Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When will people start understanding that many of these mass shootings are DELIBERATE? The CIA and other intelligence agencies often deliberately use trauma based mind control on the assassins to carry out their agenda. It's the ideal psy op used on the populace. Create a problem (mind controlled assassins). Have a reaction (We need gun control). Impose the "solution" (gun control, with an eventual complete ban on all guns) that you wanted all along, but wouldn't have gotten popular support for had you not deliberately created a crisis. Problem. Reaction. Solution. It's the most common method used in many facets of life in order to take away our rights and to centralize power and control.
Until people start understanding many of these mass shooters are actually under trauma based mind control programming by our own government, they will understand nothing of the issue.
Documented facts are read aloud in the below video.
TV hypnotizes people to the point they believe everything. Subliminal messages were attacked back in the 60s though they never disappeared. People will believe anything news reporters spew forth.
Given psy ops mind control can be problem, reaction and solution wouldn't it first start with agenda?
TV is the device by which the public is hypnotized and they needn't be beaten up or given drugs. Too many become mindless zombies for watching TV and take anything broadcast to them as truth. I don't watch enough TV.
Government can conduct large scale psy ops in this way.
AGENDA - "Gun violence" needs to be put into the minds of the public to scare them so they demand gun control news network talking heads will spout off about every day. Put it on TV in the form of news and have sports announcers make statements during primetime sporting events. Produce Special reports presented by journalists telling heartstring tugging tales along with images meant to garner sympathy. The public in general must look upon guns as evil.
PROBLEM - What if some guy went to a school and shot up 20 kids, some adults and then himself? What if the news network broadcasting it consisted of a helicopter flying over the buildings this happened as well as others nearby while puppets droned on for hours tossing in key words, hypothetic opinions, and neat journalistic opeds which supposedly explained everything?
REACTION - What if the POTUS went on national TV and weighed in on the incident and spoke strongly about "gun violence"? Subliminally - if we have a conversation about "gun violence" we could disarm the public and everyone will be safe. Save the children.
The narrative was aimed at "gun violence".
What if this narrative went on for years and a lot of the facts changed along the way?
What guns were actually used?
The news networks never pursue this as it doesn't fit the narrative. The families of victims go on national TV to further the agenda and the TV viewing public are entranced more and more.
What if, for months on end, all of the other news outlets were using the same helicopter camera shots as well as parroting the narrative derived from the original live broadcasts and even embellishing upon them? What if there was no physical evidence ever produced of any shooting but the majority of America - and the world - believed it to be true with no doubts? Sight unseen?
Some person of clear mind may suggest things didn't happen as they were told but due to subliminal messaging - hypnotism - they don't budge; they have been convinced.
In this scenario an assassin wasn't brainwashed, the public was and rather easily. This can occur whenever an agenda must be pushed.
Monty (is this in reference to Monty Python ?), I don't know any parents who just hand their kid a rifle and say "go shoot something". If one is willing to teach their son or daughter to shoot, they will most likely teach them safety first.
About not playing with others because of their religious beliefs - again, must be Utah thing.
No its not in reference to Monty python but a good call
It is a Utah thing, so where is that land of the Free constitution now? Religious beliefs even if others do not share that belief are enforced on others via legislation. Alcohol laws being one of them and influencing who people mix with(or segregation), public transport not running late at weekends so it puts people off coming into the city to go out. Not what I would call freedom really. restriction of freedom actually. Its sad, such a beautiful place, some real good people and superb climate and yet people are allowed to control others personal freedom and its not illegal.
Suicide is relevant to the discussion, why would you think otherwise? Maybe you should ask a loved one of someone who committed suicide by someone who had ready access to a gun if they think it's 'relevant'. As to this: "Why is it homicide rates are lower in high gun ownership states than in low ones?" the fact is that except for a few states in the west they generally aren't.
A new study found that states with higher rates of firearms in the home have disproportionately big numbers of gun-related homicides.
After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide
I'm rational enough to understand that we have far too many guns in this Country to do anything about it. And I don't hate guns, my husband and I both own guns and we target shoot. My point is that it is illogical and untrue to say that gun deaths decrease when people have more guns rather than fewer, and the other false premise is that there are fewer gun deaths in states with lax gun laws. I get it if you tell me you love your guns and that you don't want anyone to interfere with your right to own them. I don't get it when you say that having more guns makes us safer, or that not having any gun laws makes us safer.
^^^Sentence makes no sense at all.
US has more violent people. If they didn't have guns they would use sticks, rocks, knives or other items. Hanging or burning works.
Guns are impersonal as one needn't be within arm's reach of the victim. Other means cause one to be close enough to look the victim in the eye; a more personal thing.
No its not in reference to Monty python but a good call
It is a Utah thing, so where is that land of the Free constitution now? Religious beliefs even if others do not share that belief are enforced on others via legislation. Alcohol laws being one of them and influencing who people mix with(or segregation), public transport not running late at weekends so it puts people off coming into the city to go out. Not what I would call freedom really. restriction of freedom actually. Its sad, such a beautiful place, some real good people and superb climate and yet people are allowed to control others personal freedom and its not illegal.
LDS was a scary cult when they started out, they've come a long way.
The laws influenced by religion don't only exist in Utah. There's a difference between forcing everyone to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or regulating alcohol joints open hours. There's many laws on the books based on the moral views held by majority of voters, and not just in the US.
Sex education is taught in our schools all the time without anyone actually showing the students how to do the nasty. Firearms safety could be taught in the classroom just as easily. If the parents of the students approved I would let those students learn hands on firearms safety. Kids are learning all the WRONG ways to handle guns by watching violent TV shows, Movies and Video Games every day. Wouldn't it be better to teach them gun safety in a school over the wrong ways?
LDS was a scary cult when they started out, they've come a long way.
The laws influenced by religion don't only exist in Utah. There's a difference between forcing everyone to believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet, or regulating alcohol joints open hours. There's many laws on the books based on the moral views held by majority of voters, and not just in the US.
Oh I know there are much worse states in the US, but it is ironic that in the land of the free religion can curtail peoples freedom or exert such control via legislation and be allowed to, but in many countries religion in this context is not allowed to be mixed with politics or legislation and give one area of society undue influence. Yes things have come a long way here compared to what it was like even 5 years ago and people are starting to break down barriers but there are still a lot who prevent this from happening and the majority of those are either parents or religious leaders. Depending on who is appointed to be principal at various schools can affect a child's experience. So if a child is excluded by others at school because they do not share that belief, there is no guarantee you could go to the Principal and have it dealt with. Even going above the principal there is no guarentees as those appointed to the education board also could ignore any issues. So then what happens with the rights of that child under the constitution? anyway I will say no more as some may feel I am digressing but I was trying to make a point that sometimes freedom is only allowed here if others allow it to happen. Obviously guns are part of a constitutional right but it seems sometimes inclusion isn't. It also shows that people can start out being ok and yet influences can change that behaviour.
Last edited by Montygirl; 07-26-2015 at 11:50 PM..
That maybe to do with lack of public transport. People have to drive here as they don't have a choice. Only probably NYC and maybe Boston have a decent public transport system . LA is huge and a major city but everyone drives everywhere as there is no public transport. In a lot of major cities elsewhere in the world people don't take their cars, especially when drinking and before you jump on the drink drive argument I'm not saying people don't do it but probably less do as if we are going out for a drink we just get public transport. I have been to many major cities in the world and never needed a car. Same way as drink driving is more of a problem in rural villages in Ireland but not such an issue in Dublin. A lot of people want to go have a drink but if there is no way of getting home or limited ways they will drink and drive. Taxis are not readily available in some places. Even here the Trax only runs until 11.15pm and if you want a taxi then you have to rely on an app to get home or someone has to drive. No spontaneous meet ups for a beer everything has to be planned. A lot of countries have lower alcohol laws but they don't always drink drive or have a silly attitude to alcohol or feel the need to binge drink. I was bought up around my parents having the odd drink and sensible attitudes to alcohol. Never driven when drunk and if went anywhere where no way of getting home then people too it in turns to drink drive. Never binge drinked even at Uni.Liked to drinked but always in aware of what was going on. Even with the relaxed drinking laws in the UK, most people still go home between about 1 & 2am even though bars open later and by public transport and didn't live in London for last 15 years but outside it.
So you agree with the drinking age being 21 and feel if it was lowered the problem would be worse and more would drink drive?
If one can enlist in the Armed Forces or vote at the age of 18, one should be able to drink alcohol legally.
The main problem is that those most vocal about control have often made it quite clear that they give **** all about "sensible gun ownership", they just see each added restriction as moving along the path to a complete gun ban, or at least one where we all get to own nothing more high-powered than a .22 rifle.....for "hunting purposes" of course.
I think most gun rights advocates would be a lot more amicable to various restrictions if folks across the aisle weren't constantly talking about banning guns altogether as well as inventing this whole bull**** strawman about the 2nd Amendment referring to hunting or target practice when the words of the people who were responsible for the Constitution clearly indicate otherwise.
I have typed basically the same in here. I didn't use the Federalist Papers but drew upon my knowledge of the Constitution and what the framers suggested, though I have read the Papers and other sources. Lots of people who think they know the Constitution should.
Who signed it? 3 men from my state did. The link to it is readily available to it if I want to refer to it and I have a hard copy in my drawer. It's on my Kindle.
Oh I know there are much worse states in the US, but it is ironic that in the land of the free religion can curtail peoples freedom or exert such control via legislation and be allowed to, but in many countries religion in this context is not allowed to be mixed with politics or legislation and give one area of society undue influence. Yes things have come a long way here compared to what it was like even 5 years ago and people are starting to break down barriers but there are still a lot who prevent this from happening and the majority of those are either parents or religious leaders. Depending on who is appointed to be principal at various schools can affect a child's experience. So if a child is excluded by others at school because they do not share that belief, there is no guarantee you could go to the Principal and have it dealt with. Even going above the principal there is no guarentees as those appointed to the education board also could ignore any issues. So then what happens with the rights of that child under the constitution? anyway I will say no more as some may feel I am digressing but I was trying to make a point that sometimes freedom is only allowed here if others allow it to happen. Obviously guns are part of a constitutional right but it seems sometimes inclusion isn't. It also shows that people can start out being ok and yet influences can change that behaviour.
Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
1A states congress (federal government) cannot declare a national religion, like the Church of England, nor prevent any from practicing any.
What this does is protect religion from the state and the state from religion.
It also protects the people from having to accept religion.
You only go back 5 years in Mormon history to explain them? Go back to Joseph Smith and continue until today. They had some pretty wild ideas.
What Constitutional rights of children are being repressed? Are you insisting other kids excluding one or more from their activities goes against the Constitution? I suggest you read it word for word and find where that little detail isn't.
The Constitution isn't about tort cases; that is up to individual states.
Some liberal lawyer may try to bring a case against the school board but lol!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
