All the recent shootings

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Steve Kingston on August 31, 2012 at 11:05am

"Maybe it has something to do with the government wanting to put more gun laws into effect" ...this

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Bliss on August 31, 2012 at 11:43am

Simple, it's for ratings and views, sales etc... Depending what the media source is i.e. newspaper, TV news, radio news etc..

It is easy to follow how they're working. If they mention a one off event then you may watch the news that one time, however if they mention a shooting (fatal or not) then you're more likely to watch again and see the "story" unfold. Like a TV series, you keep watching each week to see what "new" happenings there are, same principle with the media.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kentucky Boi on August 31, 2012 at 1:25pm

I have a journalism degree and in EVERY class that I had, the professor always preached the "if it bleeds, it leads" philosophy. The media has always been this way but as the world spirals more and more out of control the media has tons more material like this to pull from. I personally don't think gun laws do a damn thing other than take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens therefore making them more vulnerable to criminals. Look at places like Chicago, NYC, DC etc. They have the strictest gun laws in the country and some of the highest crime rates. I am all for the CCDW states (like KY for example) that allow properly trained, licensed citizens to legally carry for self protection.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Weis on August 31, 2012 at 6:42pm

Well in all honesty both sides benefit from the media putting more attention on shootings, NRA and Republicans win because people get paranoid and it leads to more gun sales, while people who were already anti-gun are going to become more firm in their stances, which happens on both sides after a shooting. I doubt it's happening anymore than it was before, I shared my thoughts on gun laws in the last thread about guns, but I'll just reiterate the most important parts imo. At the very least I think we should get rid of gun show loopholes, we hear "criminals will get guns no matter what while law abiding citizens would be without" all the time. While this might be true for some criminals, it's not like everyone that commits a gun-related crime has or even needs "connections" or anything along those lines with gun show loopholes. A lot of these shooters purchase guns legally, which might imply that our system is a little too loose with the regulations, and yes, many of these people probably would've passed background checks anyways, but many shootings could've been stopped and can be if we end the gun show loophole at the very least. All I want is reasonable gun control, mandatory, thorough background checks WITH a mental health screening (not just for insane people but depressed people as well, suicide is #2 or #3 in gun-related deaths in the US I believe) and probably courses or something to learn how to use and clean the gun properly, etc. I mean, you need a license to legally drive but not to own a gun in most states, that's a little bonkers to me. Even an overwhelming majority of NRA members agree with these terms but yet somehow we still lose the legislation fight.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a tie a on August 31, 2012 at 9:38pm

There is no attempt to control gun laws. I dunno where you heard that, the democrats aren't pushing anything major, if anything at all, and Obama is being the usual pussy that he is. That said, in states that have high crime rates and tough gun laws, the problem there aren't guns. That's a problem with the social infrastructure, which is a whole other discussion

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ⓉⓌⓛⓩⓩⓎ ツ on September 1, 2012 at 3:44am

If the government cracks down more on gun laws eventually they are going to take some shit to far and end up getting over thrown.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Weis on September 1, 2012 at 9:33am

which is amazing that that's what will throw America over the edge, despite everything else they do to us

twizzy (go ducks) said:

If the government cracks down more on gun laws eventually they are going to take some shit to far and end up getting over thrown.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a tie a on September 1, 2012 at 3:01pm

nobody is cracking down on gun laws smfh

and that's possibly the one thing that shouldn't even matter on the macro level 

twizzy (go ducks) said:

If the government cracks down more on gun laws eventually they are going to take some shit to far and end up getting over thrown.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean Schipper on September 3, 2012 at 12:47am

There is a huge agenda here if you care to delve into it.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/2012090216962/us/homeland-security/the-us-should-withdraw-from-the-uns-qprogramme-of-actionq-on-small-arms.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_Trade_Treaty

First there is the ATT. Basically it is a UN treaty that, if we (the government, not the people) agree to, we will disarm all civilians, leaving only soldiers and police posessing firearms.

The Eric Holder, Fast and Furious Gun Walking Controversy came out earlier this year, but its been happening since 2009.

"Gunwalking" is law enforcement vernacular for the concept of allowing criminal
suspects to "walk" off with guns, without police interdicting or tracking them.
It's widely considered taboo, since "walked" guns may be used in violent crimes,
including murders.

"Fast and Furious" is the name ATF assigned to a group of Phoenix, Arizona-area
gun trafficking cases under Project Gunrunner that began in fall of 2009. It's
the largest of several known operations in which ATF employed gunwalking,
involving more than 2,000 weapons, including hundreds of AK-47 type
semi-automatic rifles and .50 caliber rifles. According to sources who worked
directly on the case, the vast majority of guns were not tracked and Mexico's
government was not fully informed of the case."

You can read more about it here...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-57461204-10391695/a-primer-on-the-fast-and-furious-scandal/

Basically they let weapons slip across the borders without anyone knowing. Then they can use that as an excuse to try and tighten gun laws by saying there too many guns being smuggled over the border.
  But the Fast and Furious scandal was brought to light by several whistleblowers, so they had to cease that plan.

  Another good way to get public consensus against guns is to stage a mass shooting. There are numerous reasons to question the Colorado Batman shooting, or Sheik shootings. Eyewitness accounts conflict with what the media reports, the story changes several times, etc. We could look at them individually.

James Holmes was decked out in full tactical riot gear, and had the most complex maze of bombs the tecnicians had ever seen... but after alegedly shooting all these people, he waited calmly in the parking lot to be arrested. Then warned police of the bombs at his home. All while the police searched for a second suspect who never made the news.
   Then when he shows up in court he is doped the fuck up, unable to keep his eyes open or focus them. There is a lawyer to speak for him.

The Sheik shooting had eyewitness accounts of multiple men dressed in black attire, working as a unit. But the mainstream news story was that it was one man who was shot dead by police. Then a week later the story changed, he was shot in the chest by police, then pulled out a gun and shot himself in the head.

Alot of the more recent shootings seem to have had 2 purposes, to demonize guns, and to characterize war vets as mentaly unstable. Most of the recent culprits have been ex military, and just a few weeks ago they began taking outspoken war vets and locking them up in mental institutions.

  Brandon Raub is probably the most well known, but they took 20 more people in his town alone. He said on Facebook that 9-11 was an inside job and the army is fighting wars to protect the interests of the 1%, not us. And they came and took him for speaking his mind on facebook.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/citizen-warrior...

  They didnt read him his rights or arrest him, but they did declare him mentally unstable and locked him up in a mental institution. Fortunately his mother was very outraged and spoke out about it, and he had a good lawyer who got him out, but reported he had been contacted by 20 other families in the area who had had people taken on similar grounds.
  They call it Oppositional Defiant Disorder. In other words, you have an opposite point of view, you are defiant and wont change it willingly, so you have a disorder and are mentally unstable. This is the same thing that Stalin did in Russia, labeled political dissidents insane and had them locked up.

  The numerous public shootings in the past month, perpetrated by war vets, convinces the average person that guns are bad and our servicemen are the terrorists. Plus, by rounding these people up for there controversial views, they hope to scare others into submission.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a tie a on September 3, 2012 at 2:01am

lmao UN treaties? the US doesn't give a fuck about the UN, we've seen that when they invade other countries and when it comes to nuclear issues, and so many other things. 

With the Fast and Furious, those same whistle-blower that brought this up was one of the people who personally sold guns to cartels without actually tracking them. Honestly I'm not fussed up about the case as terrible as it is, because the issue of these drug cartels isn't a matter of arresting a few leaders who are replaceable, but that's another discussion. Take a look at this video, watch the whole thing, it's a bit long and parts of it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzRZIrfnkQU

The rest of that shit about the shootings being staged are just retarded. Really, to DEMONIZE our servicemen? The United States is pushing propaganda to get ready for conflict with Iran and continue our shit involvement in Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan (to name a few), demonizing our own soldiers isn't going to help that. And has it ever occurred that maybe wars fuck people heads up? Something called post-traumatic stress disorder? And who cares what he posts on Facebook? They'd be better off killing Jesse Ventura than some no-name guy who posts shit on the internet. 

You have no basis for any concrete conclusion, and is just pure speculation with this conspiratorial idea.

And last time I checked, people don't care about people shooting up brown people. That's never regarded as terrorism (and btw right wing extremism in this country is the highest it's ever been when compared to other types of terrorism, but i don't see coverage on THAT to encourage gun control).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean Schipper on September 3, 2012 at 3:08pm

Id like to start with this, because to me it seems the most important. And I am interested in a discussion, not an argument.

The point is not what Brandon Raub wrote on Facebook, but the fact that people came to his home and took him against his will for speaking his mind. Not arrested, but detained and then institutionalized for his beliefs. How is that slipping past you? You and I are no name guys posting shit on the internet, should we be taken for our thoughts and beliefs? Hopefully your answer is no, otherwise theres no point talking to you.

Have you read about the NDAA? Obama signed it into law January 1st, 2012. It states that any American citizen can be held, without trial, without access to lawyers, indefinitely, just on the suspicion of crime. No proof required, no jury, they can just dissapear you. This seems like a dangerous step toward tyranny and dictatorship.

http://verdict.justia.com/2011/12/21/the-national-defense-authorization-act-explained
http://verdict.justia.com/2012/01/02/the-ndaa-explained
as with most of my links, its long, but pretty informative.

And I think this is my favorite part, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xObDStJBDzc&feature=related . There were lines in the NDAA which said US citizens would not be subject to indefinite detention, but were purposefully removed.

Then the end of Posse Comitatus, which means military forces can now be used as a domestic police force within the US. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Sm6EicoEc&feature=related

If the US doesnt give a fuck about the UN then why did Clinton sign many of our national parks and monuments over to them? http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA253.html

Why did Panetta say that Obama doesnt need to go through Congress to engage in war? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19utrJwzois (I love this video.)
He said that the international coalitions can give them permission to go to war. Presidents swear to uphold the constitution. The constitution states only Congress can declare war.

What about the LOST treaty? If it is passed or ratified, whatever, all the worlds oceans belong to the UN.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/05/20/will-u-s-sovereignty-be-lost-at-sea-obama-signs-u-n-treaty-that-redistributes-drilling-revenues/

Well, if we're talking drug cartels, Im sure you know about the USs proficiency in trafficking drugs as well as guns. But Ill post a few links for anyone else who may be interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_drug_trafficking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_and_Contras_cocaine_trafficking_in_the_US

And I think the term "staged shooting" leads to a misconception. I dont think they were illusions or hoaxes. I do think its plausible that the shooters had outside financiers or other people orchestrating events behind the scenes.

Its all theater for the masses. Using the mainstream media to sway public opinion this way and that. For gun control, towards war, etc. Manufactured events like the Gulf of Tonkin, help pave the way towards war. For those unfamiliar with the Gulf of Tonkin, heres a bit about it.

The second Tonkin Gulf incident was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved "Tonkin Ghosts"[6] (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

So theres an example of a false flag, or in this case, completely fabricated event that let the Government engage in a war against Vietnam. Whos to say 9-11 wasnt a similar situation for a war in Afganistan. Or Bushs claim of nonexistant WMDs as a pretext to invade the Iraq. Its not mental illness to question the validity of these events. Karl Rove summed it up pretty well.

"That's not the way the world really works anymore." He continued "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors ... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

Do you think that the majority of the American taxpayers want to foot the bill for endless wars? Multiple fronts in Syria, Pakistan, Iran, etc? The amount of money we spend each year on guns and bombs is fucking rediculous.

And yes, you are correct that a large number of soldiers come back with PTSD and other disorders. And there is also a huge suicide rate amond returning vets. And quite a few are coming back disgusted at what they have done and aware of the fact that the interests they are serving are not beneficial to we the people. And if they speak out, they get taken and called insane.

Dwight Eisenhower, in his farewell speech to the nation, warned the country of the danger the Military Industrial Complex posed. He said that there is a huge potential for misplaced power.
And that only an active and alert citizenry can keep the military in check.
Here it is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8y06NSBBRtY
Please watch.

Once war becomes peoples bread and butter, they dont want it to end or they are out of a job. Same as the drug war, if they shut down the drug traficking, theyre out of a job, so they try and control the flow of drugs.

I guess Ive went off on a tangent, but there are a lot of things to discuss in relation to this topic. Feel free to respond, please check out the links Ive posted. Ill porbably be back with some more.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by a tie a on September 3, 2012 at 10:18pm

You're bringing out several irrelevant issues to this topic (NDAA, the UN treaties, yada yada yada. and of course the US doesn't care about what the UN has to say, you don't see them ever submit to them no matter how many resolutions are passed) many that I'm already aware of, I don't need you to talk about them. We're talking about gun issues. 

The Contras I'm already aware of as well (and i just want to add those guys are terrorists, any other Reagan dickrider who says otherwise is kidding themselves)

And I really don't know how to respond, because you just listed a bunch of things here. With these shootings I highly doubt there was outside influence. Maybe there was, but not by our government. The NRA already holds a chunk of our government to keep guns laws weak so they can make money off that. And these shootings aren't encouraging war, I don't think I've seen anything implying that either..... 

But yeah the military industrial complex has put the US system in a chokehold. This is what bites empires in the ass (i'm not sure if other past superpowers in the world have faced something like this, but hopefully this will be a lesson for future powers).

And the drug war has other interests in it as well, obviously, and if we learned anything from the prohibition of alcohol we'd know that at least legalizing marijuana with reasonable regulations would be an enormous favor for the American people

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion