Gabby Giffords Husband Espied Purchasing an AR 15

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Indigo5

 

If you are a fan a manufactured consent and think the world revolves around public opinion, and not logic and reason . . . by all means keep up the propaganda machine.

Not at all...The majority of Americans were against the civil rights bill..every poll showed that...it was still the right thing to do and Americans evolved to support it shortly after it's passage. Mob rules is no way to govern.

What I am a fan of is the truth...and I have an unusual intolerance for BS...I scratch and claw at it...cuz it hurts both sides of the debate and the end product of that debate.

What you did was claim that the Polls were BS...Biased...a single small sample...

That claim was BS. It hurt your credibility.

It forces the other side to BS check everything you claim...And who wants to do that? Too much work.

Or

It encourages lessor folks to "fight fire with fire" and then you have both sides BSing...and who needs that.

So far in the gun debate...both sides are guilty of BS...but the pro-gun lobby/advocates have far exceeded the "regulation" crew...by miles and miles.

Finding legitimate arguments amongst gun-advocates takes more work than most people are capable of.

In that regard I think BS is hurting the debate and actually hurts pro-gun folks position...which does have some threads of veracity and logic...just burried in BS though.

Originally posted by solomons path
So . . . 143 shooting with 4 or more (thanks mother jones) over the last 20 years and about 60 involved hi-cap or the mythical "assault weapon". Are you claiming that these crimes wouldn't have happened without them?

I think the question as to whether these weapons "embolden" shooters to carry out mass shootings is an open question. I am not committed to one side or the other of that question. It goes to reason that some of these shooters derived confidence to carry out thier acts from the weapons and high capacity magazines available. The other side of that debate is ...crazy is crazy and crazy will do what it does.

I do think that the death toll would be less with lessor tools, if not the number of incidents. And that logic is solid IMO.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Indigo5

 

If you are a fan a manufactured consent and think the world revolves around public opinion, and not logic and reason . . . by all means keep up the propaganda machine.

Not at all...The majority of Americans were against the civil rights bill..every poll showed that...it was still the right thing to do and Americans evolved shortly after it's passage. Mob rules is no way to govern.

What I am a fan of is the truth...and I have an unusual intolerance for BS...I scratch and claw at it...cuz it hurts both sides of the debate and the end product of that debate.

What you did was claim that the Polls were BS...Biased...a single small sample...

That was BS.

No I claimed BS because they use what they want and discard the rest to manufacture consent . . . Nothing BS about that claim, feel free to look into Lippmann and Bernays and how the gov uses their principles to push agendas, even the civil rights issue. It's why the media is effective. Again using polling to back up your civil rights example, which was used to create strife and pass equality laws, when it was a very small percentage who actually were against real civil rights for all.

You also seem to be operating under the assumption that the "Right" doesn't want these issue to pass as well, I'm assuming since you like to throw in Fox polls, mention the NRA, and such. Both arms of the political spectrum in this country want control . . . not protection of the individual. The are both rooted in Collectivism. The "Rights" media arm or the NRA giving lip service, fear mongering, or creating division has no consequence, when in the end they are just as complicit in crushing the rights of the individual and supporting these types of measures . . . unless you just listen to media soundbites and not look at their actions.

The only BS that is being spewed is by you . . . And, once again, I see you have no response to the link or the fact that this is not a new agenda on either side. If you are such a fan of the truth, why do you ignore the agenda or the several statements and reports, on record, stating at such.

So last chance, before you are ignored as promoting the agenda . . . do you have any rational argument other than polls? Are you claiming that any of these "killings" would have never taken place if there weren't "assault weapons"? Why has the gun homicide rate been falling since the 90's, despite gun ownership going up over 200%? Why were gun homicides higher than today under the previous AWB? Will you keep ignoring the history of this debate and just keep regurgitating media sound bites?

ETA - obviously this was posted before I saw your post above.

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by solomons path
So . . . 143 shooting with 4 or more (thanks mother jones) over the last 20 years and about 60 involved hi-cap or the mythical "assault weapon". Are you claiming that these crimes wouldn't have happened without them?

I think the question as to whether these weapons "embolden" shooters to carry out mass shootings is an open question. I am not committed to one side or the other of that question. It goes to reason that some of these shooters derived confidence to carry out thier acts from the weapons and high capacity magazines available. The other side of that debate is ...crazy is crazy and crazy will do what it does.

I do think that the death toll would be less with lessor tools, if not the number of incidents. And that logic is solid IMO.

Well . . . you can hold that opinion, about less casualties. That is fair. I disagree complete about the "type" of weapon emboldening anyone . . . the tool didn't cause them or convince them to kill. Whether crazy or not . . . they did what they did due to casuation beyond method.

EVERYBODY IN AMERICA IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE RISING PRICES OF GUNS. DID YOU EVER WONDER WHAT PEOPLE ARE DOING IN OTHER COUNTRIES? LIKE, WHAT'S THE PRICE OF AN AK ON THE BLACK MARKET? HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES:

Afghanistan: $1,500

Average price of AK-47 worldwide: $534

European Union: $665 for rocket launchers and AK-47s

Iraq: Up to $800, with model favored by Osama Bin Laden going for $2,000

Mexico: $1,400 by U.S. border / $3,000 in Southern Survival Mexico

Niger Delta: $75 for AK-47 (Such a deal...an AK for under a hundred bucks?!)

Profit in the U.S.: $500 for selling AK-47 to Mexican drug cartels

Somalia: $400 for authentic Russian AK-47 / $600 for North Korean model.

Sudan: $86 for AK-47, $33 for child (guns are more in demand than children in the Sudan)

United States: $400 in California's black market

Syria: $2,100 for AK-47, $2,000 for RPG

Before the Syrian uprising and protests, the cost for an AK-47 in Syria was reported to be $1,200. At the start of 2012, the black market price for an AK-47 increased to $2,100 as the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad continued.

HEY, YOU LADIES IN NEW YORK....YOU DON'T NEED NO STINKING GUN. ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS CALL A COP. RIGHT?

Jury finds NYPD cop guilty of plotting to kidnap, cook, eat women

usnews.nbcnews.com...

reply to post by solomons path


I do not believe in a conspiracy between the GOP, Dems and Media plus independant pollsters where certain parties pretend to be Pro-Gun whilst conspiring to disarm the public.

As to your other question...Your slide show centered on Fully Automatic vs. Semi-Automatic as the sole, relevant criteria for a weapons comparitive utility in killing. I disagree with that premise.

Better late the never....the mainstream lamestream media FINALLY picked up on the Mark Kelly/AR 15 story.

This story has been all over the blogosphere all weekend. The mainstream lamestream media just sort of forgot to look into why Mark Kelly purchased an AR.

So, now that the mainstream lamestream media has waded into this controversy, is this the end of the Mark Kelly story?

I dun'no.




Doug MacKinlay is the owner of Diamondback Police Supply, the shop where Kelly bought the guns. He said Kelly bought the rifle on March 5 but couldn't immediately take possession of it because the shop had bought it from a customer. As a result, the store is required by a Tucson ordinance to hold the gun for 20 days to give the city enough time to make sure the weapon wasn't used in a crime, MacKinlay said.

news.yahoo.com...

Originally posted by Indigo5
reply to post by solomons path

 

I do not believe in a conspiracy between the GOP, Dems and Media plus independant pollsters where certain parties pretend to be Pro-Gun whilst conspiring to disarm the public.

As to your other question...Your slide show centered on Fully Automatic vs. Semi-Automatic as the sole, relevant criteria for a weapons comparitive utility in killing. I disagree with that premise.

It's no conspiracy . . . it's how they operate. Even Superstar Progressive-mentor Carroll Quiqley talks about it in "Tragedy and Hope" when talking about the illusion of the two-party paradigm . . . if you want to ignore and think they are all on the up and up . . . go right ahead, but that doesn't negate the reality of it. Also, feel free to read anything by Lippmann or Bernays on how to mold public opinion for manufactured consent and contrast with how things are run today by the media/gov. Your belief is inconsequential. From "Tragedy and Hope" pgs 1247-1248:

The argument of two parties should represent opposed ideas and policies, one perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinate and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. The policies that are vital and necessary for America are no longer subjects of significant disagreement, but are disputable only in details of procedure, priority, or method.”

For the weapons argument . . . If all you got out of that slide pres was auto vs semi . . . you are intentionally being obtuse or only looked at the first couple slides.

While they did outline the difference between an assault rifle and the mythical "assault weapon" it clearly shows the absurdity of the current argument, as well as on record statements to the ineffectiveness and direction of the agenda.

Prior to 1989, the term "assault weapon" did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of "assault rifles."

[H]andgun restriction is simply not viewed as a priority. Assault weapons ... are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

In the late 1980s, more than two decades after the AR-15 was first sold to the American public, the anti-gun lobby began a systematic campaign to conflate it and other "military-style" firearms with machine guns. The media followed suit, and soon the American public began to think that an assault weapon was, like the assault rifles it resembled, a machine gun.

Because assault rifles were already banned, and because an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms wasn't considered politically feasible, the AWB defined assault weapons as semi-automatic firearms that shared too many cosmetic features with their fully automatic counterparts.

N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.

Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

But after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the AR-15 and other so-called assault weapons were widely depicted as military weapons whose only purpose was to rapidly kill large numbers of people.

Assault Weapons

Keep claiming that you are just "interested in the truth", while continually posting soundbites and misleading and misinformed opinion . . . Keep pushing that agenda of control. I get it . . . some people need nannys and are more comfortable living under totalitarian rule.

Originally posted by solomons path

Keep claiming that you are just "interested in the truth", while continually posting soundbites and misleading and misinformed opinion . . . Keep pushing that agenda of control. I get it . . . some people need nannys and are more comfortable living under totalitarian rule.

Good for you an the sources and citations...plus the passion and reasonably well articulated posts.

Not so much on the baiting though....

Either way...not buying that conspiracy, but admittedly not interested in digging into the obscure texts you provided to rebut your claim either.

Enjoy..

Originally posted by macman
reply to post by ColoradoJens

 

My beliefs are just that. MINE.
They really have nothing to do with this as they don't change the Constitution.

Your beliefs are the only thing that can change the constitution.

CJ

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by solomons path

Keep claiming that you are just "interested in the truth", while continually posting soundbites and misleading and misinformed opinion . . . Keep pushing that agenda of control. I get it . . . some people need nannys and are more comfortable living under totalitarian rule.

Good for you an the sources and citations...plus the passion and reasonably well articulated posts.

Not so much on the baiting though....

Either way...not buying that conspiracy, but admittedly not interested in digging into the obscure texts you provided to rebut your claim either.

Enjoy..

Exactly . . . flyby misrepresentations and misinformation followed by the typical "I've said my piece" when confronted with the facts . . .Straight out of the Progressive handbook, whatever wins hearts and minds, right?

Have a good night!

Jared Lee Loughner used a 9mm Glock model 19 pistol in the supermarket parking lot in Casas Adobes, Arizona, Tucson metropolitan area.

Now - Regarding both the Loughner and Lanza incidents - We must be wary of the sinister Zionist family ties of Maurice Greenberg, who was the Executive and CEO of AIG, to both of them - and is also one of the most powerful men in the US. These ominous familial ties that link to both of the following shooting incidents are to be found in Christina-Taylor Green(berg) of the Loughner fraud that featured Gabby Giffords, and Jennifer Greenberg Sexton of the Sandy Hook fraud that featured Adam Lanza.

Be mindful: Adam Lanza is just a photo-shopped version of Ryan Lanza (Good Link) - hence the reason for the PTB having confounded the issue of Adam vs Ryan at the very beginning of their odious and all pervasive propaganda campaign regarding the fraud that is Sandy Hook.

Following the excerpt (below) at the Forum that published this information you will come upon a very convincing pictorial essay as proof positive of the allegations outlined in the thread.

I'm starting to believe now that Adam Lanza never existed, but instead various pics of a real Ryan Lanza were used and photo-shopped to create Adam Lanza. My reasons for this is the newly discovered Peter Lanza picasa albums which date back to 2006 and there are zero adam pics. There are several Peter Ryan pics from 2006 though and if Adam was real there should be some there somewhere.

And after perusing the plenty of great info and links at www.insanemedia.net...
I've concluded that Adam was fabricated by the Lanza family somewhere around 2009. Until i see a hard-copy of the following school yearbooks ... I shall remain on this hypothesis.

The Tucson gun shop owner issued a statement that had he known Mark Kelly was purchasing the AR 15 to make a political statement, he would have refused to sell the AR to Mark Kelly.

The gun shop owner stated that he does not sell guns for political commentary.

Originally posted by coltcall
The Tucson gun shop owner issued a statement that had he known Mark Kelly was purchasing the AR 15 to make a political statement, he would have refused to sell the AR to Mark Kelly.

The gun shop owner stated that he does not sell guns for political commentary.

That's interesting. An American denied his right to buy a gun because someone doesn't like what he's going to do with it, even while being totally legal. Did he say what other personal reasons he has for denying people the right to buy? Skin color? Political affiliation?

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by coltcall
The Tucson gun shop owner issued a statement that had he known Mark Kelly was purchasing the AR 15 to make a political statement, he would have refused to sell the AR to Mark Kelly.

The gun shop owner stated that he does not sell guns for political commentary.

That's interesting. An American denied his right to buy a gun because someone doesn't like what he's going to do with it, even while being totally legal. Did he say what other personal reasons he has for denying people the right to buy? Skin color? Political affiliation?

CJ

He is a private buisness owner . . . he can deny business to anyone he chooses.

Skin color, sex, religion, age are the only items you can't discrimate against according to law. Anything else is the right of the "private" business owner . . . including political affiliation. In fact, he doesn't even have to give Mark Kelly a reason other than . . . you are not welcome in this store. That said, Mark Kelly could protest all he wants outside of the store, as long as he is not on the property owned by the store.

As an AZ resident and someone who knows several gun shop owner, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that when his weapon is picked up, he will be tresspased and not allowed back.

That's the great thing about this country . . .

ETA - just wanted to add . . . you can not post signs or bar anyone based on race, sex, religion, age . . . however, you also don't have to do business with them if that is your preference and it is not based on those factors. In Kelly's case he openly admited to using this store for political motivations without the consent of the owner. However, it would have been just as legal to deny service for a hindu black eldery woman, if the reason was identical.

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by coltcall
The Tucson gun shop owner issued a statement that had he known Mark Kelly was purchasing the AR 15 to make a political statement, he would have refused to sell the AR to Mark Kelly.

The gun shop owner stated that he does not sell guns for political commentary.

That's interesting. An American denied his right to buy a gun because someone doesn't like what he's going to do with it, even while being totally legal. Did he say what other personal reasons he has for denying people the right to buy? Skin color? Political affiliation?

CJ

Well, he's a liberal. Maybe the gun dealer didn't feel he would be mentally stable? That's reason alone to deny a person a gun isn't it?

reply to post by timetothink


Sorry. Better things to do than worry about non-issues.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by ColoradoJens

Originally posted by coltcall
The Tucson gun shop owner issued a statement that had he known Mark Kelly was purchasing the AR 15 to make a political statement, he would have refused to sell the AR to Mark Kelly.

The gun shop owner stated that he does not sell guns for political commentary.

That's interesting. An American denied his right to buy a gun because someone doesn't like what he's going to do with it, even while being totally legal. Did he say what other personal reasons he has for denying people the right to buy? Skin color? Political affiliation?

CJ

Well, he's a liberal. Maybe the gun dealer didn't feel he would be mentally stable? That's reason alone to deny a person a gun isn't it?

So, you are a staunch 2nd amendement person but want to restrict ownership to those you agree with eh? Sounds anti-2nd amendment to me. Afterall, a gun is a gun. Guns don't kill people and guns don't make political statements.

CJ

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
So, you are a staunch 2nd amendement person but want to restrict ownership to those you agree with eh? Sounds anti-2nd amendment to me. Afterall, a gun is a gun. Guns don't kill people and guns don't make political statements. CJ

Many gun-shop owners recognize in 'Liberals' a clear and present danger to society and to otherwise ordinary common sense Americans who uphold the gun laws of these United States. There are literally hundreds of gun shop owners like this all over America..........thank God for right thinking Americans.

'Arizona Gun Store Tells Obama Voters to ‘Turn Around and Leave’ You're Not Welcome Here...........'

An Arizona gun store has a simple message for Barack Obama voters: you’re not welcome here. The Blaze, The Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Ariz. posted a sign on its door and took out a newspaper ad declaring that if you voted for the president last week, you’re not allowed in. “If you voted for Obama, please turn around and leave! You have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm!” the sign states.

Owner Cope Reynolds conceded that he can’t really tell who voted for Obama unless they “own up to it” — but if they do, they’re out.…

=====================================================================================
SEE ALSO
Texas Gun Store Bans Socialists & Obama Supporters in Radio Ad: “You Have Already Proven You Cannot Make a Knowledgeable & Prudent Decision Under the Law” (Video)

A Texas gun trainer released an ad this week for his handgun training class. He bans liberals from the class saying:

“If you are a socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner in chief, please do not take this class. You have already proven that you cannot make a knowledgeable and prudent decision under the law.”

Agreed.
The ad also bans non-Christian Arabs and Muslims from taking the class.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------< br /> DONT'CHA JUST LOVE IT JEN?