A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

"On Dec. 7, 1993 a gunman opened fire on the Long Island Railroad, killing six people and wounding 19 others. Then-President Bill Clinton began a push for gun control measures that would eventually result in the passage Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed by Congress in September 1994.

And that ban was allowed to expire. Theyre coming after those guns alright!

Originally posted by bknapple32
And banning online munition sales impedes what right exactly?

I guess you don't feel the 2nd amendment covers that huh? It never accounted for assault rifles either. Maybe it only meant for us to have the right to bear muskets?

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by Argyll
I'm guessing your last account wasn't banned for speaking too much truth.......as to your "deny intelligence" theory....how about you chuck some intelligence in here ......and we'll take it from there?

Sure thing.

10 days after Aurora shooting:

Obama will 'evaluate' bill to ban online munition sales
www.washingtontimes.com...

FIVE days after Sandy Hook:

Biden No Joke on Gun Control
www.foxnews.com...

And banning online munition sales impedes what right exactly?

Less in Shipping costs?

I have never bought ammo online but ammo is heavy and I paid nearly $100 to ship a computer. Even if you save a bit on the price I imagine the shipping would be insane...

In fact, I know nobody who purchases ammo online when there are perfectly good Gun Stores and Sporting Good Stores where you can purchase the same.

reply to post by Druid42


Your argument is they didnt write a big enough article on the tragedy??? Maybe they were busy grieving???



This needs to be debunked?? Shows the lunacy of this whole conspiracy theory

DEBUNK THIS! :

[img=http://s4d2.turboimagehost.com/t/14543064_slainteach2_1.jpg]

Vicky Soto family photo with the Baphomet hand sign being represented for a pose.

The Photoshop excuse IS BARRED!!

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32

"On Dec. 7, 1993 a gunman opened fire on the Long Island Railroad, killing six people and wounding 19 others. Then-President Bill Clinton began a push for gun control measures that would eventually result in the passage Federal Assault Weapons Ban passed by Congress in September 1994.

And that ban was allowed to expire. Theyre coming after those guns alright!

Allowed to expire? Why? Because they didn't manufacture a new massacre in time?

And you're right, they're coming for everyone's AR-15s.

If they had any agenda involving Gun Control they had plenty of time (nearly what 10 years) to manufacture anything they wanted to not let that Bill expire... So I just do not understand that logic but that very logic is what this entire thing has become about-

No. They are not going to take your guns...

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
And banning online munition sales impedes what right exactly?

I guess you don't feel the 2nd amendment covers that huh? It never accounted for assault rifles either. Maybe it only meant for us to have the right to bear muskets?

Actually no the 2nd amendment does not cover munitions. Learn the bill of rights you seem to cling to first in the face of a tragedy.

Im not going into the gun debate... Food for thought though, right to bear arms.. so does that mean everyone has the right to a nuke? having nukes is bearing arms..soo......

reply to post by EffTheCIA

Sure thing. 10 days after Aurora shooting:
Obama will 'evaluate' bill to ban online munition sales www.washingtontimes.com...
FIVE days after Sandy Hook: Biden No Joke on Gun Control www.foxnews.com...

Really?

But you and your ilk claim that the MSM are liars and fabricate stories to suit their own agenda, or the agenda of the mythical "Powers That Be"

You can't pick and choose the reliability of your sources to suit your silly and distasteful conspiracy can you?

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by bknapple32
And banning online munition sales impedes what right exactly?

Less in Shipping costs?

I have never bought ammo online but ammo is heavy and I paid nearly $100 to ship a computer. Even if you save a bit on the price I imagine the shipping would be insane...

In fact, I know nobody who purchases ammo online when there are perfectly good Gun Stores and Sporting Good Stores where you can purchase the same.

The problem is in us allowing them to push through new legislation in response to isolated incidents. This means at best we are allowing them to "wag the dog". And at worst, we're rewarding criminal behavior. New legislation requires balance and careful study, not snap judgments on "random" events.

Maybe you should look into Cerberus.
And the name you should look at is John W. Snow.
He worked in the Bush White House and was one of the main voices on dropping the gun ban in 2004.
When he left he started Cerberus and began buying up gun makers.
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
DEBUNK THIS! :

[img=http://s4d2.turboimagehost.com/t/14543064_slainteach2_1.jpg]

Vicky Soto family photo with the Baphomet hand sign being represented for a pose.

The Photoshop excuse IS BARRED!!

It's not on the list, meaning I haven't seen it debunked yet, nor do I have any idea what you want to see debunked.

That said, what exactly do you think a random picture with some old dude making a hand gesture in the background proves, or is even evidence of?

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
DEBUNK THIS! :

[img=http://s4d2.turboimagehost.com/t/14543064_slainteach2_1.jpg]

Vicky Soto family photo with the Baphomet hand sign being represented for a pose.

The Photoshop excuse IS BARRED!!

Its the sign language hand-sign for i love you..

Or its the hipster's way of saying rock on.




Or.. the conspiracy theorists way of saying... in a family photo of vicki soto long before the tragedy, some old man in the background of a photo knew ms soto would be murdered...

Get effing real people. The grasping at straws is getting almost laughable if it wasnt such a horrific tragedy.

Originally posted by bknapple32
Actually no the 2nd amendment does not cover munitions. Learn the bill of rights you seem to cling to first in the face of a tragedy.

Oh ok, so we're allowed to have guns, but not ammo?

Originally posted by bknapple32
Im not going into the gun debate... Food for thought though, right to bear arms.. so does that mean everyone has the right to a nuke? having nukes is bearing arms..soo......

Haha, not going into a debate, then start one?

Originally posted by Argyll
Really?

But you and your ilk claim that the MSM are liars and fabricate stories to suit their own agenda, or the agenda of the mythical "Powers That Be"

You can't pick and choose the reliability of your sources to suit your silly and distasteful conspiracy can you?

Sorry, when did I claim that MSM fabricate stories to suit their own agenda?

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by TrueMessiah
DEBUNK THIS! :

[img=http://s4d2.turboimagehost.com/t/14543064_slainteach2_1.jpg]

Vicky Soto family photo with the Baphomet hand sign being represented for a pose.

The Photoshop excuse IS BARRED!!

Its the sign language hand-sign for i love you..

Or its the hipster's way of saying rock on.




Or.. the conspiracy theorists way of saying... in a family photo of vicki soto long before the tragedy, some old man in the background of a photo knew ms soto would be murdered...

Get effing real people. The grasping at straws is getting almost laughable if it wasnt such a horrific tragedy.

No. It isnt the "I love you" (although I have seen that one) this would be the actual "Baphomet" in this case- OR he is Texas Longhorns fan (which is what I am inclined to believe)

reply to post by EffTheCIA


Then answer that one point and move on. This isnt about a gun debate. But Id love to know your fabricated answer to that...


As for munitions... Sorry man, them's the rules. They were never addressed in the 2nd amendment. Hence the govt can make whatever laws it wants to in regard to them.

reply to post by EffTheCIA


TBH, I think this threat to gun ownership is just another exercise in reverse psychology. All of the past shootings and events that threatened the second amendment resulted in guns flying off the shelves, just as it is now after Sandy Hook.

We're going off the fiscal cliff very soon and the PTB know it. The economic destruction will be awesome and although a lot of people are in full blown denial about losing food stamps and welfare and SS benefits and medicare and medicaid, plus higher taxes, they will be doing whatever they have to to survive or their own children will not survive, which opens the door for full tilt martial law and that opens up a huge potential for rebellion and civil war.

The point is, if we're kept busy killing each other over the scraps they leave behind, they're home free.

ETA, in order to do that there must be plenty of guns.

jmo

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by EffTheCIA

 

Then answer that one point and move on. This isnt about a gun debate. But Id love to know your fabricated answer to that...


As for munitions... Sorry man, them's the rules. They were never addressed in the 2nd amendment. Hence the govt can make whatever laws it wants to in regard to them.

I know this is a bit off topic but...

You have not "really" had the second amendment in over 100 years. IF the amendment was to allow you to protect yourself from Tyranny , that is- As you cannot own even an automatic weapon nor the immense amounts of technology which the Government has.
In the 1920s (or so) you could buy a Thompson Sub-machine Gun from a freaking Drug Store 9and sears catalog)-

So there isnt much left of the second amendment anyhow, honestly and it was butchered before most of our parents were born.

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by EffTheCIA

 

Then answer that one point and move on. This isnt about a gun debate. But Id love to know your fabricated answer to that...

Well the INTENTION of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to defend themselves from their government in case it becomes corrupt. That means having access to any and all weapons that the government has. That said, I am against nuclear weapons, whether in the hands of a private citizen or the government. So there you go. No fabrication needed.

Originally posted by bknapple32
As for munitions... Sorry man, them's the rules. They were never addressed in the 2nd amendment. Hence the govt can make whatever laws it wants to in regard to them.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It sort of goes without saying that ammo has to be legal if guns are. It's unfortunate you'd rather argue about semantics rather than intent, as in a court of law, it is the INTENT of the law that matters.