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.
The shooting in Vegas was likely perpetuated by people from within our own government, otherwise known as a false flag. Yes, I know that makes me a crazy conspiracy nut to some. Maybe some day people will overcome their denial as to how bad things really are. Some people are waking up:
It is only a conspiracy for the reason it is because there is little proof to it being a false flag. Perhaps that M&M Resorts lawsuit could open it up...
The problem is until the shooter crosses a line where they shouldn't have guns, there is no reason to take them away. This was all conjecture until it was too late like all too many cases of recent mass shootings. The communities knew this could happen but even if agencies got involved, they couldn't legally remove guns so they wouldn't do it. There In lies the issue. Then we have the only outlaws break laws so why bother with laws crowd too, but this argument of agencies failing is due to second amendment handcuffing the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
^^^This. We live in a free society. We cannot just imprison someone for making non-specific threats or being "a bit off and seemingly dangerous".
If we could do those things, they'd have locked up MLK just like South Africa threw people like Biko and Mandela in prison.
We also don't have a magic retro crystal ball like Capt. Hindsight has.
No, this cannot go to the way side. People were killed, and this poster blamed all Trump supporters. Repeatedly. No apology. It's unacceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Only if one doesn't read the posts.
Except when Republicans blamed Democrats for Steve Scalise.
And once again:
Here's the problem with your "rebuttal":
The post that you keep quoting of yourself, the one you say where no one "quoted" the entire thing, is a completely different post from the others that you made beforehand. The ones quoting you where you blamed this all on Trump supporters were not in the same post as the one you keep quoting of yourself.
Writing a post afterwards and saying, "This looks like an obsessed guy" has nothing at all to do with what others are asking of you: Apologize for blaming this all on Trump supporters, because you were wrong. You didn't write just one post saying it was on Trump supporters, you wrote multiple posts. Granted, those were all removed, but what we DO have is the entirety of the one you keep claiming is "the rest of the quote".
No, it's not. It's a completely different post AFTER you found out it didn't have a thing to do with Trump supporters, but not once did you own up and say, "I put the blame on the wrong people, and I am sorry to those who support Trump who have to hear this type of drivel all day long from the lying media" or something of the sort. Hell, just an "I'm sorry, I was wrong" would have sufficed.
You didn't do that. You tried to pretend that people weren't "quoting" the entire post when in fact they were.
Please point out where you apologized for putting this entirely on Trump supporters. You blamed all of US for this shooting! You have YET to say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong."
^^^This. We live in a free society. We cannot just imprison someone for making non-specific threats or being "a bit off and seemingly dangerous".
If we could do those things, they'd have locked up MLK just like South Africa threw people like Biko and Mandela in prison.
We also don't have a magic retro crystal ball like Capt. Hindsight has.
I wish we could be a little stronger on taking guns away from potential mass shooters (see past posts with my comments of "the 'right to own guns' mean more than the 'right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' in various mass shooting threads), I am for red flag laws, but many of these mass shootings wouldn't have been stopped even if laws were not broken prior to the act being followed through. The Waffle House shooter for instance is one that should have been stopped, if not for the parent giving their guns to the shooter. This case isn't that, since it was conjecture and heresay from those who had issue with the shooter. While the guy was a nut and many knew this, he wasn't certifiable nuts and had no other criminal history other than the stalking charge he would plea out to. Last I checked, stalking is not exactly the best tell for a shooting (not that it isn't, but it isn't a total red flag.) Then there is the whole "I'm gonna burn the building down" issue where we are often saying things but don't mean it. I went through an R.A. interview where we had to prioritize events and one was a roommate issue where one said "I'm gonna kill her." I put it low because it is often a phrase we use (stupidly mind you) but don't actually mean or would follow through on.
Absurd stew of words. The guy was a nut who shot up the paper because they printed the truth about his conviction. There is not one iota of political content to the story.
All the posters who blamed Trump here, need to apologize. I'll wait...
I don't apologize for saying he was a factor, I would apologize for saying he was the only factor if I had posted on here on Thursday prior to the backstory with the paper was posted. The problem is America is just too hostile to the media today and Trump is pouring gasoline on the damn fire.
The orginal reporter told police this guy was going to be a mass murderer. They didnt listen. The reporter was the one that wrote the original column that got the paper sued. She believed he was dangerous, very dangerous. In so many of these cases there is a history of some type of aberrant behavior. And family look the other way, agencies make excuses, and police have other things to do. Of course the shooter is to blame but society has failed the victims, thats why they are victims.
Ramos felt wronged by the article.
Ramos used Twitter to rant about the paper. He had no followers at the time. He expressed a desire for the paper to fail and some employees to stop breathing.
LE concluded it was a rant. The paper chose not to pursue
Ramos had a history of harassment, not violence.
There is no reasonable way to distinguish between free speech and a true threat in absence of a history of violence.
Background checks don’t look at social media. Very easy to anonymously post crap online.
Very easy to point fingers with the benefit of hindsight.
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.
This case isn't that, since it was conjecture and heresay from those who had issue with the shooter. While the guy was a nut and many knew this, he wasn't certifiable nuts and had no other criminal history other than the stalking charge he would plea out to. Last I checked, stalking is not exactly the best tell for a shooting (not that it isn't, but it isn't a total red flag.) Then there is the whole "I'm gonna burn the building down" issue where we are often saying things but don't mean it. I went through an R.A. interview where we had to prioritize events and one was a roommate issue where one said "I'm gonna kill her." I put it low because it is often a phrase we use (stupidly mind you) but don't actually mean or would follow through on.
