NO AR 15 used at Newtown shooting..
- Thread starter Jake
- Start date
caveat: I just learned tha this report is from 12 Dec. Does anyone have any newer info? And if not, why the hoopla about the AR 15 if the idiot did not use one...?
In NY, the democrats have been looking for a reason to have stricter gun control. You don't need the truth here if you can use fear to convince voters. Our Govenor has pushed for gun control laws so he can fuel his run to the White House 4 years from now.
conflicting stuff I am reading now, mods could you delete this until and if I can find a straight answer?
Jake said:
I don't think you'll be able to find one. I haven't been able to. They said one thing, now they say something different. The reason why is up for debate.
I read an article about how one of the medical examiners said that the bodies he went over had .223 wounds. Of course who really knows if that's true or not since none of the records are public and the media in their fight to "one up each other" or be "first with the story" released so much BS we won't know till the courts release the info they have. If they do. I'd like to know more about how Lanza got the guns. Were they out in the open at the house and he stole them? Were they in a gun safe and he stole the combo after killing his mom? No one has said anything about that.
is this part of the whole "conspiracy" theory ring?
little kids were killed, regardless of the weapon.
little kids were killed, regardless of the weapon.
Point is the focus on AR 15. If not used in this shooting why the hoopla about of and not handguns?
adriatic04 said:
Those conspiracy theory folks can go F--K themselves.
At work, a fellow scientist lost his little girl that day.
akronk1 said:
Are you equally upset at the politicians who used the event to advance their political agenda before the facts of the case were clear?
akronk1 said:
Sounds like bait, but I'll take it. I feel for your fellow and the children, seriously I do.
The fact is the story changed and has been silenced. There has been no effort to explain how the story first came out that the AR was in the trunk. Then it magically changed with no explanation that I have heard other than after the the fact the coroner was quoted. I never saw him speak personally. People's statements were retracted without any coverage of the police that originally reported the AR in the trunk.
If someone thinks that there is a conspiricay it does not play in the slightest whether they have empathy for those involved, so I believe that your post is somewhat narrow minded.
The fact that other similar cases like this exist where stories change + the fact that 2 9mm glocks with 33 round mags could have done 2x the damage makes me more sceptical of the media, police and politicians that are now doing everything within their power to take away our consitutional rights. I guess sceptics would be a checks and balance to me. Vs. the people that are pulling power moves to take away consitutional rights. So I have a differing opinion on who could go #$%! themselves.
I don't know if there is a conspiricy or not. Not enough information. One thing for sure is that this did not give me any confidence in what the media, police or gov't are telling us. Meanwhile so many people are taking it hook line and sinker, go figure.
Guns don't kill people, people do.
Last edited:
bri said:
you can take POLICE right out of that statement. I have yet to meet a fellow law enforcement officer who supports the pending and predicted legislation against firearms.
It's a bit of a stretch, but it reminds me a bit of this book..
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JF4L98/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004JF4L98/ref=kinw_myk_ro_title
Comes as no surprise that Everclear is not sold in California.Mike_Rupp said:
It must have saved at least one human life.
Now I wonder how come cars that can go over 100mph are still legal. Surely they kill people.
No, unfortunately its not bait. But thanks
And the location of the AR has us wondering too.
But for the conspiricay end, I've always felt that its the result of the media rushing to get out the "scoop" before verifying the "facts". But the end result of this stays the same, people died.
And the location of the AR has us wondering too.
But for the conspiricay end, I've always felt that its the result of the media rushing to get out the "scoop" before verifying the "facts". But the end result of this stays the same, people died.
Last edited:
There were two rifles, one they found on him(along with however many hand guns) and a shotgun they found in his trunk.
Bri- If you seriously think it was a conspiracy, please find a bridge to jump off of. Sandy hook(and Aurora shooting) conspiracy theorists are the lowest of the lows, true pieces of shit.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
Bri- If you seriously think it was a conspiracy, please find a bridge to jump off of. Sandy hook(and Aurora shooting) conspiracy theorists are the lowest of the lows, true pieces of shit.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
Whether or not there has been a conspiracy depends on your chosen definition, as well as how you view the Constitution.
Did those with an anti-gun agenda and various media outlets intentionally and collectively manipulate facts, take advantage of ignorance, and tailor their promotion of events in an effort to encourage erroneous assumptions, control common perception, and create the beginnings of division and disorder within the population?
Was their action prearranged in order to quicken response and better take advantage of the next big shooting?
Is every opportunity taken to refocus attention back to an emotional event; the facts of which are deliberately avoided and left to the imagination?
I believe this all to be true, and why wouldn't it be? It's a good plan. If you've got an agenda, it stands to reason you'll do whatever is in your power in order to steer toward it. If you know it will be helped if built upon the foundation of tragedy (this can nearly always be true), why would you not take advantage of such an event?
Clearly, you believe in your cause, and when you truly believe in a cause, it becomes easier to justify the methods used to support it.
The best way to control a person is not to lie. It is better to strategically leave blanks for them to fill in, while making sure the information most easily accessed meets your approval. That can be entirely literal, when adjusting a person's opinion, or more abstract; dealing with their basic perceptions.
There is no need to manufacture a shooting. They happen every now and again. Use the time in between to be sure you are ready to capitalize upon the next one.
Anything is possible, but the people with an anti-gun agenda, for the most part, truly believe in that cause, or they believe in the accumulation of power that such regulation allows.
The "other guy" is rarely the "bad guy". Most of the time, he's just doing what he thinks is right, regardless of how negatively you may view his ideas and actions.
The idea that the government may have created a problem to solve by recounting an event that did not occur, or causing that event themselves, while seemingly reasonable (if terribly paranoid), is flawed. It is not likely that anyone in Washington would do such a thing, and even if they did, any secrecy wouldn't last long.
"The Man" is not nearly as clever or well organized as people like to imagine. Leave that nonsense to the movies.
Cheers,
Kennith
Did those with an anti-gun agenda and various media outlets intentionally and collectively manipulate facts, take advantage of ignorance, and tailor their promotion of events in an effort to encourage erroneous assumptions, control common perception, and create the beginnings of division and disorder within the population?
Was their action prearranged in order to quicken response and better take advantage of the next big shooting?
Is every opportunity taken to refocus attention back to an emotional event; the facts of which are deliberately avoided and left to the imagination?
I believe this all to be true, and why wouldn't it be? It's a good plan. If you've got an agenda, it stands to reason you'll do whatever is in your power in order to steer toward it. If you know it will be helped if built upon the foundation of tragedy (this can nearly always be true), why would you not take advantage of such an event?
Clearly, you believe in your cause, and when you truly believe in a cause, it becomes easier to justify the methods used to support it.
The best way to control a person is not to lie. It is better to strategically leave blanks for them to fill in, while making sure the information most easily accessed meets your approval. That can be entirely literal, when adjusting a person's opinion, or more abstract; dealing with their basic perceptions.
There is no need to manufacture a shooting. They happen every now and again. Use the time in between to be sure you are ready to capitalize upon the next one.
Anything is possible, but the people with an anti-gun agenda, for the most part, truly believe in that cause, or they believe in the accumulation of power that such regulation allows.
The "other guy" is rarely the "bad guy". Most of the time, he's just doing what he thinks is right, regardless of how negatively you may view his ideas and actions.
The idea that the government may have created a problem to solve by recounting an event that did not occur, or causing that event themselves, while seemingly reasonable (if terribly paranoid), is flawed. It is not likely that anyone in Washington would do such a thing, and even if they did, any secrecy wouldn't last long.
"The Man" is not nearly as clever or well organized as people like to imagine. Leave that nonsense to the movies.
Cheers,
Kennith