BREAKING Gabrielle Giffords Shot: Congresswoman Reportedly Shot In Arizona [UPDATED]

reply to post by mr10k


sure MR10K... we will also find some excuse to smash one another, but i like my odds much better against the fellow with the stick than the fellow with the gun.

with the right amount of verve and gumption, either fellow's gonna hurt me.

it's just so much easier for the guy with the gun to do so, though.

reply to post by dontreally


False continuum, and Illogical Extremes done by someone in a book doesn't make those Logical Fallacies anymore useful. Actually, that in itself is a Logic Fallacy of an appeal to authority.

Though your support of your Fallacy with the use of winning-by-word-usage to top it off is awesome. If I were to go through and find one more fallacy in your presentation or conclusions, you'd have a full house.

edit to add! You do have a full house. You used the Genetic Fallacy. Whereby you present that another idea must be rejected prima facae based on it being biased. Presenting that you are not biased, and of course also giving the idea that those who are not biased the same way you are are incapable of thinking or accurately defending an argument. An illogical conclusion in so many ways, but the best way is that you then are asserting that they only people who can defend an idea are those who never have thought about it, and certainly only people who don't actually ascribe to an idea.

Congratulaions on your Full House of Fallacy.

I prefer Trumps myself.

reply to post by mythos


Well I have looked high and low and have not been able to find the video, but when I was at the Federal Reserve we viewed a training film in which we saw just how vulnerable we were to a knife attack, despite the fact that we carried high powered semi-auto pistols. I remember in this video they showed different scenarios in which the knife attacker got no less than 8 strikes on the armed security officer in every instance. I don't care if the guard had his weapon drawn or not in every instance he lost. In my Air force training I was even killed one day by a guy with a hammer. Where does it stop? How many devices have to be outlawed before the killing stops?

It cant be done. Since the first guy picked up a bone and bludgeoned his neighbor with it, the same has been true. If a person wants to kill another person for whatever reason, they will find a way even if they use their bare hands. We cannot blame the weapon or the method, the blame lies solely on the perpetrator of the killing.

This talk has been going on since the '40's, my grandfather told me that, he learned it from his service in WWII ...Hitler the SS and mind control. Then, the '50's and aliens and mind control. The '60's and the industrial military complex and mind control. The '70's and the multi-generational and international (Swiss bankers) robber baron bankers and mind control, the '90's and mutli-national pharmaceuticals and drugs in the water and mind control, the'2000's and microwave, rf, emf and frequencies and mind control. Finally, 20teen's and lights waves emanating from space, other galaxies heralding 2012 and mind control. So damn random, not the theory, when it is injected in the conversation...it's exhausting...nothing gets done, people don't get fed, wars are not stopped, streets and homes are not secured, medical is not affordable, education fails all, no reform in the Congress, econ fighters exposing fraud are doomed to rhetoric and what do we hear after a tragedy like today, our minds are controlled.

I am not saying there is no validity in these issues, I am saying we can demand the discipline of ourselves to care so much more for others in these times, that we are still capable of doing the right thing now. And in so doing, send a message to those who would think it possible to control us and our minds, not today *ssholes...not effing today...we are busy.

Holy hell. What do you guys think ? Politically motivated attack or random psychotic attack

Originally posted by mythos

Originally posted by Rasch
reply to post by Mastermook

 

I completely agree, people kill guns do not. The gun is just a tool, like a knife, or sword, of baseball bat, or crowbar ... you get the idea. BUT, politicians spin things and use them for their own purposes.

Like a wise man once said, "A government is made up of people, notably un-governed"

the gun is a tool that is designed to put a bullet into something, to cause massive physical trauma. it is a highly effective tool and relatively simple to use for the amount of power it wields. just squeeze and aim and blammo!

i understand the passion behind the 2nd amendment. it's in the constitution and americans defend their constitutional rights with a justified ferocity.

but let us not pretend that the gun is an innocucous bystander in the taking of life. it is a tool of lethal force... lethal force delivered rapidly and at minimal effort.

let's not diminish its potency by comparing it to other (albeit relatively dangerous, but far less indescriminate) 'tools'.

not many children accidently bludgeon themselves to death with a crowbar.

not many madmen turn schools into hells with baseball bats.

not many folk accidently stab their hunting buddy in the face with a knife (yeah, i'm talkin' to you cheney)

i am not advocating for those who responsibly use firearms to give them up.
but let us not pretend they are anything less that what they are:

bang. bang... you're dead.

OK, I'll agree with you that guns are a single purpose tool, to kill brutally and effectively. You can't limit the right of anyone type of person on the ability to own a firearm without serious consequences. Lets say a law is passed to limit gun ownership to only responsible people. The government will deem nobody responsible enough to own one, and seize all of them. Ownership of guns is the only thing stopping the government from becoming a complete tyranny. It's the ability of the people to kill those who would oppress them that stops tyranny from taking over. This instance will be a shining example for the public of why guns are bad, and in my opinion for good reason. It may be a good reason, but it is greatly overshadowed by the benefits. The other side of the story will not be fed to the public though. Guns have held our dwindling freedom much longer than it would have held without them. This misguided individual obviously was not making rational connections in his mind. Any rational person would never endanger a child for any reason, and just by the presence of the child put her in danger.
My father used to do some hypnosis in his medical practice. I don't remember the name of the theory, but I'll do the best I can to explain what I know from the things he told me. The theory is, if you make an irrational statement that your mind can't decode, then follow it with an understandable statement of reason, the mind accepts the conclusion as true. I think the rantings on the videos are an attempt of this concept. The question is, did he learn this on his own, and now is trying to manipulate people who see it after the fact? Or is it possible he was subjected to this form of hypnotism and uses this form of warped logic in the videos as a symptom of manipulation to his mind?

Originally posted by Thetawave
Holy hell. What do you guys think ? Politically motivated attack or random psychotic attack

Potential random psychotic attack with definite political ramifications.

Originally posted by soficrow
Here's another screenshot from Palin's disappeared page:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/507bf5d6b9f3.jpg[/atsimg]


Got that?

Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office

Shoot a fully automatic M16

...Palin should be charged - her actions incited murder. That's conspiracy (the real kind).

Agreed. And it's not the first time this woman incited this way of thinking, with her "cross hair" ad to target people. She's always been a sick pup. Anyone can see that by watching her on "Alaska".

Originally posted by loveguy
Sara P.

This thread has gone too fast for me to keep up and so if this link has already been posted, forgive me.

I'm leaning towards this lost soul as being used as a Manchurian candidate.

Ohmigod!! How did we overlook the fact that Sarah Palin was giving off loud signals that she intended to have an MC shoot Gabby Giffords in the head??? It was so obvious!:shk:

Another thing: Supposedly, Palin was once heard to say "Shoot the bastard!". And even though she insists she was referring to a big old bull moose in the Alaskan woods, we know better! She was referring to Gabby Giffords!

Puh-leeze, people! Enough is too much already!

reply to post by WWJFKD


i would certainly be afraid of a highly trained specialist wielding a knife.

i would be equally afraid of a crazy old lady with a gun.

i would be considerably less afraid of the crazy old lady with the knife.



as well, i have not advocated making guns illegal. i am a realist enough to know that ain't gonna fly here.

but my original point was in reaction to the notion that guns are on par with other "tools" of violence. (i believe to poster compared them to a knife, a crowbar and a bat)

if you level the playing field, it is the gun that is to be feared.

anyway... happy shootin'

Ok For any Canadians here CBC is covering this story CBC however they are attacking the entire agaisnt the government groups, the media are going after the Constitution supporters, the anchorwomen said what were his politically views some reporter said on the CBCs The National.


They cliamed he supported the rights to wear bar guns, and the reporter claimed he was with some Constitution tea party group rallys and cliams he saw people wearing guns in cammo.

So the media will be using this as an excuse to ban guns and maybe it will grow into somethng bigger.

CBC will replay it later tonight.

Somethings not right with this.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
Ok For any Canadians here CBC is covering this story CBC however they are attacking the entire agaisnt the government groups, the media are going after the Constitution supporters, the anchorwomen said what were his politically views some reporter said on the CBCs The National.


They cliamed he supported the rights to wear bar guns, and the reporter claimed he was with some Constitution tea party group rallys and cliams he saw people wearing guns in cammo.

So the media will be using this as an excuse to ban guns and maybe it will grow into somethng bigger.

CBC will replay it later tonight.

Somethings not right with this.

Well, us Canadians already have to jump through rings of fire to get firearms - but does that stop the gangsters any? (Nope)


The Democrats will use this as a rallying cry to get rid of the 2nd amendment - have to get rid of the people who can do something when the NWO pulls the rug under us (with this fake economy)

I am just concerned why he was allowed to get off a second shot.

reply to post by mishigas


Sometimes, her ways of thinking and speaking are potentially dangerous and ignorant. Just saying. I'm a gun owner and I hunt, but my whole life is not guns. She's contributed to keeping the climate among her supporters as hostile.

She's not first hand responsible for what happened, she's just a background contributor.

reply to post by Agent_USA_Supporter


Well, this is going to fly as a means to present the tea partiers as psychotic angry people, who are anti American and dangerous/terrorists. I'm not a tea partier, but I do support their rights to speak out. At this point in time, what is safe to me is to stand alone in my particular beliefs. Standing with other people together seems to get one red flagged and I don't want to be a label.

I almost feel Sarah Palin is a cointelpro to throw off the Tea Party....

Update the Shooter has been taken into Federal Custody by the FBI ..On CNN right now

Originally posted by boondock-saint
I am not inciting violence but just noticing
a trend.

It seems that Gov Politicians have become targets
in somebody's war. Maryland Gov. DHS Janet
Napolitano and now Giffords all in the same
week. It would appear somebody is fed up
with the current tyrannical regime.
But for the record, I had nothing to do
with any of these events. Just trying
to formulate a theory based on relevant
current events. Please forgive if this
offends.

You're a lunatic! If you ever lived under a genuine tyrannical regime, you would know more about it...
I suppose Signor Cespuglio (Bush) was fine by you?
From here, it looked as if he was the tyrant - Obama simply looks ineffectual.
Vicky

Originally posted by Thetawave
Holy hell. What do you guys think ? Politically motivated attack or random psychotic attack

Yes.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

You can be politically motivated and insane.

Originally posted by soficrow
Here's another screenshot - Jesse Kelly, placed an ad that read::

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/507bf5d6b9f3.jpg[/atsimg]


Got that?

Help remove Gabrielle Giffords from office

Shoot a fully automatic M16

...Palin should be charged - her actions incited murder. That's conspiracy (the real kind).

edit on 8/1/11 by soficrow because: correction

lol, good post. see the thing is, I'm sure that shooting will kill the conservative movement for less gun control, and do the opposite to make it stricter.