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.
Some people, when they have an agenda that is not getting support will revert to communicating with an "internet baseball bat, upside the head" in an attempt to get their point across. I've noticed that GuynTexas is swinging his internet bat more and more as he is believing his posts more and more. Problem is the right wing media seems to be flogging vague conspiracy theories, so the word is out in right wing circles that this is the response to use. I'm still not sure why.
The overiding consideration here is, "To what end?" Why would "They" do it now, right before a presidential election? It is political suicide. The House is republican controlled and no gun bill by any sponsor will make it out of committee to even come for a vote. The only thing that can happen is that the sponsor and co-signers get run out of office on a rail by the voters. The Clinton Mid terms proved this and no Dem or Repub would dare take the bait. The gun control bills that have been dusted off are all by the usual suspects McCarthy, Shumer, Brady Bunch, et al and they always throw them out for fodder whenever there is any type of negative spotlight put on firearms. That is their agenda and has been so since they've been in office and everybody knows it. So politically, there's nothing new here. None of the political heavy hitters have introduced any anti gun acts or made resounding speeches demanding gun control. It would be political suicide at this point in time. So if the Feds initiated a couple mass killings to foster gun control they really screwed the pooch because now is exactly the wrong time to push for national gun control.
I ask again. "To What End" would these mass killings benefit a conspiracy with the end result of national gun control?
GuyNTexas made mention of the UN treaty that Obama may sign. Let's take a look at that.
FYI: To dispell another Right wing myth as I am versed in current and pending gun control legislation; The United Nations gun ban that the right wing is carping about is really an agreement among member countries to curtail the international sale and transfer of weapons from country to country. For us It means that many firearm imports that come into America would no longer be imported. I say "So What?" We have Colt Arms, Remington, Springfield, Smith and Wesson, Ruger, many more American arms manufacturers and if a foreign manufacturer is registered and has an American site they will still be able to manufacture and sell any gun they want without restriction. Republicans are always harping on bring our jobs back home, well here it is. No more cheap foreign imports using foreign labor. American made guns using American labor. What's wrong with that? The UN thing is just another fear tactic to promote hate and discord against the current administration, as in, "See The OBAMA Administration is selling out the country again!!!!" Just another load of right wing horse pucky shoveled onto the table of debate.
I am a political atheist, owing no allegiance to either party since I find both equally corrupt, and neither trustworthy. Having said that, the support base on the left are enthusiastically anti-gun, and make no effort to hide that fact. Obama, and the democrats in general have consistently favored stricter gun laws, and this cannot be denied. The only thing that stops them from calling for outright bans of all firearms is the upheaval that would produce. So they remain patient and content with the tactic of slowly chipping away, as they understand how sleepy eyed the public actually is.
I find your assessment about lack of gun control support, or the political fallout that might be a concern to Obama and the democrats to be drenched in pollyannaism, given the disregard the Obama administration has shown for constitutional principles, ranging from unauthorized military action, to forced health care, to the lawless nature of the ATF and Department of Justice behavior in the Fast & Furious operation, which I previously posted CBS News reporting of documents acquired showing that indeed, Fast & Furious included the agenda of using these covert arms transfers as a tool for gaining support for unpopular new regulations to be imposed on Federally Licensed Firearm Dealers in the US. So the anti 2nd Amendment temperament and disposition of this administration couldn't be more clearly demonstrated, and therefore, any proposal regarding gun regulation should be met with immediate skepticism.
As pertaining to the UN Small Arms Treaty, one need first consider the source, and the UN has a particularly dubious history of nefarious conduct. To add to that the fact, the vast majority of UN member nations do not recognize their own citizens rights to own firearms is another major concern for becoming tied to them in any way shape or form. This is particularly poignant given that the treaty stipulates that signatory states may propose "amendments" to the treaty that may become effective by consensus agreement, and therefore binding. Note, consensus does not mean unanimous agreement, so a consensus of other nations could impose future obligations not originally part of the treaty that we might not agree with.
I will say again, you and others seem to possess a style of wisdom and logic more suitable to tic tac toe, rather than the more complex logic required of Chess, with your shortsighted, surface analysis of the UN treaty and it's implications. First, the treaty would not just be limited to restrictions on importing foreign made firearms as you suggest (and dismiss so casually), even though that result would have it's own set of negative consequences. Aside from the fact that such would disrupt access to some of the more popular, reliable, and cost effective weapons we now have access to, it would limit our choices to domestically manufactured weapons only, and totally reliant on those sources, including ammunition, which has already seen shortages in the market place over the past couple of years WITH access to foreign sources. It would not be out of the realm of possibility that if such restriction were established, it would not be a difficult matter for federal law enforcement and military to purchase large quantities of domestic ammunition, creating an empty pipeline ... and firearms are of little use without ammunition. These restrictions could also place financial burdens on domestic manufacturers by eliminating their export markets, threatening their viability ... and hence, our access should those businesses fail.
And perhaps you are also unaware of quiet efforts by financial institutions like Bank of America to terminate long standing banking relations, and closing accounts of some weapons manufacturers? This would not constitute a violation of the 2nd amendment, since the banks have no legal obligation to do business with a private party, but could indeed assist in the failure of those businesses should they find a more universal reluctance of major banks to do business with them, which could effectively shut them down.
The reality is, if one were intent upon the eventual disarming of the American public at some point in the future, the end of foreign importation of firearms would be an incremental step, beneficial to that goal, by limiting sources and alternatives to domestic products. Then, the next step could be to weaken those domestic manufacturers such as the aforementioned Bank of America approach, and a host of other possible tactics. In this age of consolidation and corporate take overs, there would be nothing to stop certain transnational corporations to buy up these firearms manufacturers, and make the "business decision" to either price their products to unaffordable levels, or even end production for whatever reason they may cite. This could effectively end access to firearms entirely, with no need for a government violation of the 2nd Amendment ... just private businesses making private business decisions.
This is just the beginning of the issues which you have miserably failed to consider ... and we haven't even addressed the registration and reporting requirements, or the limiting of sales, person to person transfers of weapons ... etc.. etc. And the very first step in the elimination of privately owned firearms would necessarily desire an accurate national registration of every firearm owned, including type, S/N, and location and person owning them. This database would facilitate locating firearms for future confiscation.
To address this tic tac toe logic inherent in your contention that political fallout would preclude steps toward stricter gun control laws by Obama .... after november, upon his possible re-election, that concern would vanish, and allow him 4 more years to do as he pleases without concern for such political considerations.
I could go on ... but your crude analysis of the matter is so fraught with problems, no further delineation of it's deficiencies is actually necessary. It's a fools argument on the surface.
Well, Honestly, GuyNTexas, I don't discount the fact that the FBI has done some dirty backhanded deeds out of hand. In fact I have first hand experience of that exact thing happening. I will make a great admission and expose myself just to make a point.
My first cousin was a man named Richard Oakes. We grew up on the Mohawk reservation together. When the Indians took over Alcatraz Island in November 1969 Richard Oakes was the leader of the action. I actually lived in Marin County and used to run the Coast Guard blockade in a boat to bring food and other supplies to the indians under seige there. After the Indians were expelled from the island, there was great chaos among the original group but the core agreed to continue the fight for indian rights. A Souix named Banks, head of the AIM, was part of the group for a short period. Shortly after, My cousin Richard was killed in south San Francisco. The Tribe did an independant investigation and a few years later my Grandmother came out to Marin Co. to visit. She said she wanted me to take her to Alcatraz Is. so she could see what Richard died for before she passed away. She sat me down and told me that the independant investigation conducted by the tribe and their investigators found that the man who killed my cousin was an FBI informant and infiltrator. This is documented in the tribal record. The feds also broke up the AIM (American Indian Movement) around that time by using infiltrators and informants.
So you see sir, I am no stranger to the machinations of the federal government.
Then I can find no rational basis for the pollyanna attitude you're continuing to display in response to my skepticism of the official account of the events. Seems as though you're familiar enough with the FBI's willingness to behave in a criminal manner to not make such a naive error in judgement. Do you believe the FBI has experienced some revelation .... abandoned the dark side and turned to the light?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
In this case and the Colorado Theater shooting I do believe you're p!$$ing up a tree, respectfully speaking, for the following reasons;
1. It's too soon to make wild assumptions about the actual events and the motives behind it
2. If there were more than 1 shooter, most likely it would be compatriots of the skinhead
3. In my view it is the wildest of the wild speculations that this shooting is somehow connected to highly secret government programs that deserve protecting by performing mass killings.
1) I'm making no wild assumptions AT ALL ... just pointing out inconsistencies in the official story which doesn't fit witness testimony. I reject the idea that the opening of that emergency exit by an unidentified person was purely coincidental to the event. The chances of that are astronomically slim. I consider police statements which definitively claim no evidence exists to indicate more than one participant is an outright lie, when there exist witnesses that claim otherwise. And that theme is consistent in both events.
2) Holmes was OBVIOUSLY NOT a skin head. The big clue can be found in that bushy head of hair dyed bright red. Secondly, this is supposed to be a case of a mentally unstable person having a psychological breakdown. An accomplice or accomplices would immediately destroy the validity of that explanation, and indeed point to a conspiracy of some sort. Let me remind you that a "conspiracy" is nothing more than two or more people planning a crime, and would necessarily indicate a motive, rather than a random act of a nut who thought he was participating in a movie.
3) Your view of the matter seems extremely narrow, and based on nothing more than news reports which insist on maintaining the "lone gunman" theme, in spite of witnesses claiming accomplices, and without addressing the issue of who opened the emergency door. The official story doesn't just leave too many questions unanswered, but conspicuously avoids them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mohawkx
But then again, your doubts and research is what finally brings the light of truth to darkness so I commend your persistance and commitment to the truth. But give us more than air to chew on. Give us something hard that points to a conspiracy. Connect some dots for us and we're all in.
I've provided you plenty to chew on ... you're the one refusing to chew. You have directly characterized as wild assumptions, my pointing out glaring inconsistencies in the official accounts of both of these shooting events. What you apparently view as wild assumptions, I consider to be direct observations and elementary common sense.
Someone is sounding out of touch with reality and it's not helping the case of those who think this is a big government-controlled conspiracy.
What about the other people in the temple, those witnesses? Surely you don't think those folks on YouTube are the only peole who saw ANYTHING. You seem to easily and consistently disregard the report of the children who saw ONE man with a gun as well as any other witnesses who were in the temple who haven't given public statements. Who knows what they have said or are saying? Those people are witnesses. ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES who saw anything apparently have not chosen to do a TV interview.
What? Jesus Christ ... here comes that headache again .... What about those other witnesses? And what exactly do you mean by disregarding witnesses who haven't made any public statements? Do you not realize how crazy that sounds? How on earth could I disregard statements that haven't been made? By the same measure, what if some of those witnesses were hiding in a closet and saw nothing? Would that prove that nothing happened?
You seem to have this entire thing backwards, with your mind twisted into knots here. I'm not dismissing anyone's claims ... that would be you doing that. You are dismissing the witnesses who say they saw 4 gunman. And you have yet to explain your rationale for why a child's testimony would automatically void the testimony of the adults? That makes no sense either.
Listen up ..... if some witnesses claim to have seen just one gunman, fine. I have no problem with that .. then that is obviously all they saw. But that in no way disproves the existence of others. However, when you have other witnesses that clearly state that they saw 4 gunman, that does disprove the idea of only one gunman involved. This is pure, elementary deduction .... the backward way you're approaching this is incomprehensible.
Lets say witness number 1 looks out of the north facing window and sees a man with a gun. Witness #2 looks out the west facing window and sees 4 men with guns. You're trying to claim there is only 1 man with a gun because that's all witness #1 saw. I'm telling you that there are at least 4 ... and possibly 5.
What? Jesus Christ ... here comes that headache again .... What about those other witnesses? And what exactly do you mean by disregarding witnesses who haven't made any public statements? Do you not realize how crazy that sounds? How on earth could I disregard statements that haven't been made? By the same measure, what if some of those witnesses were hiding in a closet and saw nothing? Would that prove that nothing happened?
You seem to have this entire thing backwards, with your mind twisted into knots here. I'm not dismissing anyone's claims ... that would be you doing that. You are dismissing the witnesses who say they saw 4 gunman. And you have yet to explain your rationale for why a child's testimony would automatically void the testimony of the adults? That makes no sense either.
Listen up ..... if some witnesses claim to have seen just one gunman, fine. I have no problem with that .. then that is obviously all they saw. But that in no way disproves the existence of others. However, when you have other witnesses that clearly state that they saw 4 gunman, that does disprove the idea of only one gunman involved. This is pure, elementary deduction .... the backward way you're approaching this is incomprehensible.
Lets say witness number 1 looks out of the north facing window and sees a man with a gun. Witness #2 looks out the west facing window and sees 4 men with guns. You're trying to claim there is only 1 man with a gun because that's all witness #1 saw. I'm telling you that there are at least 4 ... and possibly 5.
LOL Must you be so abrasive and rude? Although I will admit that it's become part of your "persona" here and it just wouldn't be "you" if that changed. Of course, changing your ways might just motivate some to read your posts more carefully and pay attention to what you are saying.
My argument is simply that you haven't heard from everyone present that day. Could be more people would say 4 men; could be that everyone else would say only 1 gunman; could be that they were all viewing the incident from different vantage points. My point is that you don't have all the information in order to make an accurate call about this.
i read where they need a translator on the event, so maybe that is where some of the confusion is coming in:
(from the telegraph)
Many Sikhs in the U.S. worship on Sundays at a temple, or gurdwara, and a typical service consists of meditation and singing in a prayer room where worshippers remove their shoes and sit on the floor. Worshippers gather afterward for a meal that is open to community members, regardless of their religious beliefs.
Kaur said she spent the afternoon serving as a translator between law enforcement and survivors at a nearby bowling alley. Police investigators kept witnesses inside the bowling alley's basement into the evening.
The focus on the gun in this case, seems to be misguided. I also believe there are no logical reasons to allow assault weapons in the hands of anyone other than military or the SWAT team. In this case we have a right wing white supremacist. I would like to know his affiliation with the tea party, and what is in his apartment. I cant imagine that michele bachmann's witch hunt of Muslims and daily racism heard on right wing media was very helpful. One wonders where the hate comes from, but you don't have to look very hard to find it. Sadly the first thing the right wing media and politicians do is play the victim role, as if they've done nothing wrong.
LOL Must you be so abrasive and rude? Although I will admit that it's become part of your "persona" here and it just wouldn't be "you" if that changed. Of course, changing your ways might just motivate some to read your posts more carefully and pay attention to what you are saying.
My argument is simply that you haven't heard from everyone present that day. Could be more people would say 4 men; could be that everyone else would say only 1 gunman; could be that they were all viewing the incident from different vantage points. My point is that you don't have all the information in order to make an accurate call about this.
Exactly true. It's also possible that the witness who said she/he saw more than one gunman could have mistaken a swat team member for a bad guy as well. Doing ballistics studies will prove one way or another how many shooters there were. I see no value to a so-called government conspiracy for "them" to lie about it being one dead shooter as opposed to one dead shooter and several others that got away.
How come we haven't seen glowing tributes to the Wisconsin dead like we did in Colorado?
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.
You seem to easily and consistently disregard the report of the children who saw ONE man with a gun as well as any other witnesses who were in the temple who haven't given public statements. Who knows what they have said or are saying? Those people are witnesses. ALL THE OTHER WITNESSES who saw anything apparently have not chosen to do a TV interview.
Although I will admit that it's become part of your "persona" here and it just wouldn't be "you" if that changed. 
Of course, changing your ways might just motivate some to read your posts more carefully and pay attention to what you are saying.
