A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

reply to post 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!!

Yea....because nobody has ever pulled that hand sign before unless they are involved in the murder of children have they?

My father is 73....he pulls that hand sign all the time, he probably thinks he's being cool....he most definitely has not ever been involved in child murder!


What a pathetic attempt to insult the deceased!

Originally posted by frazzle
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.

jmo

You're right about guns flying off the shelves. However, why would they also be trying to reinstate the assault rifle ban then?

Originally posted by RedBird
reply to post by bknapple32

 

It's exactly this type of emotional argument that I find disturbing.

Simply because someone is grieving does not make it wrong for people to speculate. As long as they are not making libelous accusations, there is no legal risk.

This is about the LAW, not "Ethics". I've repeated this point so many times... and as much as I respect S.O. and Springer -- they've fallen into the same bloody trap: Of advocating prior restraint on the basis of emotional sensitivity. That argument, once extended to its natural limit, brings this entire community and its purpose into question.

The purpose of conspiracy theory is, in part, to offend -- to shock, to provoke thought, and anger, and outrage, and all the rest!

If Springer and S.O. were to shut down all Sandy Hook discussions RIGHT NOW -- delete all the threads, and ban anyone who so much had the words 'Sandy Hook' in their post -- on the basis that there was a real danger that the site might get sued or shut down; I would respect their decision.

BUT, they are making this an issue of ETHICS, "Heart", "Compassion" and "Respect". Which is absolutely absurd, because that same argument could be used to censor discussions about ANYTHING that deeply and personally offends anyone!

Where is the talk about "Heart" and "Compassion" when people deny the holocaust, and accuse European Jews of being the "synagogue of satan"? Where is the talk about "Heart" and "Compassion" when someone accuses George W Bush of being a blood-drinking lizard?

Are these people less worthy of our respect and compassion merely because they are public figures, or all long dead?

Why do the 20 children, dead in Newtown, deserve more respect, heart, compassion, and defference, than the thousands of individuals (children included) who died on 9/11?? -- An event that some people TO THIS DAY, still claim never happened?

That is a very emotionally compelling argument that I, for one, can not refute.

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN
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.

You're right. Our rights slowly degrade, it isn't a rapid transition from guns to no guns.

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post 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!!

Yea....because nobody has ever pulled that hand sign before unless they are involved in the murder of children have they?

My father is 73....he pulls that hand sign all the time, he probably thinks he's being cool....he most definitely has not ever been involved in child murder!

What a pathetic attempt to insult the deceased!

BUT Think about this...

You cannot tell me CNN (and others) are clueless to all the "conspiracy" theiories and showing all kinds of people with that sign...They know.

Why select that picture of random guy (her grandfather I believe) who didnt die?

Maybe they know that people will point this out as "a conspiracy" look foolish and thus make the waters even more muddy as many "truth seekers" follow the trail left by CNN which leads nowhere...

More divide and conquer.

-Thats what I would do IF I were a conspirator . leave tons of dead end clues for tons of people top go in tons of seperate directions while my real "plan/reason/agenda" hits them unaware and unprepared.

EDIT: Also note he is featured more prominently than the Victim..This was not accidental- They knew people would "run" with this.

reply to post by bknapple32
Not true. Ammunition is considered arms, specifically.

reply to post by Sek82

Guns have constitutional protection. Ammunition does not. It's that simple

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Sek82

 

Guns have constitutional protection. Ammunition does not. It's that simple

Can I quote that as verifiable legal advice from you?

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by RedBird

 

They have repeated multiple times the difference.. Public figure heads in 9/11 versus innocent civilians whose only crime was happening to be a name in a long story of a madman who killed 26 women and children.

I don't accept this argument.

bk: I'm with you on 90% of what you're saying, and I am thoroughly impressed by your passion and dedication in this discussion (I hope you will not be too appalled, but I added you as a friend.) I think you are arguing from a position of moral fortitude, and sense of honor, and duty to the victims' and their families.

But I disagree with you, and S.O., AND Springer, and anyone else who seeks to make an artificial distinction between the dubious, speculative, accusatory, unethical, racist statements that are present all over ATS (and remain, although I detest them, one of the reasons why I continue to consider ATS a bastion of free speech and free inquiry) and the repugnant, unintelligent, and dubious remarks made about some of the individuals involved in the Newtown CT shooting.

There is NO moral difference between saying that most of the victims of the holocaust "didn't really die" and saying that Emilie Parker "didn't really die".

There is NO moral difference between saying that George W Bush ordered the 9/11 attacks while pretending to be saddened by them, and saying that Robbie Parker is a paid actor only "pretending" that he is sad that his daughter died.

There is NO moral difference between saying that Christopher A Rodia MAY have been involved in the Newtown massacre, and saying that Dick Cheney MAY have been involved in the decision to demolish the World Trade Center towers on 9/11.

The distinction between "public figure" and "private citizen" is morally and ethically artificial, and illusory. It is a LEGAL FICTION, which we do well to bear mind of, but should recognize as such.

The call to civility and caution that S.O. and Springer have urged was, I suspect, motivated jointly by legal concern AND moral outrage. My position (and I will continue to argue for it) is that only the FIRST of those considerations should have any weight. But that is the consideration which has been LEAST acknowledged by the Mods.

They want to make this about 'Ethics', which is hypocritical in light of this website's mandate, and the types of offensive, speculative, insensitive, and occasionally racist comments which appear on this website ALL THE TIME without any kind of reaction from the Mods.

I implore you: Do not let moral outrage and the personal touch of tragedy cloud your judgement. If we allow this discussion to be stifled on the basis of offense, and 'Ethics', there is no saying how far this censorship can be carried by the fear of offense.

Let people wrong! Let them be offensive! Reel them in, or punish them, if they break the law.

But please, in light of all that we are doing here, do NOT descend to the contingency of prior restraint motivated by emotion. That is the end of free inquiry, and free discussion. It will be the end of ATS as a bastion of free thought, discussion; alternative ideas, and oppressed speech.

Sincerely,
-R

reply to post by EffTheCIA

You're right about guns flying off the shelves. However, why would they also be trying to reinstate the assault rifle ban then?

Well hey, the more things they can make illegal, the better chance they have of keeping full employment for the for-profit prison industry. Why they can't be up front enough to just call them slave plantations is probably because they're never up front. It amazes me to still see people say "wait for the final official story". ROFL

reply to post by bknapple32


Oh I agree others may see a difference, as is their prerogative...and I respect that Owners have the right to exercise privilege without need for explanation to the masses.

I disagree with it in principle, I personally don't see a difference between the topic at hand and numerous other topics...I get that personal details of...involved individuals were discussed, but I've seen other instances in other threads.

I respect the directive, but disagree with it all the same..my prerogative

Ammunition is a generic term derived from the French language la munition which embraced all material used for war (from the Latin munire, to provide), but which in time came to refer specifically to gunpowder and artillery. The collective term for all types of ammunition is munitions. In the widest sense of the word it covers anything that can be used in combat that includes bombs, missiles, warheads, and mines (landmines, naval mines, and anti-personnel mines)—that munitions factories manufacture. The purpose of ammunition is predominantly to project force against a selected target. However, the nature of ammunition use also includes delivery or combat supporting munitions such as pyrotechnic or incendiary compounds. Since the design of the cartridge, the meaning has been transferred to the assembly of a projectile and its propellant in a single package.

Ammunitions are not protected by the 2nd

Christ people-

Lets be honest, there really is no Constitution protection. There has not been in probably 50 years or more (Hell maybe since the start)-

"They" will do whatever they want... Free Speech Zones anyone? Kid arrested for writing a Zombie Story about his school in Kentucky? The damn Constitution (and Declaration of In dependence) is written on Illegal Hemp paper. Check points, random searches (legal) etc, etc, etc.

The Constitution will be upheld and interpreted in any way TPTB wish.

Can you all take the gun discussion to one of the hundreds of threads about that topic, instead of conituning to spiral this thread WAY off topic? Thanks.

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I will repost, again, what I posted in other threads dealing with Sandy Hook, because I want in know how I -- one of the chief architects of what ATS is today -- thinks of our membership in respect to the subject:

The Tragedy at Sandy Hook

HAS BROUGHT OUT THE WORST

of AboveTopSecret.com


I and our staff have witnessed the most incredible shameless self-absorbed credulous nonsense from our members following one of the worst horrors ever to hit a small community -- much less any community.

And this thread is the absolute worst display of your ludicrous narcissistic conjecture -- outing personal details of a private citizen and mocking him on the pages of our precious ATS for the world to see.


You should be ashamed -- but clearly, you're not capable of that.

This site, and its discussion board, was refashioned between 2003 and 2005 to hold conspiracy speculation to a higher standard and ideal than the typical mayhem and lunacy that was then popular throughout Internet communities dealing with similar subject matter. Our motto of "Deny Ignorance" was a call to action to be skeptical critical thinkers with regard to official stories and the ever worsening mass media. We took a great deal of flak, absorbed consistent criticism, and often saw ourselves smeared simply for holding to our ideals that these subjects deserve better of us. ATS management and staff held strong, never wavered, and grew to one of the most popular discussion boards of any topic.

The wildly foolish self-absorbed conjecture regarding the massacre in Newtown, CT has, in my opinion, thrown the quality of conversation on ATS all the way back to how horrible it was before we started our 6 years of hard work. Posting personal information of private citizens, then casting nasty aspersions on them, is the lowest of lows I've ever seen on this site for which I was once proud.


Those who have the urge to speculate on the minute oddities of the "story line" as is currently known should take fair warning that if the ethical quality of the discussion does not immediately improve, the staff will have no choice but to place a temporary hold on all discussions related to the massacre.

The staff and I will not let you ruin our years of hard work and suffer your ridiculousness.

Word.

I was quite shocked when I saw the personal info posted. An open forum is NOT the place for a person's private, personal info to be displayed.

Even if the "Court of ATS" dismisses the "charges" against him, any time someone googles this guy in the future the ATS thread would come up in the top results - way to ruin someone's reputation based only on theory. We need to embrace the concept of "Innocent until proven guilty" - doesn't matter if the person in question has an alleged history of felonious activity or not.

Remember people, whatever you post on the internet is forever. Regardless of his "guilt" or "innocence", defamatory material like this can follow a person around for the rest of their life.

Mods and Admins, excising the guy's name and details from the offending thread and subject line then waiting for the next google bot to correct the search results would be a prudent step. In some legal jurisdictions - including mine - he'd be well within his rights to sue the arse off ATS for defamation as it stands now.

Originally posted by JBA2848
Ammunition is a generic term derived from the French language la munition which embraced all material used for war (from the Latin munire, to provide), but which in time came to refer specifically to gunpowder and artillery. The collective term for all types of ammunition is munitions. In the widest sense of the word it covers anything that can be used in combat that includes bombs, missiles, warheads, and mines (landmines, naval mines, and anti-personnel mines)—that munitions factories manufacture. The purpose of ammunition is predominantly to project force against a selected target. However, the nature of ammunition use also includes delivery or combat supporting munitions such as pyrotechnic or incendiary compounds. Since the design of the cartridge, the meaning has been transferred to the assembly of a projectile and its propellant in a single package.

Ammunitions are not protected by the 2nd

Can I quote this as verified legal advice to be used in court?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Can you all take the gun discussion to one of the hundreds of threads about that topic, instead of conituning to spiral this thread WAY off topic? Thanks.

Sorry man. I wasn't intending on getting on that topic. I was merely pointing out that the MOTIVE of the crime was gun control. Then baconappled00d decided to say he didn't want to debate gun control, while proceeding to ask a question that was a blatant attempt to start a debate.

But really what this thread has been changed over to is free speech, which is the topic the mods officially changed it to.

Originally posted by bknapple32
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

The point is, following the OP, is to contribute factors to the story that haven't been debunked yet.

That thread proposes a church that knew 10 of the victims as previous parishioners. No mention of their loss, no personal reference? I'm not Catholic, so excuse my ignorance in relating the lack of inclusion of the loss of church members in a weekly bulletin to this tragedy. Church folk are usually close knit, and make headlines in a church bulletin, when one of them pass. Let alone 10. No mention of them?

reply to post by EffTheCIA


Well the NSSF is fighting in court over what you would call ammunition and they have broken it down to pieces. Shell casing lead bullet black powder and so on. So do you like their definition better than.

reply to post by EffTheCIA


You can keep saying that to try and make yourself feel better. But you are just wrong. Shocks me that so many who use the bill of rights in almost every argument, dont even fully understand or know it....


Same with this SH conspiracy nonsense. You dont even know what you are arguing. Just throwing crap theories against the wall, hoping something will stick. With no regard for the victims.