Florida Woman Arrested Calls Sandy Hook Massacre "HOAX", And Threatened To Kill Parent of a Victim

Why? Let's be clear: You are willing to defend Sandy Hook parents calling for gun restrictions YET you have the nerve -- the gall -- to ask 'WTF' when I tell you five black guys raped my 15 year old and I insinuate whether I have the right to ask for some kind of discrimination/profiling against young black men or men, in general.

Listen, I am truly, very sorry for what happened to your daughter. But you are completely misinterpreting my comments in this thread. I came back because it's clear I've upset you and I wanted to try to at least put your mind at ease by explaining what I meant.

It was never, ever my intention to suggest whether you did, or didn't, have any right to ask for some type of discrimination/profiling (I didn't even know we were talking about profiling or discrimination until just now). All I said was that some crimes were easier to politicize than others. I say this because there seems to be a natural reaction among a lot of people to want to keep lunatics from having guns (especially in the wake of Sandy hook), but it was not clear to me what agenda you might have as a result of the terrible tragedy experienced by your daughter.

Somehow, you've turned this into me saying you should be quiet about the crime, or that you shouldn't protest or petition the government, or who knows what.

I honestly do not understand how it came to this, but in light of the terrible tragedy you experienced, I want to apologize for any part I might have played.

My point was simply that it seemed logical that the parents of Sandy Hook would call for measures to keep lunatics from having guns.

It was not logical to me based on the crime described that you would experience an immediate need to call for any specific measures, and you yourself seem to have corroborated my initial impression by saying you don't want any part in that.

It's so insulting. What happened to my daughter doesn't fit in with any current agenda, so I have no room to 'ask' for any changes about jacksh*t....according to you.

I never said anything like that. At all. Not even close. I hope I've made it clear that was not my intention.

If she was held at gunpoint, then, yes, I can advocate for gun restrictions.

You are free to advocate for whatever you want, whenever you want.

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: Greggers

Actually that is not entirely correct. But go ahead and bow out anyway.

Sure it is.

originally posted by: thesaneone

No, he was a child, a real man knows the difference.

Gross. No they don't.

Seriously. BARF. What a shallow retort.

I was kidnapped, raped, and nearly hung by a tree by a 37 year old when I was 15. Who gets to decide who is a real man? The government?

Sounds like you and Greggers might fail a government *test.*

ETA: In my experience, RAPE is a very serious problem. It's a problem I faced. It's a problem my daughter faced. And it's a problem the government has done nothing to about with respect to *new* legislation.

a reply to: thesaneone

In psychological warfare, Occam's Razor is used as a tool to mislead others into believing something very complex and important is just simple and medocre.

It is actually better to perform actions so complex that people would have a hard time believing it. Engineering a simple illusion of Occam's Razor into the actions so that from outside sources a simple Occam's Razor argument could be formed as a cover.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: WeAre0ne
a reply to: Greggers

You claimed that I am arguing that Sandy Hook is a hoax. I've never claimed such a thing ever.

We're cool then.

you contribute to the disgusting scum of ATS.

Go after the ball, not the player.

a reply to: Greggers

Well, I am advocating for the idea that the government sets up horrible crises, so that they can 'come to the rescue' with rights-restricting solutions that SUIT THEM.

Otherwise, IN MY EXPERIENCE, they don't give two-sh*ts about violent crime and solving it.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

All CTers are NOT responsible for every lunatic or false flag actor paid to discredit them.

Yeah, and I never said they were.

ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS.

Yeah I know the "lone wolf" conspiracy theorist is a very popular notion. But their are advantages to working in groups with some sort of structure. Probably most critical is that, confirmation bias is a virtually insurmountable problem for someone working on their own.

Should all men be responsible for policing each other so they don't rape women and little girls?

You're joking right? To the extant that they're able, of course they should. And yeah, CT people should also do what they're able to do in order to prevent harm to others. They should be responsible in their research, their deliberations and where and with whom they discuss their theories.

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Your prejudice, while understandable, is wholly misplaced.

Sure it is, man.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greggers

Well, I am advocating for the idea that the government sets up horrible crises, so that they can 'come to the rescue' with rights-restricting solutions that SUIT THEM.

Otherwise, IN MY EXPERIENCE, they don't give two-sh*ts about violent crime and solving it.

Other than the phrase "sets up," I don't have any issue with what you've said.

If you replaced the word "sets up" with "capitalizes on," I'd agree with your statement whole-heartedly.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Baby steps huh, it's been what 4 years since, guess what I still have my AR, glock, and 9mm I also have a couple of shotguns and a few more guns how is that possible? and let's not forget the other incidents that have happened since sandy hook that involved guns.

There are too many guns in circulation for the government to try and take them, it would take an act of God to have all guns removed from society, in other words it's never going to happen.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greggers

Well, I am advocating for the idea that the government sets up horrible crises, so that they can 'come to the rescue' with rights-restricting solutions that SUIT THEM.

Otherwise, IN MY EXPERIENCE, they don't give two-sh*ts about violent crime and solving it.

Other than the phrase "sets up," I don't have any issue with what you've said.

If you replaced the word "sets up" with "capitalizes on," I'd agree with your statement whole-heartedly.

I meant "SETS UP."

They have the motive. More motive than Adam Lanza did.

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Baby steps huh, it's been what 4 years since, guess what I still have my AR, glock, and 9mm I also have a couple of shotguns and a few more guns how is that possible? and let's not forget the other incidents that have happened since sandy hook that involved guns.

There are too many guns in circulation for the government to try and take them, it would take an act of God to have all guns removed from society, in other words it's never going to happen.

Yes. Baby steps. It was powerful. Five and six year olds being shot down IS POWERFUL. Even if you still have your glock -n-stuff, for now.

a reply to: imwilliam

Oh, good god.

Then you better make sure no man ever commits a crime again, now that you have stated you are responsible.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Baby steps huh, it's been what 4 years since, guess what I still have my AR, glock, and 9mm I also have a couple of shotguns and a few more guns how is that possible? and let's not forget the other incidents that have happened since sandy hook that involved guns.

There are too many guns in circulation for the government to try and take them, it would take an act of God to have all guns removed from society, in other words it's never going to happen.

Yes. Baby steps. It was powerful. Five and six year olds being shot down IS POWERFUL. Even if you still have your glock -n-stuff, for now.

I don't know what to tell you then except fear will eat you up. Good luck and have a beautiful weekend.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

Oh, good god.
Then you better make sure no man ever commits a crime again, now that you have stated you are responsible.

I give up

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Greggers

Well, I am advocating for the idea that the government sets up horrible crises, so that they can 'come to the rescue' with rights-restricting solutions that SUIT THEM.

Otherwise, IN MY EXPERIENCE, they don't give two-sh*ts about violent crime and solving it.

Other than the phrase "sets up," I don't have any issue with what you've said.

If you replaced the word "sets up" with "capitalizes on," I'd agree with your statement whole-heartedly.

I meant "SETS UP."

They have the motive. More motive than Adam Lanza did.

I know what you meant. I was not trying to correct you.

I was merely saying that I disagree, and offering a different thought that I find more agreement with.