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

Originally posted by bluemooone2

It is my opinion that nobody needs to have a pistol that is capable of holding 31 rounds in a single clip. I think this law needs in be renewed on a federal level.

And of course - a criminal is going to abide by that law.

Let us analyse why there was a subscription on Giffords' YouTube page to Loughner's YouTube page (it has now been deleted). Whilst it it true that people often make a link to other people's pages once they find these individuals have made a link to their pages, none of the individuals linked on Giffords' page have a link on their own pages to her page. This indicates that there was NOT some staffer looking at people's YouTube pages and searching for ones that had earlier been linked to Giffords' page. The existence of the link to Loughner is therefore not the automatic response by a staffer to seeing his YouTube page linked (later deleted by him) to Giffords' page - that practice was not happening.

The crucial question is not whether the person who made the subscription to Loughner logged in two days prior to the killings or whether the last login happened earlier. The question is why it exists at all. After all, it turns out that Loughner was totally against Congresswoman Giffords for her support of Obamacare. There is nothing in his videos that would warrant a friendly link to them! I don't feel that the implications of this question have been addressed thoroughly enough here.

If it is highly unlikely that either Giffords or one of her staff made this subscription (they had no motive to do so), then we have a smoking gun for conspiracy, for then someone other than Loughner must have hacked into her YouTube account, obtained her password and added the link to Loughner's page. Why conspiracy? Well, why would he have done this if he was planning to kill her a few days later? Killers simply don't reveal themselves to their victims ahead of time - it's too risky. If he was planning to escape rather than kill himself after shooting Giffords, he would hardly leave on her YouTube page a link to lots of material that revealed his identity! Of course, being mentally ill, he could have not been thinking straight, and so we cannot be too sure about this argument. However, it might be argued that deliberately giving away his identity suggests that he intended to shoot himself straight after finishing his shooting spree, in which case adding the subscription would not have mattered to him.

There are two other possible reasons for the presence of the subscription:
1. someone else hacked into Giffords' page in order, perhaps, to provide the police with an immediate identification when they compared eyewitness accounts with pictures of him but, more likely, to provide a persona that would reveal his politics, etc, creating the desired cardboard cut-out for all to see that would bring about the intended political responses to the murders. This is like dropping an undamaged 9/11 hijacker's passport in the debris of the World Trade Center in order to confirm the official story of what happened that terrible day.
2. Someone hacked into Gifford's account who wanted the world to think that she had been the target, whereas it was actually one of the other shot people that he or she wanted dead. In other words, Giffords' shooting by a mind-controlled "Manchurian candidate" was meant as a diversion. That way, the REAL reason for the shootings would never come out because everyone (including the police) would assume from his YouTube page that Loughner had hated her enough to kill her. That would be the reason why she had to be shot first. The real target was someone who everyone would thereafter assume was unlucky enough to get in the way of a bullet.

My own current preference is #2 because Giffords posed no political threat to anyone in the corridors of power, and my judgment is that resorting to killing an innocent person just for the national, political dividends it might bring would never have been judged as worth the risk. But new information might alter that. After all, over 3,000 people were thought worth murdering for the political goal of creating public support for invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.....

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by bluemooone2

 

According to media reports there were so many red flags about this kid that it even creeped out his fellow students and teacher at the community college he attended. They were quoted as saying "I was afraid to turn around and face the chalkboard for fear that he had a gun" others in this class were quoted as saying "I sat by the door".

What we need to address is how we treat mental illness in this country. It's all too easy to blame the stuff and people and politics, but when it comes to the facts we need to do the hard work of dealing with reality and keeping perspective. This Brady background check already covers mental health issues. If you have been committed to a mental institution in the last 5 years you don't get a gun.

We need to understand and fix the problems that kept this young man from getting the help he needed. If he had received the help he so OBVIOUSLY needed no one would be talking about this because Mrs. Giffords would be at home enjoying another morning with her husband, a little girl would be alive, Federal Judge would be taking new sets of cases, a young man would have dreamed up a way to break into political office, and the rest would be able to sleep when they got home.

edit on 10-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Just so you know, liberal intellectuals consider anyone who is politically incorrect to be mentally ill...like the Soviet "mental health" experts and re-education institutions they hope to reproduce in the United States. If we give the elite the right to use "mental illness" as an excuse to deny us second amendment rights, all of us will soon be declared "mentally ill" by the Left's "experts." This is like all of us being seen as potential "domestic terrorists" in the aftermath of the Patriot Act.

Best to make them back off from the reaction of oppressing and harassing innocent people in the aftermath of this crazy man's actions. The vast majority of crazy people are prevented from buying guns legally because most of them have heavy criminal records. However, they can get guns anyway through illegal means.

reply to post by sara123123


The only thing I posit is that what we have here is not a result of our gun rights, hi-cap mags, AR15s, or Sarah Palin. It is the result of so many missed opportunities. A series of human mistakes that could not have gone any other way. No matter what security we have, what laws are on the books, what size mag is in your pistol, we cannot prevent Tragedy from happening once she puts on her shoes and walks out the door.

Originally posted by TKDRL
One of the main reason people think the "good old days" were so much better is because things were not as widely reported as they are now. Towns actively would try to keep things hush hush to protect the image of said town. And when they did happen, the authorities were quick to try to point at a "vagrant passing through" rather than investigate the people of their towns. Look at the shoddy work in the investigation of the Martha Moxley murder(I think I spelled her name right) for example. Also as someone pointed out, the whole selective memory thing. Most people tend to remember the good, and push the bad to the back of their minds.

edit on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 18:00:03 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

What you said is true but there is another cultural change from the past as well.

Politicans would not dare suggest suspending or altering the constitutional rights of the total public in the aftermath of one man's insanity and crime like they do today on a national level. Americans took justice seriously. The man who committed the crime was responsible for the crime - not his gun and not the poltical opposition of the ruling class. Witch hunts and hysteria, although common on a local level, were condemned on a National level with the exception of McCarthyism which sought to end the rights of communists as domest terrorists of the day and that was condemned in the aftermath.

Now the political and social witch hunts are orchestrated on a National level for the purpose of advancing the elite's right to violate the constititution's limits on their power. In the past, they respected the constitution and now they see the constitution as standing in the way of domestic and international "progress" and "safety".

reply to post by AstronominousCowherd


The same target symbol was used on her at teh KOS sight. It is not uncommon for political groups to use a bulleyes or target on races they are challenging during elections.

Here is something else to help those who want to use this as an excuse to curb the free speech rights of their opposition. This is a collection of quotes advocating violent images right out of Obama's mouth during his term in office:

Obama may be the worst offender.

** Obama: “They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”
** Obama to His Followers: “Get in Their Faces!”
** Obama on ACORN Mobs: “I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”
** Obama to His Mercenary Army: “Hit Back Twice As Hard”
** Obama on the private sector: “We talk to these folks… so I know whose ass to kick.“
** Obama to voters: Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”
** Obama to lib supporters: “It’s time to Fight for it.”
** Obama to Latino supporters: “Punish your enemies.”
** Obama to democrats: “I’m itching for a fight.”
Link: gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com...

The truth is that Obama and KOS are not responsible for the murder committed by a crazy man any more than Sarah Palin is. It is a huge mistake to give the DNC/Soros reactionaries the power to use the crime of a man to end the free speech rights of their opposition. What goes around comes around and soon we ill all be considered dangerous and deadly speakers for our political opposition to power.

There's always that old saying: 'You reap what you sow'

Sorry to sound inhumane but I for one couldn't care less for the condition of this human, she is a career politician, representative of oppressive government & to top it all pro abortion (anti-life)

Why should I be concerned that she may yet lose her own?

Nothing personal.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

You really don't get it do you? The state it happened in, has an open carry right. People there didn't use their right, because they didn't feel the need to or whatever.

No, you do not get it. Here is what you said.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo

 

Maybe now people will see why open carry is a good thing. More likely though they will just listen to the backwards logic and think it is a good idea to ban guns.

Forgive me if I laugh a second time. Maybe now you might like to clarify the above statement? They had the right to carry and did not. So the only logical step you have left is to claim that if they were FORCED to carry a gun and were all competent shooters, then you would have a point. Please read what you said above and try to apply the same logic you want to use now to it.

Had this happened at a republican gathering(If the trend in this open carry state is the same as the open carry state I have gone to rallies in, the democrats didn't use it, the republicans did), then 3/4 of the crowd would be armed, and the dude would be swiss cheese after a few shots. Are you with me? People didn't use their rights, and a madman took advantage of that.

You said this makes a good case for why open carry should be allowed, not forced. Make up your mind. Open carry was allowed and it did not prevent this. Sorry if I am going with what you have actually said, not what you are shifting it to.

Then you go on to say

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

It is just frustrating to me that everyone there COULD have had a gun, but didn't. If everyone did have a gun, the dude would have been swiss cheese before he could get off 18 shots.

edit on Sun, 09 Jan 2011 15:35:59 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

Befor backtracking and trying to say that I did not understand "everyone" because for some odd reason I thought it meant "everyone" and not just the part of "everyone" you meant.

You do not get it. They had the right to open carry and it did not do a damn thing to help. This does not make a case for open carry. Sorry.

reply to post by TKDRL


They might still go on a rampage, but the consequences would be less deadly. Surely that counts for something.

And, to put you straight about access, it is true that someone who disregards the law generally won't hesitate to try and get one illegaly. The difference is, with fewer guns floating around, like here in Canada, it is harder for them to get one. The end result is still fewer deaths.

In a town near me, 1 mile from Detroit, but in Canada, they did not have one single murder in 2010. You can hypothesise all you want, but I am living the reality.

Originally posted by Aeons

Originally posted by sliceNodice

Originally posted by Aeons

I'm a pinko commuist.

Really? You use the crime of child molestion as an excuse for this oppressive state of mind and ideology you are hosting? Have you ever read about what happened in Nations under communist regimes? The mass murder and abuse of Marxism when in power, puts small town America's dementedness to shame. In the number of people murdered in Marxist purges, it puts even Nazism to shame. It takes mass murder and abuse to a National level and it's useful idiots are not immune from abuse. That would include you.

I hope you educate yourself about the long bloody track record of your ideology and I hope you can heal from your experience of sexual abuse which is a terrible crime not to be fixed by more systematic and centralized oppression, hate and murder under communism. People covering up child sex abuse is horrendously offensive to most Americans.

By the way, since you travel in leftist circles maybe you can raise the alarm about the sexual abuse and harassment onging in our public schools in the name of "comprehensive sexual education" where adults are regularly ignoring taboos of sexually interacting with children in the name of sexual freedom. Child sexual abuse is running rampant in the public schools and being covered up by the same people who don't want to give their schools and kiddie sexual programs a bad reputation.

Originally posted by sara123123
Just so you know, liberal intellectuals consider anyone who is politically incorrect to be mentally ill...like the Soviet "mental health" experts and re-education institutions they hope to reproduce in the United States. If we give the elite the right to use "mental illness" as an excuse to deny us second amendment rights, all of us will soon be declared "mentally ill" by the Left's "experts." This is like all of us being seen as potential "domestic terrorists" in the aftermath of the Patriot Act.

Best to make them back off from the reaction of oppressing and harassing innocent people in the aftermath of this crazy man's actions. The vast majority of crazy people are prevented from buying guns legally because most of them have heavy criminal records. However, they can get guns anyway through illegal means.

May I ask where you get all this from? It sounds a lot like things you just made up. Where are these liberal intellectuals putting out such statements? All I can find is this. Liberalism is a Mental Dissorder Help me out here, please?

reply to post by micpsi


Jared and Ms. Gifford actually knew each other and had a falling out. Information is buried in this thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I don't have the link but this was confirmed via correspondence with someone who knew Jared at the time. There is a suggestion that blogs between Jared and Gifford contained secret or dangerous information that somehow might be related to the shooting.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by sara123123

 

The only thing I posit is that what we have here is not a result of our gun rights, hi-cap mags, AR15s, or Sarah Palin. It is the result of so many missed opportunities. A series of human mistakes that could not have gone any other way. No matter what security we have, what laws are on the books, what size mag is in your pistol, we cannot prevent Tragedy from happening once she puts on her shoes and walks out the door.

edit on 10-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

I totally agree with what you say here. The administration's reaction to what happened in a societial "crackdown" mode on the rights of the pubic in general needs to be strongly opposed right now. We do not need any more Patriot Act "progress" made by the government against the American public in the name of a crime and it's ensuing media hysteria. Reinforcing what you said, we can not prevent tragedy and make everyone safe by surrendering more of our rights to the government.

reply to post by sara123123


So far anti-gunners in congress are thinking they're going to have a field day with this. I have a feeling this time around EDUCATION on the issue is going to win the day.

I wanted to post this in a thread I saw yesterday about early reports that someone in the crowd may have possibly fired back, but I can't find that thread now (anyone have a link?)

Regarding this possibility, it could well be that someone returning fire hit one or more of the other victims. I'm going to be watching/waiting to see if they release any reports of this after the investigation and ballistic tests.

Originally posted by bluemooone2

It is my opinion that nobody needs to have a pistol that is capable of holding 31 rounds in a single clip. I think this law needs in be renewed on a federal level.

Who are you to decide what people "need"?

How many books should people be allowed to own?

reply to post by GeneralAwesome


Am I missing a story about a 9 year old girl that along with four other peole were read to death or is that a stretch?

I'm waiting for the story that says, "Shooter has subscription to the local newspaper. Stories in that newspaper made him upset and he meant crazy. Time to close down the offices of journal XYZ."

reply to post by Sinnthia


I could go on and on listing stories of how people used their religious book of choice as a reason/excuse for their actions.

Care to begin with the atrocities people have committed using the bible as their justification?

Shall not be infringed is very clear. High capacity magazines are not the culprit here, nor are firearms in general.

The issue at hand is mentally deficient people.

A gun has never killed anyone without any action from a human being. Attempting to ban them, or their accessories is a knee jerk response typically used by people who have elementary school level thought processes.

Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
reply to post by Sinnthia

 

I could go on and on listing stories of how people used their religious book of choice as a reason/excuse for their actions.

Care to begin with the atrocities people have committed using the bible as their justification?

Did that stretch hurt? Justifying killing someone with the words from a book is hardly the same thing as killing someone with a book.

Shall not be infringed is very clear. High capacity magazines are not the culprit here, nor are firearms in general.

When do I get my A-bomb then? You will help me get one, right? Not sure how you think it is pretty clear but ok. I want Anthrax as well. Meet me in D.C.?

The issue at hand is mentally deficient people.

A mentally deficient person who was able to shoot a whole lot of people in a very short period of time. He needs the right to be able to that why?

A gun has never killed anyone without any action from a human being. Attempting to ban them, or their accessories is a knee jerk response typically used by people who have elementary school level thought processes.

Never said anything about outright banning anything but you will find far more guns used in death than words. I am still looking for even one person that was read to death but your false distraction about justification and not the act is noted. Thanks. I guess my thinking a deranged lunatic does not need access to a high capacity clip equates to banning guns in your head. Not in mine.