Temple shooting, LIES fly again!! WTF lmao

Anothoer intersting little "tidbit" to this story!

One of the injured men was the father of a guy named Arm Kaleka, a documentary film maker who’s team was about to release a movie called Sirius about Gov. coverups. A search of the details surrounding this movie reveals that the team had been harrassed and threatened by Gov. recently and warned not to release the movie.
 
One other detail that is VERY likely to emerge…that the “Lone Shooter” bought his handguns and ammo online!

Oh, I guarantee that’s going to be part of this narrative if it already isn’t.


When the government starts loudly beating the ‘domestic terrorism’ drum it’s a dangerous time.

Also whats the deal calling this a "Domestic Terrorist attack" in the news?? What should we expect next? A call for Citizens to voluntarily disarm? Followed by a demand for same? What happens when a large percentage of Citizens refuse? Door-to-door — conveniently allowing disarmament and a chance to look over your ‘seditious’ reading material and examine your hard drive? They did it in Louisiana to thousands even this frail old woman, scumbags!!

CNN / Katrina: (P)olice (S)tate (G)oons Assault Old Lady - YouTube

A dangerous time indeed people, believe what you want this $hit is plain as day.
 
Great quote here says it all:

President Barack Obama is already positioning himself to politically exploit the incident. Top Democratic strategists have previously welcomed the prospect of domestic terror incidents as a means of boosting Obama’s poll numbers and helping him re-connect with the American people.
Click to expand...
 
Anytime you see action from one group of people against another, they are going to call it domestic terrorism. Thats the new buzz word. I like how the civilian says there were 4 shooters, and the gov. agent says there was a dead shooter.
 
I did enjoy the piece on Katrina. You get to see the american nazism up close and personal.
 
It was domestic and was terrorism ....as for quotes ..... Kinda sounds like a talking point not a quote by anyone who is in Government. I CCW and am not even worried about the government, I worry about right wing freaks who do stupid things with guns , random murders by unhinged creeps are really helping the cause of gun control.
 
Omegaman, the point is, its not terrorism. It was simply a crime. What do you call it, when police fire 50 to 150 round of ammo at a single person. Can we call that terrorism? What about when 5 to 7 police agents fire at an unarmed person. Isn't that terrorism? The fact is this country has too many nazi police agency's, and they are too militarized.
This crime would not have happened, if at least some of the people were armed. Unfortunately the american sheeple have been indoctinated to believe that the nazi police are here to protect you. They are not. They are here to control you at the behest of the gov. The US Supreme Court has decreed several times over the decades, that the gov. has no obligation to protect its people from crime.
Of course, criminals or mentally disturbed people, will always go after the easy target. If he or they knew that there were 30 people inside who were armed, this incident would never have happened.
 
You need to stop listening to and reading Alex Jones, Geno. Not everything is a conspiracy.
 
Psychostang said:
This crime would not have happened, if at least some of the people were armed.
Click to expand...

I'm looking for a serious response and not trying to challenge it but discuss it. I don't want to discuss if we should be able to carry guns because that is too complex. I just want to understand how adding a armed civilian would help the issue. I'm not usually in the politics thread. If one man came in with the intent to shoot (I.E. the "shooter") and began firing and then another person in the crowd also being armed started shooting back how would you know if they both were shooting as a Team? When shots are fired into a crowd people get disoriented and don't understand what is happening. So now when the cops show up they don't know who the suspect is because there were multiple people shooting and the crowd would be giving multiple stories about who the real shooter was. And if there was a third shooter he might see the second shooter(the good guy) and begin firing at him(because this all happens within seconds and people shoot first and think later). There is no way adding armed citizens(who don't need training to buy said weapon) would help the situation. Or at least that is how i look at it; so I want to understand your viewpoint. Also, take the shooting that happened in the Batman viewing. How would you be able to tell in a dark sound enclosed(Echoing) room where shots are coming from or who is the shooter? You will have 3 other shooters trying to become heroes stand up and start shooting at any other person using a gun. It would be a bloody massacre.
 
The notion that the crime would not have happened is a counterfactual argument which is hard to defend. If Holmes paid attention to gun control laws in choosing where to commit his crime, it might not have happened there, but it might have happened someplace else. No way to know for sure.

Generally speaking, more violent crimes are more likely to occur where gun control is heaviest. It is basic incentives. Would-be criminals have the added disincentive of a quick and permanent response from those they would terrorize. If they only have to worry about any armed response from the police (who can't immediately respond), they are more likely to commit a crime.

Whether that would have helped in this situation is somewhat questionable given the unique circumstances you described (dark theater, etc). However, you seem to assume that another armed citizen would simply start shooting indiscriminately. That is a false stereotype. Most with a concealed carry license are very careful. They would only shoot if they had a shot. It would most likely be one shot or no shot.
...public policy is based on evidence and data and whether it would work. This is one of the most studied things in criminology. And the weight of the evidence is pretty clear that there's no relationship between gun control and violent crime. Areas with higher gun control do not have less violent crime. Over the last few years, the number of new guns entering the country has been about four million a year. At the same time, violent crime has plummeted by about 41 percent a year. -David Brooks​
 
But the idea being if some citizen pulls out their gun and another armed citizen assumes they were the shooter that one shot would occur(If you note the quote said some of the people were armed implying more than one shooter not one trained personal). It is this mentality that bothers me that people actually believe it would have been better if there were other shooters. Even people that assume themselves trained can make mistakes when sound is echoing and it is dark and decisions are made in a matter of seconds. Especially what is troubling most carrying a gun carry it to feel in power(they feel so proud) and these kinds of guys are looking for reasons to pull it out so they can be called a "Hero". Also, to the point of states with more gun control have just as much violent crimes. I understand that but if there was gun control most assaults and anger would be placed on officials and enforcement and less acts would be taken on random citizens. So who deserves more protection? The law enforcement or the citizens they are paid to protect? But then again theory and practical life seem to be on two different parallel lines. It just seems lately people like to pull out there gun on anybody that they get impatient with. A American cop was taking a vacation in canada when two people came up and asked him if he had been to the city event they were holding and he claimed his life was in danger so he reached for his gun but then remembered he's not allowed his weapon... and guess what? Nothing happened. They were simply asking him a question. And then you have stories in american were a cop kills his own son thinking he was a thief...
 
93mkviii said:
Especially what is troubling most carrying a gun carry it to feel in power(they feel so proud) and these kinds of guys are looking for reasons to pull it out so they can be called a "Hero".
Click to expand...

That is a massive assumption rooted in prejudice.

There is a huge difference between a gangbanger and a law abiding citizen

Also, to the point of states with more gun control have just as much violent crimes. I understand that but if there was gun control most assaults and anger would be placed on officials and enforcement and less acts would be taken on random citizens.
Click to expand...

Another huge assumption. What makes you think that? Colorado already has more gun control laws than most states.
 
Marcus said:
You need to stop listening to and reading Alex Jones, Geno. Not everything is a conspiracy.
Click to expand...

WHo in the F is talking Alex Jones dude?? Again I can see and hear the video on CNN I watched it when the first aired it, heard Him say "4 MEN DRESSED DARKLY IN ALL BLACK came in and started shooting" and said WTF?? Thats NOT Alex Jones, thats a Guy who was freaking there man, that does not bother you one bit how the story (from an actual eye witness to the mayhem) went from 4 black dressed gunman to 1 fat white male?? c'mon man, then do me this Explain why He said that and the "Final" news story was completely 5 thousand times differnt, you people kill me, no conspiricaies man just the facts dude from someone who was standing IN the Temple wtching it all unfold.. lmaooooo
 
93mkviii said:
I'm looking for a serious response and not trying to challenge it but discuss it. I don't want to discuss if we should be able to carry guns because that is too complex. I just want to understand how adding a armed civilian would help the issue. I'm not usually in the politics thread. If one man came in with the intent to shoot (I.E. the "shooter") and began firing and then another person in the crowd also being armed started shooting back how would you know if they both were shooting as a Team? When shots are fired into a crowd people get disoriented and don't understand what is happening. So now when the cops show up they don't know who the suspect is because there were multiple people shooting and the crowd would be giving multiple stories about who the real shooter was. And if there was a third shooter he might see the second shooter(the good guy) and begin firing at him(because this all happens within seconds and people shoot first and think later). There is no way adding armed citizens(who don't need training to buy said weapon) would help the situation. Or at least that is how i look at it; so I want to understand your viewpoint. Also, take the shooting that happened in the Batman viewing. How would you be able to tell in a dark sound enclosed(Echoing) room where shots are coming from or who is the shooter? You will have 3 other shooters trying to become heroes stand up and start shooting at any other person using a gun. It would be a bloody massacre.
Click to expand...

Apples and ornages, this was a well lit daytime indoor shooting. I would have blown the dudes head off clean man no ptroblems. So armed citizens are a problem then?? LMAO~!! OK
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 256 (members: 0, guests: 256)
Back
Top