 am)

QUOTE

Are you one of those peoe that believe the 2nd amendment is about hunting?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Explain to me how gun laws in the US are in any way well-regulated?

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,1:24 pm

The term "well regulated" was referring to militia men having proper rifle, ball and powder.

Explain " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Please.

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,1:58 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,1:24 pm)

QUOTE

The term "well regulated" was referring to militia men having proper rifle, ball and powder.

Explain " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Please.

Arms also apply to bombs and nuclear weapons. I'm assuming you have no problem infringing on those rights. And you actually answered your own question - rifle, ball, and powder. I believe there are no restrictions on those currently, and no plans to take them off the table.

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 17 2012,2:37 pm

The guns were here thirty years ago, the nut jobs were here thirty years ago so what’s changed?
We now have antidepressants like Zoloft, Prozac etc. we’re feeding these kids like candy!

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,2:54 pm

^ My God! Something we agree on!

I'm feeling faint.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 17 2012,2:58 pm

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,1:58 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,1:24 pm)

QUOTE

The term "well regulated" was referring to militia men having proper rifle, ball and powder.

Explain " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Please.

They want to ban my rifle, tax my ammo and right after Oklahoma City, they wanted to put tag ants in my powder.

The rifle the patriots fought the British with were state of the art assault weapons for there time.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 17 2012,3:20 pm

QUOTE

Mark Tambascio, another family friend, said he believed Lanza's mother, Nancy, had become increasingly concerned in the last few months about Lanza's emotional and behavioral issues.

ABC News Story

Not the kind of kid that I would let access firearms. Would you?

Nothing in that article says he was volatile, or dangerous? Do you think people shouldn't own guns if they have a kid that avoids eye contact, is an A/V nerd, or has a high tolerance for pain?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 17 2012,3:35 pm

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,1:06 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,10:58 am)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,10:02 am)

QUOTE

Are you one of those peoe that believe the 2nd amendment is about hunting?

/SIGH
Well regulated in this context means well trained or maintained.

The militia IS dependent upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, not the other way around, because obviously you cannot have a well armed militia sans firearms now can you.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 17 2012,3:39 pm

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,1:58 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,1:24 pm)

QUOTE

The term "well regulated" was referring to militia men having proper rifle, ball and powder.

Explain " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Please.

Well to a point you are correct. In the context of arms that is defined in the 2nd Amendment, it is referring to all small arms that can be carried by a soldier.

Are you really that ignorant of firearms and terminology? Ball and powder is still used in describing today's modern ammunition.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 17 2012,3:46 pm

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am)

QUOTE

Sure, lets turn a Right into a privilege. After all we peons must prostrate ourselves before the alter of govt to gain permission to exercise an inalienable Right. I think we should require background checks and psych evaluations before someone can post online, until then NO 1st Amendment for you.

Gun buy back programs are a joke, and are nothing more than feel good do nothing programs, please cite one example of these types of taxpayer wasted money programs has done anything to reduce crime?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 17 2012,3:48 pm

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,9:25 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 17 2012,9:07 am)

QUOTE

The assault weapons ban expired in 2004, but the assault weapons he used would have been included in the ban were it still in effect today.

You are clueless aren't ya? No it wouldn't have been.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 17 2012,4:55 pm

(Liberal @ Dec. 17 2012,3:20 pm)

QUOTE

Mark Tambascio, another family friend, said he believed Lanza's mother, Nancy, had become increasingly concerned in the last few months about Lanza's emotional and behavioral issues.

ABC News Story

Not the kind of kid that I would let access firearms. Would you?

Nothing in that article says he was volatile, or dangerous? Do you think people shouldn't own guns if they have a kid that avoids eye contact, is an A/V nerd, or has a high tolerance for pain?

Okay. You know what? You're right. No cause for alarm. I'm sure Mom couldn't have seen this coming.

Happy now?

Posted by SimpleLife on Dec. 17 2012,4:57 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Dec. 17 2012,3:46 pm)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am)

QUOTE

So scrap the gun buy-back. That still leaves screenings, registrations, mandatory trainings. And that's just what a civilian non-gun-owner can come up with off the top of her head. Are you really saying that there's not one single thing the US could do better?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 17 2012,5:04 pm

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,4:57 pm)

QUOTE

(Grinning_Dragon @ Dec. 17 2012,3:46 pm)

QUOTE

(SimpleLife @ Dec. 17 2012,7:55 am)

QUOTE

What you are doing is putting qualifiers on an inalienable Right, by doing that you have now changed a Right to a privilege. Natural / inalienable Rights are free from qualifiers, it is either a Right or it isn't.

Posted by Moparman on Dec. 17 2012,6:21 pm

(Liberal @ Dec. 17 2012,3:20 pm)

QUOTE

Mark Tambascio, another family friend, said he believed Lanza's mother, Nancy, had become increasingly concerned in the last few months about Lanza's emotional and behavioral issues.

ABC News Story

Not the kind of kid that I would let access firearms. Would you?

Nothing in that article says he was volatile, or dangerous? Do you think people shouldn't own guns if they have a kid that avoids eye contact, is an A/V nerd, or has a high tolerance for pain?

Avoiding eye contact along with high pain thresholds are classic indicators of a mental illness.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 17 2012,6:33 pm

So is being an A/V nerd but I doubt most people would get rid of their guns if they had a kid that was shy, an A/V nerd, or had a high pain tolerance.

Posted by Moparman on Dec. 17 2012,8:51 pm

No being an A/V nerd is not.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 18 2012,11:25 am

So so it's coming out that the bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk.

How does that work??? :dunce:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 18 2012,12:51 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 18 2012,11:25 am)

QUOTE

So so it's coming out that the bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk.

How does that work??? :dunce:

Don't you know by now, that those evil black "assault weapons" with their 100000000000000 rd *"magazine clip" that allows it to spray death and mayhem, can also grow legs or evolve into a higher being and float around like freakin' superman and enslave everyone. :rofl:

*Note: I know the difference between a magazine and a clip, I was just using words that most morons use when they obviously do not know anything about firearms, nor the difference between the two, and NO there is NO such thing as a magazine-clip.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 18 2012,1:01 pm

If he didn't have the AR henmust have did all the damage with the Sig and the glock, those are black. I know glock only comes in black and don't think I've seen any other color on a Sig.

By the way, Joe Scarbourgh said this AM that nobody uses a Glock 10mm for defense.(guess I'll have to get rid of mine now, damn him) I also know that I shouldn't be watching the right wing tripe in the morning.

Clip/magazine, you made me giggle.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 18 2012,11:37 pm

It was a shotgun that was found in the trunk.

I wonder how things would have been different if he had been armed with a 6 round shotgun instead? He would have had to reload 6-7 times with the shotgun and there might have been a chance to stop him or for kids to escape, but if he would have used buckshot I'd think he could have killed multiple people with each shot.

According to the Jay Carney the President would support closing the "gun show loophole" but I don't think I've ever heard that the loophole was a problem, and if you close the "gun show loophole" won't you have to also stop private sales without background checks?

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 19 2012,12:04 am

^ Stopping private sales? Wouldn't that make all guns being registered mandatory? Wouldn't that be a big old can of worms.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 19 2012,6:36 am

(Liberal @ Dec. 18 2012,11:37 pm)

QUOTE

Yes Lib, the whole notion of this so called gun show loophole and the need for this to be closed would affect private sales, requiring the seller and buyer to complete the transaction at an FFL holder.

As such it would be an unenforceable law, how many people are going to be hassled by a stupid law such as this, when they want to make some cash? The stupid govt cannot even enforce our drug laws on the books.

So basically your POS govt hates FREEDOM and wants to end all private sales all in the name of the illusion of safety and for the "chiiiilllldrrrrreeeennnn"

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 19 2012,8:04 am

Let's see, approx. 300 million firearms, the gov. Pretty much shuts down the industry and makes it illegal to privately sell a firearm without involving a FFL dealer, they're trying to recover because their business has been destroyed so they up their transfer fee. Yup, gonna be lots of legal transfers. :sarcasm:

So how does this tragedy pertain to the gun show loophole.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 19 2012,8:13 am

I can't wait to be lectured about mt gun rights by an Administration responsible for providing guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 19 2012,8:15 am

NEWS FLASH: Scientists still baffled by Canadians' ability to watch violent movies, own guns and play violent video games, but not shoot each other.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 19 2012,8:40 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 19 2012,8:13 am)

QUOTE

I can't wait to be lectured about mt gun rights by an Administration responsible for providing guns to Mexican drug cartels.

Didn't they fill out the required 4473 form??? :sarcasm:

Posted by alcitizens on Dec. 19 2012,10:54 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 19 2012,8:15 am)

QUOTE

NEWS FLASH: Scientists still baffled by Canadians' ability to watch violent movies, own guns and play violent video games, but not shoot each other.

Canada has a stronger, stricter gun control system than exists in the United States and they only have a population of 35 million compared to our 310 million..

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 19 2012,11:27 am

(alcitizens @ Dec. 19 2012,10:54 am)

QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 19 2012,8:15 am)

QUOTE

NEWS FLASH: Scientists still baffled by Canadians' ability to watch violent movies, own guns and play violent video games, but not shoot each other.

Canada has a stronger, stricter gun control system than exists in the United States and they only have a population of 35 million compared to our 310 million..

Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understand it, Canada's per-capita gun death rate is still lower than ours.

Posted by alcitizens on Dec. 19 2012,7:09 pm

Igloo's seem to be very safe up there in the Klondike..

Posted by White Pride on Dec. 19 2012,10:47 pm

"gun control" is nothing more than "people control.." Take away the citizen's guns, and you will open them up to invasion. What's going to keep the guns out of the illegal's and criminal's hands? This is not a good thing, people!

Posted by allergic to bogus on Dec. 19 2012,11:17 pm

Too many questions about this whole scenerio. The mom was a kindergarten teacher and was killed there. wasn't killed there, the dad was killed, wasn't killed, brother did it, didn't do it. People coming out to speak about the deaths of a family member, yet laughing and then when they hit the spot needed, welling up for the cameras. Parents allowing their children to be questioned by the media, hours after the massacre. The timing of it, where are the eye witnesses?

Posted by grassman on Dec. 20 2012,8:07 am

(allergic to bogus @ Dec. 19 2012,11:17 pm)

QUOTE

People coming out to speak about the deaths of a family member, yet laughing and then when they hit the spot needed, welling up for the cameras. Parents allowing their children to be questioned by the media, hours after the massacre. The timing of it, where are the eye witnesses?

I think part of it is the type of town it is. They are pretty much a well to do town. They probably do not know how to react to something that is this far out of their normalcy. :dunno:

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 20 2012,11:35 am

(grassman @ Dec. 20 2012,8:07 am)

QUOTE

(allergic to bogus @ Dec. 19 2012,11:17 pm)

QUOTE

I think part of it is the type of town it is. They are pretty much a well to do town. They probably do not know how to react to something that is this far out of their normalcy. :dunno:

So what you're saying is that because they have lots of money they're more comforted? Because they're well off that they don't feel greif lime everybody else?

Posted by White Pride on Dec. 20 2012,11:44 am

I'm more concerned about how MSM is feeding it.. Story always changing and what not. For all we know, the dude was working for an "agency" and was "instructed" to do it this way, so big brother can have a "moral obligation" to enact "gun control."

... and it's working

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 20 2012,12:30 pm

They (libdonks) didn't need a stunt like this to do it...one only needs to look in Obambam's back yard for excuses. Have you seen the number of children that have died from a firearm in Chicago this past year? Take a look at the stats from the past several years in Chicago.

Now we are outraged by gun violence? :sarcasm:

Give me a friggen break. :frusty:

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 20 2012,1:15 pm

The Government seems to be focused on firearms, it’s my opinion this is a mental issue.
This investigation should probe the metal health of these individuals, say the last ten of these mass shootings. Are they on some kind of antidepressant or antipsychotic drug or recently stopped taking this type of medication.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 20 2012,1:21 pm

I believe that a lot of mental health factors that drive someone to doing this sort of thing stem from over-prescribed pharmaceuticals, which will never be addressed, due to Big Pharma's untouchable status in Washington. Hence the focus on guns.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 20 2012,1:48 pm

It is interesting in the fact that the mental issue is being discussed on many different forums that I visit and very few of the posts deal with the gun ban BS mantra. I believe there was a gallup poll and the top issue in addressing these types of shooting sprees is the govt should be looking into mental health vs gun bans or restrictions. It seems many Americans just see that a ban or more restrictions will not address the underlying issue.

My bad, it was an increase of police in schools. Here is a shot of the poll. I also believe maybe training some teachers in the use of firearms and allow them to carry on campus.

Posted by grassman on Dec. 20 2012,1:51 pm

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 20 2012,1:21 pm)

QUOTE

Is it over prescribed or under prescribed. There are a lot of people walking around that refuse to take the very meds that will help them.

Posted by Cheyenne on Dec. 21 2012,10:11 am

The creation of "GUN FREE ZONES" is what allows this type of behavior to continue....Think about it, if the "bad" guy(s) had to consider if there could be someone armed that would stop them would they still do it? So by not allowing legally approved people to protect themselves we are allowing the "bad guys" free space to create these tradgedies. If when the principle had confronted this individual had been trained and allowed access to a firearm to protect her students, would the "bad Guy' been able to kill 26 innocent people? I do not believe so. This is all just my opinion though!

Posted by busybee on Dec. 21 2012,2:59 pm

Did anyone listen to the statement made by the NRA today?

Posted by Blackdog on Dec. 21 2012,8:43 pm

I dont understand why you people keep talking about this.

You all must be republicans or simply depressed or have no life!!!

Its Christmas and get on a positive subject!!!!!

You people cant do it cause you have proved that you do nothing except talk negative (LIFE MUST SUCK)!!!! :peaceout:

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,4:47 am

If I were a republican I'd be depressed.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,4:50 am

With the giant surge in gun, magazine and ammo sales in the US I'd say Americans are trying to say something to the gov. :cool:

Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 22 2012,7:11 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 22 2012,4:50 am)

QUOTE

With the giant surge in gun, magazine and ammo sales in the US I'd say Americans are trying to say something to the gov. :cool:

What thry are saying is that they are just as stupid as the gun lobby.(NRA)...

...ned

Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 22 2012,7:14 am

Why does anyone need an assault weapon, an old single shot shot gun is enough for home defense if you can shoot...... :frusty:

......ned

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,7:29 am

(nedkelly @ Dec. 22 2012,7:11 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 22 2012,4:50 am)

QUOTE

With the giant surge in gun, magazine and ammo sales in the US I'd say Americans are trying to say something to the gov. :cool:

What thry are saying is that they are just as stupid as the gun lobby.(NRA)...

...ned

No Ned, they're saying "enough" you seem to be one of the bleating, repeating sheep who the the 2nd amendment is about hunting.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,7:32 am

(nedkelly @ Dec. 22 2012,7:14 am)

QUOTE

Why does anyone need an assault weapon, an old single shot shot gun is enough for home defense if you can shoot... :frusty:

...ned

What if you miss numb nuts? :dunce:

Who the hell are you to say how I defend myself?

Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 22 2012,10:32 am

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 22 2012,7:32 am)

QUOTE

(nedkelly @ Dec. 22 2012,7:14 am)

QUOTE

Why does anyone need an assault weapon, an old single shot shot gun is enough for home defense if you can shoot... :frusty:

...ned

What if you miss numb nuts? :dunce:

Who the hell are you to say how I defend myself?

When you are used to huntting with a single shot you don't miss "numb nuts", if you get as far as in my house you will never reproduce....guaranteed!!!!.....

...ned

Posted by White Pride on Dec. 22 2012,12:32 pm

Why would anyone want an assault rifle? Because there are 2 trailer parks in town and the day is going to come where one shot won't be enough! :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,12:41 pm

(nedkelly @ Dec. 22 2012,10:32 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 22 2012,7:32 am)

QUOTE

(nedkelly @ Dec. 22 2012,7:14 am)

QUOTE

Why does anyone need an assault weapon, an old single shot shot gun is enough for home defense if you can shoot... :frusty:

...ned

What if you miss numb nuts? :dunce:

Who the hell are you to say how I defend myself?

When you are used to huntting with a single shot you don't miss "numb nuts", if you get as far as in my house you will never reproduce...guaranteed!!!!....

...ned

Ol' dead-eye Ned huh? Never miss???'yeah right,

Now I might look a little silly with a single shot shotgun under my coat.

Posted by grassman on Dec. 22 2012,1:02 pm

That is for sure. It would be dragging on the ground. :rofl:

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 22 2012,2:36 pm

^ has your wife been telling you stories again? :rofl:

Posted by Moparman on Dec. 22 2012,11:33 pm

(nedkelly @ Dec. 22 2012,10:32 am)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 22 2012,7:32 am)

QUOTE

(nedkelly @ Dec. 22 2012,7:14 am)

QUOTE

Why does anyone need an assault weapon, an old single shot shot gun is enough for home defense if you can shoot... :frusty:

...ned

What if you miss numb nuts? :dunce:

Who the hell are you to say how I defend myself?

When you are used to huntting with a single shot you don't miss "numb nuts", if you get as far as in my house you will never reproduce...guaranteed!!!!...

...ned

Remember you are the prey NOT the hunter when it comes to home invasion type crimes. The criminal will be laying in wait, their weapon at the ready, and for the most part have a plan of attack. You will be relaxed and calm, minding your own business, and for the most part unaware of any threat. If you really want to count on a single shot weapon to be at the ready and accurate at that moment of suprise go right ahead. As for me I'm going to rely on something a little more substantial.

And what if there is more than one threat? Maybe you can ask them to line up for that one accurate single shot.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 23 2012,1:05 am

^Smart man :rockon:

Posted by grassman on Dec. 23 2012,8:25 am

In the right hands. If nothing else, it is a blast to shoot. :thumbsup:

Posted by Expatriate on Dec. 23 2012,8:35 am

Lieberman was on CNN State of the Union this Morning not only is this guy calling for restriction on firearms
he’s blaming video games, movies and TV.. if he has his way we’ll all be watching Leave it to Beaver and Andy
of Mayberry reruns.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 23 2012,10:18 am

I waited 3 days for a pawn shop to clear me through the BATF on a new pistol. One of my customers is a retailer of high cap mags, their inventory is completely exhausted. I was in Mills Fleet yesterday, no .223, 7.62x39, .308, 40s&w or 9mm.

Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 25 2012,5:41 am

Got lots of shells for my single shot......and my pump and my double barrel, they are collectors that shoot very well...

.....ned

Posted by Moparman on Dec. 25 2012,7:13 am

(nedkelly @ Dec. 25 2012,5:41 am)

QUOTE

Got lots of shells for my single shot...and my pump and my double barrel, they are collectors that shoot very well...

....ned

But you said a good ole single is all one needed. Not a pump, not a double barrel. Why do you need those other guns and all that ammo? :dunno:

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 25 2012,7:20 am

^ probably thinks that three boxes of birdshot and a brick of .22 is alot. :dunce:

Posted by nedkelly on Dec. 26 2012,12:42 pm

Double aught buck works well in the house...

......ned

Posted by This is my real name on Dec. 27 2012,9:11 am

OK, I realize this is covered by the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), so it was legal, but it was also hugely irresponsible. Ironically, they have *also* provided a map of which homes ARE NOT protected by firearms.

< Newspaper prints map >

"Public knowledge" and "nothing to hide" notwithstanding, this could have HUGE unintended consequences. The biggest problem for the law-abiding gun owners might be scorn and unwanted attention from their anti-gun neighbors. The biggest problem for those without guns might come from the not-so-law-abiding.

I hope nothing happens to the homes without guns. But if anything DOES happen, this newspaper should be held at least partly responsible (civilly, if not criminally) for printing a map of unprotected homes.

Posted by Glad I Left on Dec. 27 2012,9:34 am

There are very little standards left in journalism nowadays. Pretty sad.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 27 2012,9:47 am

^ You noticed that, huh?

Posted by This is my real name on Dec. 27 2012,10:54 am

(Glad I Left @ Dec. 27 2012,9:34 am)

QUOTE

There are very little standards left in journalism nowadays. Pretty sad.

Exactly. This is doing nothing more than stirring the pot and drumming up hate and controversy, turning people against their scary neighbors with guns — all in the name of awareness and public safety. Imagine the outrage if they published a list and map of homes without guns. Would that still be okay? Or would they feel like their homes had been deliberately made into targets?

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 27 2012,11:20 am

We live in a world where candy cigarettes are deemed more dangerous than toy guns.

You figure it out. I give up. :frusty:

Posted by This is my real name on Dec. 27 2012,11:25 am

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 27 2012,11:20 am)

QUOTE

We live in a world where candy cigarettes are deemed more dangerous than toy guns.

You figure it out. I give up. :frusty:

On Garage Logic last week, a caller claimed that he had been in a candy store when a city councilor came in, telling him he could not buy candy cigarettes or bubblegum cigars, and told the store they had to pull them from the shelves.

It turned out there actually is such an ordinance in St. Paul.

Also, they have now published new versions of "A Visit From St. Nicholas" and "Frosty the Snowman" where neither Santa nor Frosty smoke their pipe. Because THAT must be why kids start smoking, not because their parents or peers do it.

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 27 2012,11:31 am

Here it comes.

Listen to this ding dong. It's the clip that kills people. :dunce:

< Senator Feinstein >

< My Webpage >

QUOTE

Summary of 2013 legislation
Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
120 specifically-named firearms
Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds.
Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 27 2012,11:53 am

Yes indeed, here we are again. Another f'king idiot that or I should say the same f'king idiot that thinks(that's a laugh) that the 2nd amendment is about hunting.

It really pains me to say it but I'm starting to think that Sandy Hook was a set up and there's gonna be another tragedy to put the icing on the cake. :angry:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 27 2012,12:54 pm

(Self-Banished @ Dec. 27 2012,11:53 am)

QUOTE

Well as you can see, it is mostly the anti gunners that love to dance in the blood of victims, and get almost giddy when something bad happens.

Also as it stands now, a new round of weapon bans is less likely to pass, one such way that it will be prevented is Sen. Coburn, he is the one that can stonewall such legislation in the Senate, and has done so with many types of legislation, and in the House, such a ban won't see the floor to be debated on. Weapon bans are looser feel good do nothing, but waste time and taxpayer money on such venues.

Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 27 2012,3:05 pm

(This is my real name @ Dec. 27 2012,11:25 am)

QUOTE

(Botto 82 @ Dec. 27 2012,11:20 am)

QUOTE

We live in a world where candy cigarettes are deemed more dangerous than toy guns.

You figure it out. I give up. :frusty:

Yes, apparently so for St. Paul, I did a quick Google search. Superfresh in Austin sells the candy cigarettes still in case anyone has the urge for some. They've got lots of the old pops and candies there.

Here's more about St. Paul via ABC news:

QUOTE

A mom-and-pop candy shop in St. Paul, Minn., with a retro vibe, got a Prohibition-style visit from the authorities who threw the book at the soda jerks for selling cigarettes and cigars to children, even though they were made only of bubble gum.

An official with the city's Department of Safety and Inspection who visited Lynden's Soda Fountain last week told the gum slingers to pack up their best-selling candy cigarettes, Big League Chew and bubble gum cigars, or face a $500 fine, proprietor Tobi Lynden told ABCNews.com.
< ABC News: St. Paul Cracks Down on Candy Cigarettes >

So, they can't sell them... Can they GIVE them away? Maybe for a suggested donation.

Same article from above:

QUOTE

Citing a 2009 city ordinance that banned the sale of candy cigarettes for fear they'd promote smoking to minors, the health inspector told Lynden she had to remove the offending candy or face the consequences.< ABC News: St. Paul Cracks Down on Candy Cigarettes >

^Sale is restricted. But you can give them away next to the toothpick and napkin dispenser.

Totally kidding. Don't go giving away candy cigs on a street corner in St. Paul anytime soon.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 27 2012,3:30 pm

^ They don't stay lit.

Posted by irisheyes on Dec. 27 2012,5:06 pm

Lighter fluid on the cigarette, as needed.

It will stay lit, you're not trying hard enough.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 27 2012,6:13 pm

^ I quit a couple a years ago

Lighter fluid? I bet they put worse sh!t than that in smokes.

Posted by This is my real name on Dec. 28 2012,7:25 am

QUOTE

Totally kidding. Don't go giving away candy cigs on a street corner in St. Paul anytime soon.

Another caller on Garage Logic called in that he was giving away candy cigs for Halloween. No word on whether he was charged with anything.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see our Honorary Dan Buettner Blue Zone Taj Mahal Emerald City Vitality Center try and get such an ordinance passed here. They did just pass a measure that you can now no longer smoke in your car in the parking lot of the City Arena. I don't even smoke anymore, but that seems a bit of a stretch. I can see not allowing smoking inside the arena, and not right by the entrance, but this was "for the youth who have to walk through the parking lot". When it was proposed (by a member of the public) that the City Hall smoking ban be expanded to include the arena for that reason, Ellen Kehr was practically drooling over the suggestion (yet strangely enough, rambled on and on about it but wouldn't make the motion herself).

Candy cigarettes will be next here. That way they can continue to collect a paycheck and pretend they're doing something about the health of the community.

Posted by Self-Banished on Dec. 28 2012,9:18 am

They probably took the guy to a "reeducation" camp.

Posted by Liberal on Dec. 29 2012,11:03 pm

It's hard to believe but there are quite a few kooks out there claiming this was a hoax, nobody died, and the "parents" were all actors. Or that government agents killed the mother and son first then killed the students and the staff and escaped without anyone seeing them. :crazy:

< http://www.google.com/search?q=sandy+hook+hoax >

< http://www.google.com/search?q=sandy+hook+false+flag >

Posted by White Pride on Dec. 30 2012,1:33 pm

(This is my real name @ Dec. 28 2012,7:25 am)

QUOTE

[quote]
That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see our Honorary Dan Buettner Blue Zone Taj Mahal Emerald City Vitality Center try and get such an ordinance passed here. They did just pass a measure that you can now no longer smoke in your car in the parking lot of the City Arena. I don't even smoke anymore, but that seems a bit of a stretch. I can see not allowing smoking inside the arena, and not right by the entrance, but this was "for the youth who have to walk through the parking lot". When it was proposed (by a member of the public) that the City Hall smoking ban be expanded to include the arena for that reason, Ellen Kehr was practically drooling over the suggestion (yet strangely enough, rambled on and on about it but wouldn't make the motion herself).

Might as well also ban the use of Diesel vehicles (including city use, especially school buses) and all vehicles without a catalytic converter while they are at it

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 30 2012,1:58 pm

QUOTE

“I've been very clear that an assault-rifle ban, banning these high capacity clips, background checks, that there are a set of issues that I have historically supported and will continue to support,” the president said.

QUOTE

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high-capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” Obama said.

< My Webpage >
< My Webpage >

President B. Hussein Obama is trying to justify banning semi-automatic guns and high capacity clips by making it sound like the killer walked into a gun shop and legally purchased the AR-15 himself under current laws.

This is how the politician will twist the real truth. This is how their lies begin to eat away at our freedoms. Stricter gun laws will become reality asthe the sheeple continue to nod their heads and go about their daily lives as if nothing is happening because they need to be told what to do and who better to tell them than Obummer and Biden.

No one can agree on a budget so we'll waste time creating feel good gun laws. In the mean time, President Obama issues an executive order to give VP Biden and members of both congress and the senate a pay raise. :frusty:

When will President Obama take up the responsibility he has been charged with and lead this country? Stop pointing fingers and lead!!

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 31 2012,1:04 pm

Sigh more misinformation.

< Kathy Diaz wrote: >

QUOTE

What will it take for the NRA and all gun-loving Americans to finally agree that the ordinary citizen does not need a semi-automatic rifle? These weapons are for killing people, they’re not for hunting.

How many more of our children have to die before we wake up and take these guns off the market? I don’t like guns and won’t pretend to for this discussion. Every-time someone talks about taking semiautomatic weapons off the market, people run to the gun stores to buy a gun. No one is talking about stopping gun sales; we just want the automatic weapons off the market and out of the hands of everyone but military or law enforcement.

When you think about the damage that was done to these children in Connecticut with an AR-15 as compared to a handgun, it ought to make you sick. The children and adults didn’t have a chance with someone spraying bullets at them. It’s time we start thinking about our children, our neighbors and our own safety before we start realizing we don’t need these semiautomatic or automatic weapons.

Let’s get rid of these particular weapons and stop pretending someone is trying to take away your rights to own a gun. No one is trying to take away your rights, we just want to make our lives a little safer by saying no to these type of weapons. What’s wrong with that?

Well Kathy- this is what is wrong with that.
1. An AR-15 is a perfectly useful weapon to hunt with, and is widely used in hunting today, along with many variants of AK's FN's, FAL's, etc. The right to keep and bear arms has ABSOLUTELY nothing to with hunting.

2. What AR-15 sprays bullets? This is a semi-automatic weapon, much like a Ruger mini-14. I see you get your firearm information from the mainstream media, that couldn't tell the difference between a full auto or a semi-auto. Maybe you should learn about these firearms before you make yourself look like a fool and spread misinformation and lies.

3. Full auto weapons are difficult to obtain due to the amount of money it requires and the mountain of paper work and background check done by the ATF, FBI and with permission from the local sheriff. There have only been two murders with full auto's since the inception of the UNCONSTITUTIONAL NFA of '39.

4. More murders are committed with handguns than rifles.

5. The look and design of a firearms does not make it lethal, a person who isn't right in the head does. Design and look has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with lethality.

6. While it was tragic in what happened, this is NO reason to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens for the wrongs of a few, safety must always cede to individual rights. Safety is an illusion. There were multiple laws broke that day, adding more or restricting would not have made ONE bit of difference, if you believe in such endeavors, then you are sorely blinded and ignorant.

7. Police and military are just infallible as anyone else, and saying these are the only type of class of people allowed such weapons, displays your bigotry and ignorance.

8. Need is irrelevant, NO ONE needs to justify a need to exercise their Constitutional Rights.

9. By saying that you are not taking rights away by removing these weapons; is taking rights away, the right to keep and bear arms is being infringed. No where in the 2nd Amendment does it say, the right to keep and bear arms, except for semi-automatics.

Kathy you are sorely ignorant of the Constitution, ignorant of judicial precedent, ignorant of firearms and functionality, ignorant of history.

Posted by Botto 82 on Dec. 31 2012,1:48 pm

I remember when my dad picked up a Thompson .45 semi-auto, back in the 70's. The Sheriff's Department had a cow, and confiscated it. It took those morons three months to figure out that there was nothing illegal about it, since it wasn't fully auto, as its M1928 fully-automatic military counterpart was.

Semi-automatic weapons have always been around. What's changed in my lifetime is that there is a disproportionately larger number of mentally unstable people out there now. Maybe if we started an intelligent dialogue on why THAT's happening, we wouldn't be involved in THIS moronic dialogue.

Posted by Common Citizen on Dec. 31 2012,2:00 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Dec. 31 2012,1:04 pm)

QUOTE

Sigh more misinformation.

< Kathy Diaz wrote: >

QUOTE

You should send this in to the fishwrap. I doubt anyone there would have balls enough to publish it.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Dec. 31 2012,3:40 pm

(Common Citizen @ Dec. 31 2012,2:00 pm)

QUOTE

(Grinning_Dragon @ Dec. 31 2012,1:04 pm)

QUOTE

Sigh more misinformation.

< Kathy Diaz wrote: >

QUOTE

You should send this in to the fishwrap. I doubt anyone there would have balls enough to publish it.

I don't have an account at the fishwrap.
Maybe my bro can copy and paste it, I know he has an account, or if any of you do, go ahead and post it, you can even attrib it to me.

Posted by Wolfie on Jan. 01 2013,10:16 am

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7pT0nKxgqY >

Posted by Wolfie on Jan. 01 2013,10:40 am

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0&feature=share >

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 03 2013,4:52 pm

QUOTE

Like many conspiracy theories, the myths of Newtown begin with a grain of truth and grow by way of a series of honest mistakes, unconfirmed rumors, and deliberate fantasy, then evolve into a kind of narrowly accepted allegation of some evil globe-spanning plot. Then there is the ideological bias that comes from those who may even buy into the official story, yet still manage to see nefarious intent wherever it follows. The idea of "one world government" encroachment via the small weapons treaty is a popular fear, but one that's been thoroughly debunked in the past. (The treaty is real, but hasn't been written yet, will never be ratified by the Senate, and has nothing to do with the Second Amendment.)

Much of the "second shooter" speculation was spurred by a man who was detained and released after being spotted in the woods outside the school. Numerous witnesses and TV stations reported seeing a man handcuffed and placed in a police car on Friday morning. After he was interviewed and released, police moved on to other matters, but the record was never fully cleared up and the event got lost in the larger story, leading many to believe the arrest was being actively suppressed. We admit it took a bit of digging to discover that others had figured out that the man in question was most likely Chris Manfredonia, the father of a Sandy Hook student, who attempted to sneak into the school after the shooting started. Police can be heard relaying his name over their radios, but few outlets managed to follow up with that detail.

All breaking crimes scenes are prone to confusion and rumor. This Sandy Hook shooting in particular was rife with false reports and misunderstandings—the most glaring being the early mis-identification of the shooter by police. The most sensational details spread quickly, but the corrections to those details rarely reach as far. For many of the "believers" attempts to correct the misinformation are merely proof of the larger cover up. This new strain of conspiracy mongering has its roots in the September 11 "truther" movement, but goes back much further than that, to the most ancient forms of racism and anti-Semitim and an almost mystical belief that there are forces beyond our control—that can also be conveniently blamed for all our troubles.

< http://www.theatlanticwire.com/nationa...26 >

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 05 2013,10:10 am

Quote from Conneticut Democrat State Senator Martin M. Looney:

QUOTE

“A gun without ammunition is only a club,” Looney has said. “We really need to restrict access to ammunition.” Calls to Looney’s office for additional comment were not returned.

QUOTE

WASHINGTON (CBS DC) – Annual FBI crime statistics show that more people are killed with clubs and hammers each year than by rifles or shotguns.

In 2011, there were 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs. There were 356 murders in which a shotgun was the deadly weapon of choice.

This ding dong's name is fitting.

Posted by grassman on Jan. 05 2013,11:05 am

Kind of shows the rationality and brain power of Washington doesn't it. :laugh:

Posted by Expatriate on Jan. 05 2013,11:21 am

Now I’ll need a permit to buy a hammer!

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 05 2013,11:34 am

^ I wouldn't doubt it, you're a pretty suspicious character.

Posted by grassman on Jan. 05 2013,2:31 pm

Kind of puts a new spin on getting hammered. :beer:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 10 2013,9:26 am

Now that some time has passed since the Aurora movie theater shootings and for court testimony to start up, nobody can contribute all the inconsistencies to the chaos surrounding the event. At first the "conspiracy kooks" were claiming that there were two gas masks found. Holmes was either wearing one-or one was found next to his car. They said the second gas mask was found on the other end of the back parking lot, quite far from his car where police found him. It appears the "kooks" are right. And just like evidence pointing to more than one shooter at Sandy Hook and the Temple shooting in WI, the main stream media completely dismisses it. Eye witnesses interviewed right after the Auroroa shooting talk about two shooters. There is photo evidence of the gas mask on the other end of the parking lot.

Washington Post lay-out of the scene:
< http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...hooting >

Photo 50 shows the second gas mask laying in the parking lot:
< http://blogs.denverpost.com/capture...738 >

^Photo 41 also shows police investigating potential evidence on the sidewalk near where the second gas mask was found.

Photo 54 shows the gas mask with what looks like bloodstains marked as evidence on the sidewalk.

Court testimony from this Monday:
First officer to find Holmes testifies he was wearing a gas mask:
Earlier in Monday's hearing, police Officer Jason Oviatt -- the first officer to encounter Holmes after the rampage ended -- testified that Holmes seemed "very, very relaxed."

Holmes, his pupils dilated, sweating and smelly, didn't struggle or even tense his muscles as he was dragged away to be searched.

"He seemed very detached from it all," Oviatt testified, describing Holmes as unnaturally calm amid the chaos and carnage.

Oviatt testified Monday that within minutes of the first calls, he responded to the theater and found Holmes standing outside in a helmet and gas mask, his hands atop a white coupe that turned out to belong to him.
< http://www.cnn.com/2013...ex.html >

-----------------------------------

The 13-year veteran wiped away tears while describing his efforts to rush badly wounded victims to the hospital in his police cruiser, (Why would an officer be bringing people to the hospital in his car instead of EMT's in an ambulance? Especially taking into account the extent of some of the wounds which I don't want to print here)
< http://www.cnn.com/2013...ex.html >

The officer made four trips bringing victims to the hospital? It took that long for ambulances to show up?

He made four trips to the hospital with victims.
< http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news...ys?lite >

As strange as Holmes acted when he was arrested why wasn't he tested for drugs? Look up articles with police describing how he behaved. It's bizarre and it doesn't make sense that he wasn't tested for drugs.

So many things don't add up or make sense when checking into the Sikh Temple shootings in WI, Sandy Hook or Aurora. That is all I am saying here, I am not trying to infer anything other than: So many BIG things don't add up or make sense with these horrible events. Anyone agree?

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 10 2013,10:09 am

Long gone are the days that reporters stick to the facts and just the facts when submitting their reports. Reporters care more about their own careers than the truth. They embellish the truth here, twist the facts there, and the next thing you know you have 50 reporters saying 50 different things. If they want to make it big in that business they have to...NEED TO... sensationalize their stories. Why? Because WE lap it up and pay good money for it. We are the biggest enablers of the news media.

Is it any wonder that the conspiracy industry is thriving today?

...nuff said.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 10 2013,10:54 am

Rosa- You may find this also of some interest.
Does someone in the EU know something we do not?

< Top gun activists killed >

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 10 2013,10:56 am

(Common Citizen @ Jan. 10 2013,10:09 am)

QUOTE

The thing with conspiracies, is that they are riddled with thin strands of truth. So while a conspiracy as a whole is just that; a conspiracy, but one cannot deny the ever so little detail of truth contained within.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 10 2013,11:49 am

Obama death squads???

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 10 2013,11:51 am

I completely agree CC and GD, that's why I posted Sworn Court Testimony given by police on Monday. Officer testifies that Holme's eyes were dilated and he acted as if he was drugged, but no drug test was given to him. Officer testifies he made four trips to the hospital with victims. Officer testified Holmes was wearing the gas mask.
I'm assuming the photos are official crime scene photos. - But I'm not 100% sure. I don't know how reporters or any non officials could have been right smack dab in the middle of the investigation to take those pics. I would post the individual pics in the forum but I don't know how. From the pictures it is clear that the gas mask marked as evidence, blood and other items are quite far away from where Holme's car was. Opposite side of the lot. So if he was wearing it when the officer found him, how did it end up so far away?
All the mainstream media outlets are reporting the same testimony from the officers.
Sworn police testimony and the photos. That's not leaving much leeway for the reporters to be able to twist and fabricate. Also note how not one single mainstream media has mentioned the gas mask and other evidence being found so far away from the suspect. Don't you think that's odd? It's only been alternative media pointing out that fact, even though mainstream media has posted photos of it.
Just doesn't add up.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 10 2013,12:31 pm

You have some good points...but then...both North Korea and China believed news reports from The Onion. You believe what you posted was in fact "sworn police testimony". How do you know that's even the truth?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 10 2013,12:49 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Jan. 10 2013,10:54 am)

QUOTE

Rosa- You may find this also of some interest.
Does someone in the EU know something we do not?

< Top gun activists killed >

Thank you GD. There's so many things happening lately that need to be checked into thoroughly. I haven't been able to give this event any time yet. Would love to hear your take on that shooting. Even in private message if you like. There's one thing in that article that stands out to me which I very much agree with but I'm not setting myself up for ridicule by talking about it openly in the forum. I'll private message you later tonight about it if I may.

CC:

QUOTE

Makes a person's head spin doesn't it.
One thing is clear. Something is going on.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 10 2013,1:30 pm

QUOTE

The officer made four trips bringing victims to the hospital? It took that long for ambulances to show up?

He made four trips to the hospital with victims.
< http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news...ys?lite >

QUOTE

When rescuers from the fire department finally arrived at the back of the theater to help some of the most critical patients, they were thwarted again by the lack of ambulances for transport.

"FYI, right now we're loading patients into back of PD cars to get them transported," the first fire department responder to reach the theater said. "Any ambos we could get would be nice."

By then, it had been about 24 minutes since the shooting. None of the 25 ambulances that had responded from several area hospitals were available or able to get where they were immediately needed.

Gov. John Hickenlooper praised the willingness of police to do whatever it took to get medical aid to the wounded.

"I couldn't believe how many people got to the hospital by police cars and not by ambulance," Hickenlooper told The Denver Post. "Several people (he had spoken with from other jurisdictions) said, 'You know, where I am, the police won't touch injured people for fear they will hurt their back or whatever. These police looked at us, blood everywhere and said, there are not ambulances here, we have to start taking people.' "

Read more: Some of the most injured in Aurora massacre waited for help - The Denver Post < http://www.denverpost.com/breakin...bNZM8sb >
Read The Denver Post's Terms of Use of its content: < http://www.denverpost.com/termsofuse >

QUOTE

As strange as Holmes acted when he was arrested why wasn't he tested for drugs? Look up articles with police describing how he behaved. It's bizarre and it doesn't make sense that he wasn't tested for drugs.

I don't know if you knew this but homicidal maniacs tend to act a little "strange". Why would the police test him for drugs? Do you think the police can just force you to take a drug test because you do something "strange"?

QUOTE

One thing is clear. Something is going on.

< http://www.amazon.com/Reynold...0LLWH2W >

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 10 2013,2:03 pm

And now we have another shooting in Cal. Shotgun this time.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 10 2013,3:19 pm

(Liberal @ Jan. 10 2013,1:30 pm)

QUOTE

Ok that makes sense. It's quite understandable the ambulances being over ran by wounded. The length of time it took for enough emergency vehicles to show up is ridiculous though. So thanks for that article liberal.

QUOTE

Walking down the street talking to invisible people is strange. Going up to people in a grocery store and telling them aliens ate your teddy bear is strange. Walking into a theater and blasting away as many people as possible with a huge amount of weapons doesn't exactly fit into the mere realm of strange behavior. Especially when police describe the person in this way:
Earlier in Monday's hearing, police Officer Jason Oviatt -- the first officer to encounter Holmes after the rampage ended -- testified that Holmes seemed "very, very relaxed."

Holmes, his pupils dilated, sweating and smelly, didn't struggle or even tense his muscles as he was dragged away to be searched.

"He seemed very detached from it all," Oviatt testified, describing Holmes as unnaturally calm amid the chaos and carnage."
And then as he's handcuffed he just matter-of-factly tells the officer "Oh, by the way, my apartment is boobytrapped with explosives." And pretends the evidence bags over his hands are puppets.
^Not your every day strange behavior. And seems to me that courts might be curious about drugs in his system.

Thanks again for the article on the emergency response at the theater. But let me run back and join you in third grade for a minute. Here's to your tinfoil response to the rest of my post: http://atthiskornr.blogspot.com/2008/10/sheep-drinking-kool-aid.html

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 10 2013,4:38 pm

QUOTE

"Strange" was the word you used when wondering why they didn't test him (As strange as Holmes acted when he was arrested why wasn't he tested for drugs? ). As far as the courts are concerned I think the sentence for mass murder is the same whether you massacre people sober or intoxicated so the court doesn't really care if he was on drugs.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 10 2013,5:39 pm

Ya got me. I did say he acted strangely. I got confused a bit when you said

QUOTE

Do you think the police can just force you to take a drug test because you do something "strange"?

I misunderstood that comment as :Do you think police can force a drug test on someone for walking up to strangers in a grocery store and saying "Aliens ate my teddybear"

I was meaning "strange" as in:
Pupils dilated (as if on drugs)
blasted hundreds of rounds in a movie theater and minutes later is completely serene and docile.
Also if one was to take into account eye witness testimony that there were more than one shooter, and finding a second gas mask at the scene, some people might think that perhaps he was a drugged patsy or something. Or drugged accomplice of some sort.

Just like the oddities of eye witness accounts at Sandy Hook and the Temple in WI.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 11 2013,10:27 am

I haven't wanted to join in the Sandy Hook conversation yet, but there is one thing about it I want to address. I don't want people to so easily dismiss such a big thing as the guy (or guys) chased into the woods and arrested. Before I begin I just want to say a few things to you in particular Liberal. It seems you have only two category of people when it comes to things like this. 1.) Sane rational people who believe everything the media says and who don't question anything. 2) Tinfoil hat wearing wackjob kooks who think the government is behind every bad thing that happens and who come up with crazy crazy ideas to prove it. You automatically label anyone who dares to mention anything that doesn't fit with an official story as a kook, and you dismiss anything you can't find an answer for as kookery. Do we really have to be stuck either being a kool-aid drinking sheep or tin foil hat wearing kook? People can't actually try thinking with their own brains? You posted an article explaining why the police were transporting victims because I just could not wrap my head around how horribly bad the EMT response was. Now that issue makes sense to me. And I think some people need to get in trouble for doing such a crap job getting help to the theater. But then you toss out a link for Reynold's Wrap Tinfoil to try to dismiss the rest of my post. You don't think other things brought up in this thread have any relevance and should just be forgotten for some reason?
As for the article hinting that a man named Chris Manfredonia was the man who was arrested running into the woods. So far I have only found one mainstream news mention about him and all it says is:

Chris Manfredonia, whose 6-year-old daughter attends the school, was heading there Friday morning to help make gingerbread houses with first-graders when he heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur.

He ran around the school trying to reach his daughter and was briefly handcuffed by police. He later found his child, who had been locked in a small room with a teacher.
< http://articles.latimes.com/2012...0121215 >
He went to the school to make gingerbread houses with his daughters' class. Didn't other parents show up to do crafts with their children as well?
"He heard popping sounds and smelled sulfur." Was he inside the school that he was able to smell sulfur? "He ran around the school trying to reach his daughter." Was he running around INSIDE or OUTSIDE the school?
If this is the same guy in the helicopter video shown being chased in the woods by police, why on earth did he take off running into the woods if he was looking for his daughter? Why was he so far away from the classroom area "looking for his daughter" to begin with? When he's being led to the police car he's looking at parents and saying "I didn't do it" instead of something like "I need to find my daughter". If Chris Manfredonia is the same man arrested in the woods he sure picked the wrong outfit to wear that day too. Camo pants and dark jacket.

One student interviewed that day says when they were led out of the school they saw the police with a man laying on the ground handcuffed in the parking lot.
A man was interviewed that day describing that police brought a handcuffed man out of the woods dressed in camo pants and a dark jacket and put him in the front of the police car. Which man was Chris Manfredonia? I don't see how those two accounts could be talking about the same person.
When something bad happens why should we have to just buy what we are told, even when things don't add up? Why can't we be allowed to think for ourselves? Why call people names and try to squash any sort of discussion that doesn't fit the official narrative? People should not be afraid of being called a kook if they have questions about something that is happening.
Maybe the man in the woods will be explained at some point. For now though they are avoiding that subject like the plague. Why avoid a piece of information as huge as that? Why wouldn't people be questioning something like that? People should be wondering why mainstream media ISN'T questioning that.
Stop living in a box liberal. Or are you afraid of being called a kook if you start thinking for yourself.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 11 2013,11:09 am

You should seek professional help.

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 11 2013,12:13 pm

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Jan. 11 2013,10:27 am)

QUOTE

You automatically label anyone who dares to mention anything that doesn't fit with an official story as a kook, and you dismiss anything you can't find an answer for as kookery. Do we really have to be stuck either being a kool-aid drinking sheep or tin foil hat wearing kook?

When something bad happens why should we have to just buy what we are told, even when things don't add up? Why can't we be allowed to think for ourselves? Why call people names and try to squash any sort of discussion that doesn't fit the official narrative?

Because that's our nature, and that's where our comfort zone is. To suggest otherwise is akin to telling your six-year-old that there's no such thing as Santa Claus.

There were plenty of German civilians living near Breitenau and Dachau that completely ignored or rationalized away any wrongdoing that was taking place, because to do otherwise was too horrible to imagine.

As Ed Murrow said in 1959, "If we go on as we are, then history will take its revenge, and retribution will not limp in catching up with us." I only hope that day happens in my lifetime.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 11 2013,12:29 pm

QUOTE

There were plenty of German civilians living near Breitenau and Dachau that completely ignored or rationalized away any wrongdoing that was taking place, because to do otherwise was too horrible to imagine.

Like how the kooks want to rationalize large magazines by claiming crazy people don't use them for mass murder, and the government committed the murders just to make large magazines look bad?

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 11 2013,12:44 pm

I was speaking more to the general sense of people believing that the U.S. Government, via the CIA or somesuch, would NEVER kill American citizens to further an agenda. To me, that's mass kookery of the highest order.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 11 2013,12:58 pm

You think the government has hit squads to take out Americans that oppose them? Can you give us one example of that ever happening?

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 11 2013,1:18 pm

^ do you believe everything you're told???

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 11 2013,1:26 pm

(Liberal @ Jan. 11 2013,12:58 pm)

QUOTE

You think the government has hit squads to take out Americans that oppose them? Can you give us one example of that ever happening?

There was that business in Dallas in 1963...

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 11 2013,1:32 pm

(Liberal @ Jan. 11 2013,12:29 pm)

QUOTE

Like how the kooks want to rationalize large magazines by claiming crazy people don't use them for mass murder, and the government committed the murders just to make large magazines look bad?

Botto pointed out a true event in history explaining how people can wear blinders and lie to themselves about things that are too horrible to contemplate. He didn't say anything about the government committing mass murder to justify disarming American citizen. I'm not sure how you came up with that conclusion.
And I've also not brought up anything having to do with these events being a reason to disarm citizens. I've never even mentioned WHO or WHAT or WHY I think is behind it all. I'm just pointing out that things are fishy, and that there is alot of evidence that points to all three of these horrible events having more than one shooter. Shouldn't people want to have such inconsistencies explained instead of thinking there are people who may have participated in such dreadful acts running around free?

QUOTE

You think the government has hit squads to take out Americans that oppose them? Can you give us one example of that ever happening?

Again, you must have misunderstood what Botto said. He said "furthering an agenda". He didn't say anything about hit squads taking out Americans who oppose them. Neither of us ever said anything about "hit squads taking out Americans who oppose them"

Always the twist huh Liberal.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 11 2013,1:33 pm

Botto, Oswald was a highly trained sniper with a finely tuned sniper rifle. :sarcasm:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 11 2013,1:37 pm

Don't let him suck you in Botto. The Kennedy's fit into the category of impossible to solve and he'll twist your intentions. Stick to facts, then he can't even argue, he'll just call you names and drop it.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 11 2013,1:51 pm

^ good to see you back Roz.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 11 2013,2:38 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 11 2013,1:51 pm)

QUOTE

^ good to see you back Roz.

Thanks SB. It's good to be back...kinda

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 11 2013,3:55 pm

^ kinda???

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 11 2013,4:43 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 11 2013,3:55 pm)

QUOTE

^ kinda???

Yeah. It was a nice little break from the forum. I wasn't called a single name the entire time I was gone!! I did lurk in and see what was going on sometimes though. I hope you and your family have been well SB. Hope you all had a great Thanksgiving and Christmas. I hope all here in the forum are doing well.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 11 2013,5:28 pm

QUOTE

Try to keep up. Botto was talking about whacking Americans to further an agenda i.e. getting rid of those that oppose your agenda. Considering the topic I think anyone that's not been home schooled understood that he was talking about the government whacking people. I would have thought his response regarding Kennedy would have been a pretty big clue.

Just out of curiosity, is their any big event involving loss of life that you don't think the shadow government is responsible for?

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 11 2013,5:36 pm

QUOTE

Facts? How about you show us 1 verifiable "fact" that Sandy Hook or Aurora was a conspiracy?

By fact I don't mean things like "he was acting strange and the police didn't drug test him", "some 10yr old said a 2nd guy was in handcuffs" or "I don't like the way a family member reacted during an interview."

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 11 2013,11:37 pm

(Liberal @ Jan. 11 2013,5:36 pm)

QUOTE

]Facts? How about you show us 1 verifiable "fact" that Sandy Hook or Aurora was a conspiracy?

By fact I don't mean things like "he was acting strange and the police didn't drug test him", "some 10yr old said a 2nd guy was in handcuffs" or "I don't like the way a family member reacted during an interview."

When did I say anything about a conspiracy? I said THINGS DON'T ADD UP. Because they don't. I've just been pointing out the things that don't add up. I honestly don't think I'm being ridiculous for questioning these things.

QUOTE

or "I don't like the way a family member reacted during an interview."

I never said anything about any family members.

Police scanner audio recordings from that day:
I think time markers are supposed to show up with these recordings, but they aren't showing up for me. Police get to the school towards the end of the first recording.

< http://forums.radioreference.com/communi...nt.html >

First audio link, officer says a teacher saw two shadows running past a window by the gym. Officers head that way and report he sees them and you can hear he is chasing. Shortly after that it sounds like he says "pair shooting" honestly I can't tell though because the audio cracks.

Fourth link (From Fairfield County) half way through the recording you can hear an officer say "Shots were fired about three minutes ago." That would mean shots were fired after Adam was already dead. I don't understand why he would report shots fired three minutes late, but that's what he says. Audio is quite clear on that part.

Some of the teachers cars had bullet holes. If he was alone he would have had to shoot them before he went into the school, so how could nobody in the school have heard that?

So from police scanner they caught two people running from the school. Helicopter video shows them chasing and arresting a guy in the woods. And a witness live on air tells a reporter the police bring a handcuffed man out of the woods dressed in camo pants and a dark jacket. But no explanation about at least three more suspects. Can you explain why people shouldn't be wondering about that?

QUOTE

Furthering an agenda and removing opposition to an agenda are two different things.
Like letting our soldiers get whacked by sending them to invade countries to further their agenda and using BS lies to get them there? All the meddling and killings our government has committed in other countries over the years, we should think their BS wouldn't go on inside our own borders? I'll admit I DO think our government kills Americans to further their agendas. I think they have killed alot of people around the world and wreaked alot of havoc to further their agendas. But I never once connected them to Sandy Hook, Aurora or the Temple. I've never once said who I think it might be, or why they might have done it.

QUOTE

I would have thought his response regarding Kennedy would have been a pretty big clue.

Botto wrote the Kennedy comment as I was writing a different comment. You are very good at manipulating conversations and twisting them off topic, and I don't think you are even aware that you are doing it. You are also very good at twisting people's words and meanings, I think you might be aware of that.

QUOTE

Just out of curiosity, is their any big event involving loss of life that you don't think the shadow government is responsible for?

Bogus wars and meddling in other countries pretty much covers the loss of life I'm sure of. Pointing out that things are fishy/don't add up is an entirely different thing than blaming the government. Saying I don't believe an "official story" on something is also entirely different than blaming the government.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 12 2013,6:10 am

QUOTE

Botto's sarcastic quote.

QUOTE

Your quote.

QUOTE

I'll admit I DO think our government kills Americans to further their agendas.

It's good to know that you and Botto never said the government kills people to further their agenda. :sarcasm:

I took the time to look into one of your goofy internet "facts" about "Some of the teachers cars had bullet holes in them. It turns out there was 1 teachers car with two bullet holes in it that originated inside the school during the shooting. :dunce:

So you kooks take one small piece of the story and create this whole fantasy about it. Two bullet holes in a car turns into "Lanza stopped in the parking lot to shoot up multiple cars owned by teachers so it's a conspiracy because nobody heard him shoot up all those cars in the parking lot" :crazy:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 12 2013,8:30 am

Police also found bullets outside the school in the parking lot, including some in at least three cars belonging to school personnel, including Rousseau's car. Earlier this month, state police brought the cars used by the first Newtown police officers to arrive at the school back to the scene to try to determine if perhaps Lanza was shooting at them when they arrived. No police cars were hit and no officers have reported that they believed they were fired upon.
< http://articles.courant.com/2013-01...newtown >

Police have found numerous bullets outside the school that hit at least three cars, including the one owned by Lauren Rousseau, who was killed by Lanza in her classroom along with 14 of her students and a special-education aide. The three cars that were hit, belonging to Sandy Hook staffers, were near where at least one of the first group of officers parked before running into the school, sources said.

< http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic...gallery >

Here's two of them. I know the first one is an article in a local papeer and not national. I like local news more than national, they report things that national news ignores.
The second one does say that sources tell them they think the bullets possibly came from one of the classrooms, but they are not sure yet. At least I haven't found anything saying if they've figured it out or not.
_

QUOTE

It's good to know that you and Botto never said the government kills people to further their agenda.

Wow Mr. Twister, take it easy on the spin-machine, you're over-loading it.
Like I've already said. Furthering an agenda and removing opposition to an agenda are two different things. Normally I wouldn't bother with this, but what you keep doing is more than just semantics. You twist things that people say so that it sounds like something else entirely. It also gets the discussion into a completely different area. I'm not just nit-picking or nagging on this.

Botto:

QUOTE

Liberal:

QUOTE

You think the government has hit squads to take out Americans that oppose them? Can you give us one example of that ever happening?

Killing people to further an agenda: sending soldiers to die in BS wars started with lies. And since there are so many big inconsistencies and big unanswered questions surrounding various incidents in the US in the last decade or so, it is not ridiculous to consider some sort of government involvement as a possibility. Furthering an agenda.
You twisted what he said originally.

So Botto responds:

QUOTE

There was that business in Dallas in 1963...

That would be an example of taking out opposition to an agenda. You are so good at twisting words and meanings that I don't think most people even realize what you are doing. It took me quite a while to realize it.

Liberal, I'm curious about one of the quotes you have.

QUOTE

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 12 2013,9:48 am

For the first couple of weeks after the shooting at Sandy Hook school, there were close to a gazillion total hours of video footage. All the major networks had video footage from the whole day. Many of the local CT stations had several hours of video from the whole day. Reporters were live on scene all day and into the night. Rolling cameras and talking live on air the whole time. You could google and find hours straight of unedited video. All that remains of all of that footage and all the photos are just little tidbits now. Can't find any photos or video of the front of the school anymore.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 12 2013,11:27 am

QUOTE

The second one does say that sources tell them they think the bullets possibly came from one of the classrooms, but they are not sure yet. At least I haven't found anything saying if they've figured it out or not.

Not sure what your quotes backup considering your original claim "Some of the teachers cars had bullet holes. If he was alone he would have had to shoot them before he went into the school, so how could nobody in the school have heard that?

So now that you found an article that says the shots found outside came from inside do you think that blows your conspiracy theory on shooting cars out of the water? Or do you just ignore that article and the obvious fact that if you fire a 100 rounds of ammo inside a school with windows some bullets will likely hit things on the other side of those windows?

QUOTE

Words and meanings? Why don't you explain the difference between the government killing someone because they oppose a government agenda as opposed to the government killing someone to further a government agenda?

QUOTE

You could google and find hours straight of unedited video. All that remains of all of that footage and all the photos are just little tidbits now. Can't find any photos or video of the front of the school anymore.

Oh come on! Now you're going to tell us that the shadow government went around to all those servers and deleted videos and pictures so that you internet detectives wouldn't catch them? :rofl:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 12 2013,1:06 pm

OK, I'm jumping off this pointless hamster wheel. You win another argument with your awesome powers of sheer logic and critical thinking.
You're right liberal. There's nothing weird whatsoever with any of these incidents. The three men arrested at Sandy Hook were named Chris Manfredonia wearing camo pants and a dark jacket and were at the school to make gingerbread houses. The eyewitnesses in Aurora who said Holmes got a phone call and went out the exit door were probably just lying kooks. It doesn't matter if James Holmes was drugged or on drugs, it doesn't matter what kind of drugs it might have been. Maybe when he was being transported to the jail maybe the gasmask and other items fell out of the car on the other end of the parking lot. Heck, maybe the cop was just very angry for what happened so he whipped the gas mask off and threw it. There was definitely not two different gas masks. Doesn't matter. There is no doubt that Holmes was a lone gunman and since he's in jail it's all good. Adam Lanza was without a doubt a lone gunman and he's dead so we don't have to worry about that one either. Muslims did 9-11, building 7 collapsed because of fire, thorough investigations were done on everything and every bit of the official story makes complete sense. We live in the greatest country on earth, our government is completely transparent and honest. We should trust them completely and never question anything that happens.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 14 2013,12:55 pm

I apologize if anyone is getting upset or angry about some people questioning some of the things that happened at Sandy Hook. I feel that if I was a parent of a student involved, I would want as many answers as possible, especially with all of the controversy surrounding what happened and how many people were involved. I know I wouldn't be able to function well enough to find the answers on my own.

I'm not an EMT and I don't know anyone who is, I'm just wondering if anyone knows why the Emergency Medical Responders were not allowed into the school. It seems that they should have been let in to see if anyone needed medical help. I've read and watched tons of media reports that make it sound like medical people went inside, but they didn't. They don't come straight out and say they went in, but they sure do a great job of implying it. Hopefully some have listened to the police scanner audio. A triage was set up at the Fire Department, and police either brought at least three different people there who were then transported to the hospital, or they called an ambulance up when they needed to transport someone. Even after police reported the building was secure medical personnel were not let in. I also just want to point out that there is a half hour segment of audio missing from the scanner link. 10:13 - 10:43 AM
I hope others in the forum have been listening to the audio because there are quite a few things in it, there's also some pieces of transmission I have a hard time understanding. Maybe someone else will be able to understand what they say.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 15 2013,11:45 pm

QUOTE

You'd think that you would have learned by now that if you post crazy conspiracies about the government killing people I'm going to point out the craziness.

QUOTE

The three men arrested at Sandy Hook were named Chris Manfredonia wearing camo pants and a dark jacket and were at the school to make gingerbread houses.

Not even the kooky conspiracy sites are claiming there were 3 men arrested at Sandy Hook, now you're just making stuff up. The only other person the kooks were claiming was connected was the poor bastard that got pulled over 45miles from there and his license was called in by the state police. You internet detectives have caused the guy to get death threats because you detectives were not smart enough to read the feed info at radioreference.

QUOTE

The eyewitnesses in Aurora who said Holmes got a phonecall and went out the exit door were probably just lying kooks

Holy crap, he got a phone call before he went on a murderous rampage? Are you suggesting the person that called him was somehow complicit in the murders?

I thought the kooks conspiracy theory was that a witness claimed to see a 2nd man take a phone call by the emergency exit that Holmes later came in, and it was suggested that man let him in. Of course there's surveillance video of Holmes in the theater before the shooting, and there was a tablecloth clip that he placed on the emergency exit to stop it from locking behind him, so he really wouldn't need any help getting back in.

Of course it's crazy to think that a person would ever go stand by the emergency exit to make, or take a cellphone call during a movie.

QUOTE

It doesn't matter if James Holmes was drugged or on drugs, it doesn't matter what kind of drugs it might have been.

Are you kooks seriously suggesting that he had been given some top secret mind control drug to turn him into a "drugged up patsy" and you expect a drug screen at a hospital would have detected this top secret mind control drug? And even if the kooks were right and he was a drugged up patsy, and not just hopped up on Vicodin like he claimed, don't you think at some point he would tell his lawyer that he had been drugged and was being set up?

Have you ever heard of the police drug testing someone because they acted strange after committing mass murder, or even just one murder?

QUOTE

There is no doubt that Holmes was a lone gunman and since he's in jail it's all good. Adam Lanza was without a doubt a lone gunman and he's dead so we don't have to worry about that one either. Muslims did 9-11, building 7 collapsed because of fire, thorough investigations were done on everything and every bit of the official story makes complete sense. We live in the greatest country on earth, our government is completely transparent and honest.

How many crazy ass conspiracy theories involving the shadow government killing people have been proven to be true over the years?

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 16 2013,2:48 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Jan. 14 2013,12:55 pm)

QUOTE

I'm just wondering if anyone knows why the Emergency Medical Responders were not allowed into the school.

They were all shot 2 to 11 times each.. I believe 3 died at the hospital..

Dead people don't get sent to the hospital or require medical treatment..

< http://norwalk.patch.com/article...69cb9f3 >

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 16 2013,6:12 am

QUOTE

You'd think that you would have learned by now that if you post crazy conspiracies about the government killing people I'm going to point out the craziness.

When I said I was jumping off the hamster wheel I was referring to your pointless spin. But here I am again on the hamster wheel with your spin. So other than explaining the ambulance response and possibly the bullet holes in one, or three of the cars, what else have you explained?

QUOTE

Not even the kooky conspiracy sites are claiming there were 3 men arrested at Sandy Hook, now you're just making stuff up.

The police scanner audios have that information for godsakes. End of tape one, two shadows running near the gym, other officers chase and get them. Second tape, they get another suspect. "Suspect down". So that would make 3 they arrested that day.

QUOTE

Holy crap, he got a phone call before he went on a murderous rampage? Are you suggesting the person that called him was somehow complicit in the murders?

Witness said Holmes received a phone call and went to the exit door while on the phone, and opened it, yes I am saying the caller could be implicit.

alcitizens:

QUOTE

Dead people don't get sent to the hospital or require medical treatment..

I know that. What I was asking about is shouldn't the EMT's been allowed into the school to check the victims? Some of them might have been able to be saved. The police were running around the school the whole time looking for other shooters and trying to clear the area, and they also are not able to give quality medical help if needed. With so many victims I don't understand why EMT's were not allowed in to check for signs of life and give help if needed. Even after police say it's all clear.
And since they did have 3 victims that needed medical help, who's to say there might not have been more? Maybe some of the children or teachers would have made it had the help got to them?
I'm not an EMT and I don't know any to ask. Is this standard procedure for some reason? They are not allowed to go in on scene for something like this? To check for vital signs and give medical help if needed?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 16 2013,8:40 am

Here's a condensed version of the audio with dead air removed.

< http://www.mnpoliceclips.com/sandy-h...io.html >

1:58 is where reports of people running from school and police chasing them.

7:55 and 8:05 another suspect reported down.

Throughout the audio several times paramedics ask for permission to go to the school, they are told no. Told to stay at fire department.
9:24 two ambulances attempt to go to the school, they are told no.
11:05 an upset officer calls for ambulances.
11:55 one of the ambulances that tried to get to the school and stopped calls dispatch and passes along the upset officer's request of more ambulances.
16:45 A new paramedic asks who the commanding officer is and says people and medical bags will be ready as soon as allowed to go in.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 16 2013,8:50 am

QUOTE

You'd think that you would have learned by now that if you post crazy conspiracies about the government killing people I'm going to point out the craziness.

I never said the government did this, Aurora or the Temple in WI. I have been saying that THINGS DON'T ADD UP. Do I think our government does bad things? hell yes. Do I think it's possible there is government involvement -yes. The only thing I am certain is that there is some kind of cover-up happening.- If not then why are some very big things so hush? Why don't they explain the second gas mask in Aurora instead of pretending it doesn't even exist? Why not explain the other arrests at Sandy Hook? Why the almost instant jump by the media to say "Lone gunman" when police audio says there were three other suspects the police captured?

You don't care about finding out the truth of what happened. Your only goal is to win arguments. When you can't even argue about something you call people names or try to direct the conversation into something else. - Like how you keep throwing out things being talked about in "conspiracy kook" sites. You bring up things I haven't mentioned.

You don't care about finding out the truth about anything that you have been tricked into believing over the years.

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 16 2013,12:39 pm

Guns are clearly the problem, right?

QUOTE

Columbine mass-killer Eric Harris was taking Luvox – like Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor and many others, a modern and widely prescribed type of antidepressant drug called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs. Harris and fellow student Dylan Klebold went on a hellish school shooting rampage in 1999 during which they killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others before turning their guns on themselves.Luvox manufacturer Solvay Pharmaceuticals concedes that during short-term controlled clinical trials, 4 percent of children and youth taking Luvox – that’s 1 in 25 – developed mania, a dangerous and violence-prone mental derangement characterized by extreme excitement and delusion.

Patrick Purdy went on a schoolyard shooting rampage in Stockton, Calif., in 1989, which became the catalyst for the original legislative frenzy to ban “semiautomatic assault weapons” in California and the nation. The 25-year-old Purdy, who murdered five children and wounded 30, had been on Amitriptyline, an antidepressant, as well as the antipsychotic drug Thorazine.

Kip Kinkel, 15, murdered his parents in 1998 and the next day went to his school, Thurston High in Springfield, Ore., and opened fire on his classmates, killing two and wounding 22 others. He had been prescribed both Prozac and Ritalin.

In 1988, 31-year-old Laurie Dann went on a shooting rampage in a second-grade classroom in Winnetka, Ill., killing one child and wounding six. She had been taking the antidepressant Anafranil as well as Lithium, long used to treat mania.

In Paducah, Ky., in late 1997, 14-year-old Michael Carneal, son of a prominent attorney, traveled to Heath High School and started shooting students in a prayer meeting taking place in the school’s lobby, killing three and leaving another paralyzed. Carneal reportedly was on Ritalin.

In 2005, 16-year-old Native American Jeff Weise, living on Minnesota’s Red Lake Indian Reservation, shot and killed nine people and wounded five others before killing himself. Weise had been taking Prozac.

In another famous case, 47-year-old Joseph T. Wesbecker, just a month after he began taking Prozac in 1989, shot 20 workers at Standard Gravure Corp. in Louisville, Ky., killing nine. Prozac-maker Eli Lilly later settled a lawsuit brought by survivors.

Kurt Danysh, 18, shot his own father to death in 1996, a little more than two weeks after starting on Prozac. Danysh’s description of own his mental-emotional state at the time of the murder is chilling: “I didn’t realize I did it until after it was done,” Danysh said. “This might sound weird, but it felt like I had no control of what I was doing, like I was left there just holding a gun.”

John Hinckley, age 25, took four Valium two hours before shooting and almost killing President Ronald Reagan in 1981. In the assassination attempt, Hinckley also wounded press secretary James Brady, Secret Service agent Timothy McCarthy and policeman Thomas Delahanty.

Andrea Yates, in one of the most heartrending crimes in modern history, drowned all five of her children – aged 7 years down to 6 months – in a bathtub. Insisting inner voices commanded her to kill her children, she had become increasingly psychotic over the course of several years. At her 2006 murder re-trial (after a 2002 guilty verdict was overturned on appeal), Yates’ longtime friend Debbie Holmes testified: “She asked me if I thought Satan could read her mind and if I believed in demon possession.” And Dr. George Ringholz, after evaluating Yates for two days, recounted an experience she had after the birth of her first child: “What she described was feeling a presence … Satan … telling her to take a knife and stab her son Noah,” Ringholz said, adding that Yates’ delusion at the time of the bathtub murders was not only that she had to kill her children to save them, but that Satan had entered her and that she had to be executed in order to kill Satan.Yates had been taking the antidepressant Effexor.

In November 2005, more than four years after Yates drowned her children, Effexor manufacturer Wyeth Pharmaceuticals quietly added “homicidal ideation” to the drug’s list of “rare adverse events.” The Medical Accountability Network, a private nonprofit focused on medical ethics issues, publicly criticized Wyeth, saying Effexor’s “homicidal ideation” risk wasn’t well-publicized and that Wyeth failed to send letters to doctors or issue warning labels announcing the change.

And what exactly does “rare” mean in the phrase “rare adverse events”? The FDA defines it as occurring in less than one in 1,000 people. But since that same year 19.2 million prescriptions for Effexor were filled in the U.S., statistically that means thousands of Americans might experience “homicidal ideation” – murderous thoughts – as a result of taking just this one brand of antidepressant drug.

Effexor is Wyeth’s best-selling drug, by the way, which in one recent year brought in over $3 billion in sales, accounting for almost a fifth of the company’s annual revenues.

< Source: David Kupelian - The Giant, Gaping Hole in Sandy Hook Reporting >

There's your damn conspiracy theory - Big Pharma is Too Big To Fail. And they've failed us, big time. :crazy:

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 16 2013,1:09 pm

QUOTE

So other than explaining the ambulance response and possibly the bullet holes in one, or three of the cars, what else have you explained?

What have you explained? I'm guessing most of your info comes from watching youtube videos so I doubt you can come up with any proof.

QUOTE

Because a witness says they may have seen two shadows run by a window does not mean two people were arrested. And "suspect down" most likely refers to the suspect Lanza being deceased, and I doubt they arrested him at that point.

How about you show us proof that there were 3 people arrested?

QUOTE

Witness said Holmes received a phone call and went to the exit door while on the phone, and opened it, yes I am saying the caller could be implicit.

Implicit? I sure hope you don't homeschool.

QUOTE

11:55 one of the ambulances that tried to get to the school and stopped calls dispatch and passes along the upset officer's request of more ambulances.

What does the word "more" mean to you?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 17 2013,11:20 am

QUOTE

What have you explained? I'm guessing most of your info comes from watching youtube videos so I doubt you can come up with any proof.

First audio clip from police responding to Sandy Hook. Towards the end of the audio clip:
< http://areg.radioreference.com/20121214/1/201212140813-441506-7623.mp3 >

Teacher reports seeing two shadows running near gym. Officer responds: "Yeah we got 'em. They're coming at me down (Kirk's way?)" "Coming up the driveway on the left side"
So the officer reports seeing two people. He's chasing two people.
Other audio from the police scanners that have already been linked to:
< http://forums.radioreference.com/communi...nt.html >

And at time mark 1.56 at this link:
< http://www.mnpoliceclips.com/sandy-h...io.html >
----------
I am pointing out proof that there was more than just "Chris Manfredonia" Chris Manfredonia who still hasn't been verified or explained from any official source. No explanation given for officers chasing TWO people.
------------

QUOTE

What does the word "more" mean to you?

The number of ambulances has nothing to do with anything. I am pointing out that an officer, (who sounds quite upset) is requesting more ambulances, but no ambulances were allowed to go to the school. No EMT's were allowed into the school or even right outside the school. Wounded were brought to the fire department and then put into ambulances. With so many victims I would think it was possible for some of them to have a chance at surviving if they received medical treatment quickly.
From the article you linked to explaining the emergency medical response at the Aurora movie theater:
This is not the first time questions have been raised about Aurora's emergency medical response. After a 2010 shooting, Aurora medical rescuers waited to enter an apartment scene because of the chance that a shooter was still at large, so police carried a wounded victim to a cruiser, then drove him to an ambulance.

At the time, fire department policy required medical help to wait until they heard the phrase "scene safe" from police. After that incident, Aurora fire officials said they would change their policy to leave the response decision up to commanders at a crime scene, allowing them to send help even if police were unable to declare a "scene safe."
< http://www.denverpost.com/breakin...bNZM8sb >

Newtown EMT's must not have the rule that they are not allowed in until a "scene safe" is called. Through all the audios you hear EMT's requesting to be allowed to go to the school. When they hear officers saying areas are secure they ask again to be let in. Two ambulances even try going up to the school on their own and are told no.
So the place was secure enough to evacuate the children but not allow medical personel into the school?
Does it make sense that emergency medical help was not allowed into the school?

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 17 2013,1:24 pm

QUOTE

Teacher reports seeing two shadows running near gym. Officer responds: "Yeah we got 'em. They're coming at me down (Kirk's way?)" "Coming up the driveway on the left side"
So the officer reports seeing two people. He's chasing two people.

What part of that conversation says the cop is chasing two people? And what sort of moron runs at a cop that's supposedly chasing them? And even if the conversation said they were chasing someone there's a big difference between chasing someone you think is suspicious, and arresting someone.

QUOTE

If there were no EMT's allowed in then how could a cop request more? Do you know what the word MORE means?

QUOTE

Does it make sense that emergency medical help was not allowed into the school?

Where do you come up with this crap? If no medical help was allowed in then why would a cop ask for MORE EMT's? Also there's video footage of EMT's pushing a gurney with an injured patient on the gurney. Do you think that injured person walked out of the school and found some EMT's with a gurney?

Have you considered my earlier suggestion about seeking some professional help?

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 17 2013,1:54 pm

I thought it was cute in obama exploiting children during his misanthropic bloviation diatribe, while dancing in the blood of victims.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 17 2013,1:54 pm

QUOTE

You must not have listened to the scanner audio. But I have a feeling you DID actually listen to it and you are just hoping others in the forum haven't. You can hear what the officer says, and can hear that he is chasing them, on the scanner audio. And why would two innocent people be running from the school in the first place? Why wouldn't there be an explanation for this?

QUOTE

There ya go with your little twists again. The officer asked for MORE AMBULANCES. I keep stating "more ambulances" Listen to the audio. He didn't request MORE EMT's.
And about your little video. Where is that person being wheeled from? The Fire Department. Like I've already stated a few times. Why were wounded brought to the Fire Department to be put into ambulances? Why was the temporary triage set up at the FD? Why through the whole audio are EMT's requesting to be allowed to go to the school and not allowed to go?

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 17 2013,2:21 pm

QUOTE

You can hear what the officer says, and can hear that he is chasing them, on the scanner audio.

You can hear that he's running but where do you hear him say he's chasing someone? He actually says they're running towards him, that's a hell of a way to run from police.

QUOTE

There ya go with your little twists again. The officer asked for MORE AMBULANCES. I keep stating "more ambulances" Listen to the audio. He didn't request MORE EMT's.

WTF? You think the cops wanted just ambulances without EMT's? I suppose they wanted them towed up there to keep the EMT's away. :dunce:

That is quite possibly the dumbest thing ever posted on this forum, and you say that I twist words?

Since you claimed over and over again that EMT's were not allowed in the school then how did the patient get on the gurney?

QUOTE

Why was the temporary triage set up at the FD?

Looking at the aerial view the FD was an obvious choice for a tactical operation center, and triage area. Where would you have liked it set up?

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 17 2013,2:22 pm

At the 11.05 time stamp
< http://www.mnpoliceclips.com/sandy-h...io.html >
"We need boxes here. ASAP. Call up the (Ambery?) if you have to.

11.50 time stamp, you can hear one of the ambulances, A2, (which was one that had tried to go to the school and was not allowed), call dispatch and relay the officers message of wanting more ambulances.
This second scanner audio link is only twenty freaking minutes long, and I even keep giving the time stamps.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 17 2013,2:30 pm

If you think the cops wanted ambulances and not EMT's then you're either insane, or really really dumb. I spent 3 years as an MP with the 101st Airborne division and I called for ambulances all the time, I don't recall ever being so stupid as to ask for just EMT's or just an ambulance because EMT's and ambulances are sort of a matched set. :dunce:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 17 2013,2:30 pm

Where do I think the triage center should have been set up? Well, since there were 20+ wounded people INSIDE the school, possibly wounded quite badly but perhaps able to be saved, I would think that EMT's would be ALLOWED INSIDE THE SCHOOL to help if they were able.

QUOTE

Since you claimed over and over again that EMT's were not allowed in the school then how did the patient get on the gurney?

While Mr Lerman and the rest of the crew obviously now know the outcome of the calls they responded to that morning, along with dozens of colleagues and medical support personnel from around the region, he said that upon arriving at Sandy Hook School, he began compartmentalizing the duties and protocols he was trained for and has used in the decades he has served Newtown.

"The call was for an injured [person], as I worked it in the ambulance," he said. "I didn't know how many patients there were. I knew someone had brought an injured [person] to me. I knew I had a severely injured patient and I have been on many calls with severely injured patients."
< http://newtownbee.com/News...nt+Days >

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 17 2013,2:33 pm

(Liberal @ Jan. 17 2013,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

You may just be the most pointless person I have ever talked with. Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo, why were the EMT's not allowed into the school.

And why carry wounded down to the FD instead of having ambulances outside the school?

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 17 2013,2:36 pm

< http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/hs/mhc/default.aspx >

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 17 2013,2:37 pm

(Liberal @ Jan. 17 2013,2:36 pm)

QUOTE

< http://www.co.freeborn.mn.us/hs/mhc/default.aspx >

Ahh yes. How typical of you.

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 19 2013,6:31 am

So now, in their haste and zeal, New York State has passed a magazine ban that limits mags to no more than 7 rounds.

Unfortunately they forgot to exempt their own law enforcement . :dunce:

The law was also passed with no "three day constitutional challenge" so I imagine this will cost their taxpayers lots of $$$. :dunce:

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 19 2013,9:24 am

It's the angertainment industry. It gets everybody divided and whooped up on the subject until somebody screams, in a panicked voice, "Well, we've got to do SOMETHING!" Any chance for a calm, objective discussion beyond that point is pretty thin, given the adversarial attitudes of our times.

The media has become very skilled in the area of bifurcating the issues into essentially two camps. There's little room for middle ground, the stuff of calmer dialogue.

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 20 2013,1:10 am

Expense to American taxpayers for a single gun:

Legal costs and $45,000 per year for the rest of his life to give him food, clothes, housing and 100% medical coverage for killing 4 people with a gun..

Accomplices: Extra $$$..

< http://www.mercurynews.com/news...layings >

The killer is 31, do the math..

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 20 2013,4:11 am

If we're going to use this logic, how about the cost of alcohol, drugs and tobacco?

Just rounding out the package

Posted by Moparman on Jan. 20 2013,11:18 am

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,1:10 am)

QUOTE

So how is that the guns fault? If he killed 4 people with a knife or a baseball bat would you think this expense is justified?

How about the expense to the American taxpayer for a single douchebag murdering criminal? That's how your post should have started.

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 20 2013,2:30 pm

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets.. Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 20 2013,2:46 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 20 2013,4:11 am)

QUOTE

If we're going to use this logic, how about the cost of alcohol, drugs and tobacco?

Just rounding out the package

How do you massacre a bunch of first graders with booze, pot and cigs? :dunce:

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 20 2013,4:04 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets.. Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

Posted by grassman on Jan. 20 2013,4:12 pm

Seriously.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 20 2013,6:52 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,1:10 am)

QUOTE

Blaming a gun on the Newtown murders is about as dumb as blaming an airplane for 9/11.

Use your head.

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 20 2013,6:54 pm

(Common Citizen @ Jan. 20 2013,6:52 pm)

QUOTE

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,1:10 am)

QUOTE

Blaming a gun on the Newtown murders is about as dumb as blaming an airplane for 9/11.

Use your head.

I also like this < INFO GRAPHIC >.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 20 2013,6:58 pm

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 19 2013,6:31 am)

QUOTE

So now, in their haste and zeal, New York State has passed a magazine ban that limits mags to no more than 7 rounds.

Unfortunately they forgot to exempt their own law enforcement . :dunce:

The law was also passed with no "three day constitutional challenge" so I imagine this will cost their taxpayers lots of $$$. :dunce:

Typical libs...acting before they think.

It takes me less than 2 seconds to change a clip in my Glock.

I noticed that gun control legislation wasn't working for the left wing nuts so they have to re-brand their cause and label it gun violence legislation.

Remember they did the same with global warming. Now it's called climate change.

:popcorn:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 20 2013,7:16 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets.. Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

< My Webpage >

2190 people were killed from knives and other blunt objects compared with 323 by rifle.

...and for those using handguns...how do you know how far away they were standing from their victim.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 20 2013,7:18 pm

How many rounds did you need when you were an MP? (Not counting alibi rounds of course)

Posted by Moparman on Jan. 20 2013,10:45 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets.. Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

Most nutjobs think it's the guns fault for shooting somebody.

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 21 2013,12:46 am

(Common Citizen @ Jan. 20 2013,7:16 pm)

QUOTE

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets.. Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

Your own link states nearly 8600 homicides by firearms..

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2013,5:21 am

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,2:46 pm)

QUOTE

(Self-Banished @ Jan. 20 2013,4:11 am)

QUOTE

If we're going to use this logic, how about the cost of alcohol, drugs and tobacco?

Just rounding out the package

How do you massacre a bunch of first graders with booze, pot and cigs? :dunce:

Just takes longer

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 21 2013,5:23 am

(Liberal @ Jan. 20 2013,7:18 pm)

QUOTE

How many rounds did you need when you were an MP? (Not counting alibi rounds of course)

OK, how many rounds should we be allowed?

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 21 2013,8:44 am

(Liberal @ Jan. 20 2013,7:18 pm)

QUOTE

How many rounds did you need when you were an MP? (Not counting alibi rounds of course)

My m9 or Beretta 92 had a 15 round magazine capacity and we carried two clips.

The amount of ammunition that I would need would probably depend on the situation. I was an expert marksman but one would never know in a real situation at those stress levels. I've only had to draw my handgun once on a civilian who was a non complying, drunk as well as high and attempted to open the trunk of his car (which contained a loaded .38). We would also draw our handguns while clearing buildings after security alarms went off.

I don't have a lot of sexy stories because I spent most of my time in a line unit training with scouts and 11B's. Most of the MP's that regularly worked law enforcement couldn't find their heads from their arses if given a protractor and a grid map so they were better off by themselves in a patrol car. Our field MP commanders didn't want those guys embarrassing them in the field when we worked with the scouts and the grunts.

I remember a time when the Ft. Lewis post commander ordered the MP's to patrol without a magazine in their handgun because some idiot had an accidental discharge. From then on the brass was afraid of having another stupid accident on their watch. :rofl:

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 21 2013,8:54 am

(alcitizens @ Jan. 21 2013,12:46 am)

QUOTE

(Common Citizen @ Jan. 20 2013,7:16 pm)

QUOTE

(alcitizens @ Jan. 20 2013,2:30 pm)

QUOTE

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets.. Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

Your own link states nearly 8600 homicides by firearms..

So what's your point? My point is that you are using distance as an argument and that if they did not have access to guns and bullets that they wouldn't murder. So I disagree with you on your theory.

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 21 2013,1:44 pm

8600 homicides by guns "Minus" 1700 homicides by knife.. That's nearly 7000 more homicides by Guns and bullets..

Its pretty obvious if you keep guns and bullets out of the hands of pussies, you'll have less homicides..

< http://www.fbi.gov/about-u...able-11 >

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 21 2013,1:45 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 21 2013,1:44 pm)

QUOTE

8600 homicides by gun "Minus" 1700 homicides by knife.. That's nearly 7000 more homicides by Guns and bullets..

Its pretty obvious if you keep guns and bullets out of the hands of pussies, you'll have less homicides..

< http://www.fbi.gov/about-u...able-11 >

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 21 2013,3:48 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 21 2013,1:44 pm)

QUOTE

8600 homicides by guns "Minus" 1700 homicides by knife.. That's nearly 7000 more homicides by Guns and bullets..

Its pretty obvious if you keep guns and bullets out of the hands of pussies, you'll have less homicides..

< http://www.fbi.gov/about-u...able-11 >

So in your genius way of thinking, if you keep knives out of the hands of "pussies" you'll have less homicides...since there were 1700 of them.

You do realize that you can make that statement with any of the weapons on the list.

You're too much. :rofl:

Posted by Moparman on Jan. 21 2013,5:48 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 21 2013,1:44 pm)

QUOTE

No just keep guns and bullets out of the hands of criminals.

So all the cop and military folks are pussies cause they have guns and bullets?

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 21 2013,11:21 pm

First we have the community point a gun at a panhandler guy putting in his two cents in with emoticons.. :rofl:

Then we get the guy that thinks we should ban knives to keep them out of the hands of pussies.. :dunce:

Then along comes this guy that thinks police officers and soldiers are pussies because they carry a gun and bullets.. :dunce:

Some people just don't have enough sharps to debate this subject..

There is too many people out there walking around with a loaded gun that have no common sense, these people are a good example..

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Jan. 21 2013,11:44 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 21 2013,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

First we have the community point a gun at a panhandler guy putting in his two cents in with emoticons.. :rofl:

Then we get the guy that thinks we should ban knives to keep them out of the hands of pussies.. :dunce:

Then along comes this guy that thinks police officers and soldiers are pussies because they carry a gun and bullets.. :dunce:

Some people just don't have enough sharps to debate this subject..

Troll harder 0/10 Would not read again

What you have posted, is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for being subjected to it.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Jan. 22 2013,10:39 am

If this link doesn't bring you to the exact article, just scroll the list of articles and click on the one titled: Police Union Seeks Funding For Trauma Treatment.
< http://newtownbee.com/ >
This is according to a "reliable local law enforcement source":
A man with a gun who was spotted in the woods near the school on the day of the incident was an off-duty tactical squad police officer from another town, according to the source.

Article was written Dec. 27.
So is the local Newtown paper taking part in conspiracy kookery? Or local police? Or was this guy just a really really dumb off duty tactical squad officer?

Posted by Moparman on Jan. 22 2013,7:06 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 21 2013,11:21 pm)

QUOTE

First we have the community point a gun at a panhandler guy putting in his two cents in with emoticons.. :rofl:

Then we get the guy that thinks we should ban knives to keep them out of the hands of pussies.. :dunce:

Then along comes this guy that thinks police officers and soldiers are pussies because they carry a gun and bullets.. :dunce:

Some people just don't have enough sharps to debate this subject..

There is too many people out there walking around with a loaded gun that have no common sense, these people are a good example..

Hey super genius.... I was asking you a question. You said pussies carry guns and bullets.

Reverting to name calling instead of answering a question, boy you are a smart one!!!

Posted by alcitizens on Jan. 22 2013,8:09 pm

Keep working on that "Common Sense" thing..

QUOTE

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets..

Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

Posted by Self-Banished on Jan. 23 2013,4:34 am

^ quoting your own quote?

Isn't that kinda like...

Keep doing that and you'll go blind. :blush:

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 23 2013,6:37 am

It's like those Facebook people that like their own posts. :crazy:

Posted by Moparman on Jan. 23 2013,7:33 pm

(alcitizens @ Jan. 22 2013,8:09 pm)

QUOTE

Keep working on that "Common Sense" thing..

QUOTE

Most nutjobs would never kill if they didn't have access to a gun and bullets..

Pussies would never use a knife to kill, its too personal and too bloody, they prefer to kill from a distance..

Keep working on the reading comprehension thing.... :thumbsup:

Posted by Wolfie on Jan. 25 2013,12:01 pm

So it has been revealed that Adam Lanza tried to make a gun purchase before his alleged attack oin the school, but was denied because of the background check. So he did what any good criminal does and looked for an illegal way to get the gun, he killed the owner and then stole them. Coincidentally the owner was his mother but it could have as easily been the family down the street. So please tell me agian how 1) banning wapons that were not used will make a difference and 2) how criminals obey laws. On another note it has been revealed that contrary to what the CT State Police and the medical examiner stated none of the victims were killed with rifle rounds only handgun rounds.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 25 2013,12:33 pm

How does a young man with no criminal record fail a background check?

Posted by Botto 82 on Jan. 25 2013,1:09 pm

And, how does an event that didn't even feature an "assault weapon" become a catalyst for a push towards a ban on "assault weapons"? :crazy:

I would hate to start thinking that the government makes policy based on poorly-researched knee-jerk emotional thinking... :cool:

Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 25 2013,4:05 pm

(Liberal @ Jan. 25 2013,12:33 pm)

QUOTE

How does a young man with no criminal record fail a background check?

From what I see, there is no waitaing period to purchase a handgun, which is what Lanza tried to buy. There is however a 14 day minimum waiting period to get a purchase permit.

QUOTE

16.Conn. Gen. Stat. § 29-37a. Connecticut requires a permit for purchase of a handgun. It may take up to 60 days after a record check from the FBI for such a permit to issue. Licensing laws of this kind play a similar role to waiting period laws. See our Licensing of Gun Owners and Purchasers policy summary for information about licensing laws in Connecticut and other states.

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 25 2013,5:32 pm

Yup...sounds about right to me. What say you?

Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 25 2013,5:41 pm

The elephant in the room is how, as a nation, we deal with mental health.

The new weapons ban bill introduced by Senator Feinstein is nothing but a distraction to the real problems and the pro-gun groups are falling for it.

Conservative and liberal gun rights advocates are on the defense and allowed it to get to this point. They should have went on the offense by bringing mental health to the forefront of this issue.

...nuff said. :frusty:

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 25 2013,6:21 pm

QUOTE

From what I see, there is no waitaing period to purchase a handgun, which is what Lanza tried to buy.

He was only 20, he wasn't old enough to purchase a handgun.

So he didn't fail a background check?

redstate setting the record straight on the assault rifle that was used.
< http://www.redstate.com/2012...r-ar-15 >

QUOTE

The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance.

Posted by Liberal on Jan. 25 2013,6:45 pm

QUOTE

They should have went on the offense by bringing mental health to the forefront of this issue.

Every country has mental health issues.

Posted by grassman on Jan. 26 2013,5:57 am

(Liberal @ Jan. 25 2013,6:45 pm)

QUOTE

They should have went on the offense by bringing mental health to the forefront of this issue.

Every country has mental health issues.

Evidently you have no experience in how it is dealt with in this country. Nothing can be done til it is too late. We have people amongst us who are not thinking quite clearly. They do not perceive reality as it is. They can be led to medication, yet can not be forced to take it.
We have enough laws on the books for weapons. They just don't get enforced like they were intended. Now we have folks running around saying that we need to give up our rights to certain legal weapons because of the actions of the above mentioned. If you step back and take a rational look at it, you will realize it is not the weapon but the ones who are not thinking clearly, that have done the damage.

Posted by Liberal on Feb. 03 2013,12:15 pm

< http://www.nytimes.com/2013...ll&_r=0 >

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 03 2013,1:16 pm

(Liberal @ Feb. 03 2013,12:15 pm)

QUOTE

< http://www.nytimes.com/2013...ll&_r=0 >

I just love in how that article is dripping with emotionalism and the constant dancing in the blood of the victims.

Posted by grassman on Feb. 03 2013,3:11 pm

Was that reporting or was it a novel? :dunno:

Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 03 2013,6:10 pm

I think we get the horror of Newtown. I don't think the author's embellishments were really necessary.

It does serve the notion of "We have to do SOMETHING!" though.

I don't like how the focus has shifted away from mental health issues to guns. But maybe Big Healthcare is a bigger Goliath than the NRA is. :dunno:

Posted by alcitizens on Feb. 03 2013,11:40 pm

I think its wrong to make the address of gun owners public.. I've always been told not to advertise whether I do or do not own a gun.. Many crooks, violent or not will break into homes they know have guns.. High Value and Light Weight!!

< http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map >

Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 13 2013,8:07 am

I just watched an interview on CNN with Hadiya Pendelton's parents. They were guests of honor of Michelle Obama at last night's State of the Union address.

They said they are not against the 2nd amendment in the sense of hunting because they have family that hunt's. The Dad said even though he recognizes the need for our military to have assualt rifles they should not be on our streets.

His daughter was killed by a thug using a handgun.

I can't imagine what these parents are going through and my heart pours out to them.

Shame on the Obama administration for using this tragedy to advance their agenda. They have the guy railing against assualt style weapons when the weapon used was a handgun. :angry:

Posted by Liberal on Feb. 13 2013,8:30 am

Are you suggesting that he can only oppose the exact type of weapon that killed his daughter?

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 13 2013,8:40 am

^ No. I think CC railing against Obama for being an oppuntunistic thug>

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 13 2013,9:42 am

(Liberal @ Feb. 13 2013,8:30 am)

QUOTE

Are you suggesting that he can only oppose the exact type of weapon that killed his daughter?

How about not dancing in the blood of the victims and do not oppose any type of firearm. The firearm didn't do the killing, but some whacked out POS who should have been in a mental facility is the one that did the killing.

Posted by grassman on Feb. 13 2013,4:48 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 13 2013,8:40 am)

QUOTE

^ No. I think CC railing against Obama for being an oppuntunistic thug>

You show me one of these politicians that does not do this. Our govt. in itself has become a dog and pony show. Reality is out the window.

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 13 2013,5:48 pm

Yes they are all in it for themselves

I did get to meet Wellstone once, I didn't agree with any of his ideology but he did strike me as a "stand up" guy. Maybe the only honest politician there was in our modern era.

What we have in Washington now are nothing more than opportunist.
As my signature says, "we are screwed"0

Posted by grassman on Feb. 13 2013,6:47 pm

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 13 2013,5:48 pm)

QUOTE

He was a stand up guy. Problem was, he did not fit the theme of the day. Bush thingys. I remember George Sr. saying about his being against involvement in Iraq, " who is that chickensh!t?"

Posted by Botto 82 on Feb. 13 2013,7:01 pm

(grassman @ Feb. 13 2013,6:47 pm)

QUOTE

He was a stand up guy. Problem was, he did not fit the theme of the day. Bush thingys. I remember George Sr. saying about his being against involvement in Iraq, " who is that chickensh!t?"

Yes, and now his name is a verb.

Let that be a message to any of you other Congress Critters thinking of developing a conscience.

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 13 2013,10:07 pm

Holy crap Grassman, two posts in a row where we agree with each other. I think we need to hug or something.

Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 15 2013,10:27 am

(Liberal @ Feb. 13 2013,8:30 am)

QUOTE

Are you suggesting that he can only oppose the exact type of weapon that killed his daughter?

What makes you think that's what I'm suggesting?

If my daughter was killed by a drunk driver, I wouldn't use a national news interview to rail against people who text while driving.

Posted by Liberal on Feb. 15 2013,2:08 pm

Drunk driving, and texting while driving are two entirely different crimes. Shooting someone with a handgun, or a rifle is the same crime.

Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 15 2013,3:28 pm

(Liberal @ Feb. 15 2013,2:08 pm)

QUOTE

Drunk driving, and texting while driving are two entirely different crimes. Shooting someone with a handgun, or a rifle is the same crime.

I'm not talking about the specific crime of drunk driving or the crime of texting while driving. I am talking about a person that can be killed by either action.

You know exactly what I'm saying.

Posted by grassman on Feb. 15 2013,4:01 pm

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 15 2013,3:28 pm)

QUOTE

(Liberal @ Feb. 15 2013,2:08 pm)

QUOTE

Drunk driving, and texting while driving are two entirely different crimes. Shooting someone with a handgun, or a rifle is the same crime.

I'm not talking about the specific crime of drunk driving or the crime of texting while driving. I am talking about a person that can be killed by either action.

You know exactly what I'm saying.

Actually, both activities are illegal. If you kill someone while doing either one, while driving, you are done. Guns are not illegal yet. The action does the damage, not the object.

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 15 2013,5:47 pm

(Liberal @ Feb. 15 2013,2:08 pm)

QUOTE

Drunk driving, and texting while driving are two entirely different crimes. Shooting someone with a handgun, or a rifle is the same crime.

In my book drunk driving and texting while driving are the same crime. Both are selfish narcissistic acts

Posted by Common Citizen on Feb. 15 2013,6:00 pm

Have you ever pulled up along someone with their head down texting while driving? It's gets kind of dangerous when you wail on your horn.

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 15 2013,6:10 pm

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 15 2013,6:00 pm)

QUOTE

Have you ever pulled up along someone with their head down texting while driving? It's gets kind of dangerous when you wail on your horn.

Immensely enjoyable

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 17 2013,9:52 am

Chew on this awhile

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tn1Y6DVLwcY >

Posted by grassman on Feb. 27 2013,5:51 pm

Well the media is at it right along with Feinstein. Showed a clip of someone firing an obvious automatic weapon and she is saying. This is legal. :finger:

Posted by hairhertz on Feb. 27 2013,7:20 pm

(Common Citizen @ Feb. 15 2013,6:00 pm)

QUOTE

Have you ever pulled up along someone with their head down texting while driving? It's gets kind of dangerous when you wail on your horn.

A young lady in the lane next to me drove across town and only occassionally glanced at the road while drifting into my lane 4 or 5 times. She sat at each stop light long after it changed to green. She never reacted when I honked my horn. Maybe it was because the bass woofer was rocking the car?

I bet she thought that nobody could get hurt texting & driving in town.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 27 2013,10:17 pm

(grassman @ Feb. 27 2013,5:51 pm)

QUOTE

Well the media is at it right along with Feinstein. Showed a clip of someone firing an obvious automatic weapon and she is saying. This is legal. :finger:

The new gun control of NY:
Provisions in the sweeping gun control bill include:

Further restrict assault weapons to define them by a single feature, such as a pistol grip. Current law requires two features.
Make the unsafe storage of assault weapons a misdemeanor.
Mandate a police registry of assault weapons.
Establish a state registry for all private sales, with a background check done through a licensed dealer for a fee, excluding sales to immediate relatives.
Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the
threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services. A patient’s gun could be taken from him or her.
Ban the Internet sale of assault weapons.
Require stores that sell ammunition to register with the state, run background checks on buyers of bullets and keep an electronic database of bullet sales.
Restrict ammunition magazines to seven bullets, from the current national standard of 10. Current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. Someone caught with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

There's more at the link. A couple of these things stand out though. A database of bullet sales?

Restricting ammo magazines to seven bullets. Way to get out of the pickle of saying "Gun Ban"
< http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013...or-vote >

Chicago says part of the blame of their high rate of gun violence is because neighboring cities don't have tough enough gun control.
< http://www.startribune.com/nation/188948281.html?refer=y >

Even though Chicago has strict gun control laws, I have a feeling they are going to get tougher. And not just tougher in Chicago.

Mayor Bloomberg of NY after he helped his choice for replacement of Jesse Jackson JR. win the primary election for Chicago:

QUOTE

"As Congress considers the president's gun package, voters in Illinois have sent a clear message: We need common sense gun legislation now. Now it's up to Washington to act," he said.

< http://www.reuters.com/article...0130227 >

Posted by Grinning_Dragon on Feb. 27 2013,10:54 pm

Uh oh.
NY Supreme Court: SAFE Act Injunction Unless State Proves Law Constitutional.

New York Supreme Court has stated that an injunction against the new SAFE Act (AKA massive, over-reaching gun ban) will be put in place on April 29th unless the state can prove that the law is constitutional. This puts the burden of proof on the state of New York to show the law is legal under the newly re-affirmed provisions of the Second Amendment, which is impossible..

< MORE HERE >

QUOTE

Chicago says part of the blame of their high rate of gun violence is because neighboring cities don't have tough enough gun control.

Now this is rich and replete with emotionalism and blame shifting. No the blame lies completely with chicago and the failed policies dealing with their crime rate involving weapons, it isn't the access to weapons that is the problem, it is the culture of chicago that is the problem, mainly with their overpaid, uneducated, holier than thou leaders.

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 27 2013,11:17 pm

(Grinning_Dragon @ Feb. 27 2013,10:54 pm)

QUOTE

Can't they just take a page out of the federal governments playbook and say "It's Constitutional cuz we say it is." ?

Posted by Self-Banished on Feb. 28 2013,4:44 am

(Rosalind_Swenson @ Feb. 27 2013,11:17 pm)

QUOTE

(Grinning_Dragon @ Feb. 27 2013,10:54 pm)

QUOTE

Can't they just take a page out of the federal governments playbook and say "It's Constitutional cuz we say it is." ?

The constitution??? Isn't this a dated, irrevelent, lack of vision document? :sarcasm:

Posted by Rosalind_Swenson on Feb. 28 2013,9:55 am

(Self-Banished @ Feb. 28 2013,4:44 am)

QUOTE

The constitution??? Isn't this a dated, irrevelent, lack of vision document? :sarcasm:

That's what I've been hearing. The government seems to think that most of it is.

Some more on the drone killing of Americans. Anyone know if people other than the man and his son were killed in that drone strike in Yemen? Since they were hit while at a cafe, I just wonder if others were killed or wounded.
Obama and Brennan still refuse to answer if they would ever use armed drones to kill American civilians on U.S. soil or not.

With the NDAA, the federal government already has the power to lock up American citizens with no due process and no rights. They don't even have to provide proof of ANYTHING to ANYONE. Everybody is just supposed to take their word. Now they've killed a couple of American citizens overseas, one of them a 16 boy. And they keep refusing to say if they would do armed drone strikes on U.S. citizens on U.S. soil.
Anyone here see any problems with any of this?

QUOTE

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government’s killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution’s fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

The killings were part of a broader program of “targeted killing” by the United States outside the context of armed conflict and based on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.

< http://www.aclu.org/national-security/al-aulaqi-v-panetta >

QUOTE

Be prepared in the next year or two for all criticism of “our freedom and democracy” government to be shut down. In Amerika, truth is about to be exterminated.

< http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013...f-truth >

Posted by Liberal on Oct. 13 2022,7:08 am

It took awhile but Alex Jones just lost everything for spreading his garbage lies.

< https://www.reuters.com/legal....2-10-12 >

Posted by Brand New Day on Oct. 13 2022,7:47 am

what do you call 1,000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the ocean?

the same thing you call that verdict

a good start. . .

Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 13 2022,7:50 am

I've always said we get the government we deserve, and when you realize that millions of people listen to this trash box, and others of the same ilk, you begin to understand exactly why we keep electing the same idiots over and over and over.

Posted by Expatriate on Oct. 13 2022,8:18 am

Posted by Self-Banished on Oct. 13 2022,9:04 am

^^ and it’ll go on appeal :dunce:

Most likely he doesn’t have that scratch, bankruptcies are us

Posted by Brand New Day on Oct. 13 2022,10:43 am

(Glad I Left @ Oct. 13 2022,7:50 am)

QUOTE

you don't get much of a choice usually

decent people either don't get involved or get knocked out of races. . .

Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 13 2022,10:54 am

Most people are smart enough not to want to get involved in that cess pool. Can't say I blame them. I know I wouldn't wanna run for any office.

Posted by Brand New Day on Oct. 14 2022,7:36 am

well that's too bad. you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders. probably would vote for you. :laugh:

Posted by Glad I Left on Oct. 14 2022,7:49 am

LOL!
It would never work. I wouldn't take money from either party. I wouldn't run negative ads about my opponent(s). I'd focus more on what I would do vs what the other(s) did.
I'd demand common sense out of our elected officials, we all know there is zero chance of that because they are beholden to A) their party of choice, and B) whoever their main corporate donors are.
Until we get money out of politics, there is not likely to be change. And with citizens united now settled by the supreme court it will take extraordinary measures.
Sad really....