All others, please don't read further, because your sensibilities may be offended

*************

Evidence: Sandy Hook School Shooting Staged

[theintelhub.com]

Here are the real perpetrators -



"Two unidentified nuns leave the scene of the aftermath at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. At least 27 people, including 18 children, were killed."

"It literally reads “Two unidentified nuns leave the scene…”. However what stands out to me the most is the fact that the nuns look very official. In fact they look so official they even have blatant identification badges."

****************

I wanna get me some of them shoes

Eerie...

They almost appear as messengers of satan...

So what's the point? You're the one who is decrying the gun grab. Some people think it's a hoax for various reasons.

By the way, hoaxes can still produce real victims. It's just WHO'S doing it and WHY.

Hmmm...If this is being done by the gun industry to sell more guns, it's working big time.

For me, the point is - here's an interesting (or crazy, whatever you want to call it) conspiracy theory on the Sandy Hook shooting. I tend to think the kid was screwed up in the head because of psychotropic prescription drugs. I think we should ban psychotropic prescription drugs for anyone below the age of 21.

Here's an interesting one -

[www.naturalnews.com]

At the bottom is a list of the mass killings involving prescription drugs.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 02:41AM by KidRaw.

Good point. I think that we often believe that we're being led down one path when it's actually another. Whenever liberals get hysterical about guns, people start lining up around the block to spend thousands on ammo and semi-autos. It's probably what they want.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hmmm...If this is being done by the gun industry
> to sell more guns, it's working big time.

It's an endless knee jerk reaction cycle.

When we elected a democrat as president the the gun lobby groups got vocal, and held "open carry protests". That was the first knee jerk reaction.

As soon as there is mass murder using guns people start talking about changing gun laws. The second knee jerk reaction.

As soon as anyone talks about CHANGING gun laws. gun owners start acting like the government is going to take all their guns. The third knee jerk reaction.

Then the gun mfgs start pushing the idea that you better buy big guns and mags now before were out of business. The forth knee jerk reaction.

Then gun owners listen and buy, buy, buy. Another knee jerk reaction.

And so on, and so on....

Now the Sandy Hook Conspiracy Theorists have been labeled as Sandy Truthers -

This Man Helped Save Six Children, is Now Getting Harassed for it

Gene Rosen sheltered six kids during the Sandy Hook massacre. Now he's become a target of conspiracy theorists

[www.salon.com]

**************

Here are more -

[en.wikipedia.org]

I have a conspiracy theory of my own.

Did anybody notice that they are both "SANDY" -- Hurricane SANDY and SANDY Hook Shooting! That means something!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2013 04:11PM by KidRaw.

Did anybody notice that they are both "SANDY" -- Hurricane SANDY and SANDY Hook Shooting! That means something!



Well there is also Sandy Hook N.J.what does that mean?

I was so touched by his recent Executive Order signing escapade. The kids flanking him were such a nice touch. It showed us all that he really cares about us in his heart.

And the stories he read...those letters from children. Why oh why - have we let these evil guns run so rampant among us, unchecked?

He is doing this for the children. What a caring gentleman. The...horrible...gun...violence...must...stop...

Umm...If this was such a pressing situation, didn't he care enough about the children to sign the E. O. during the first four years?

WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!

Here are the Facts -

More Guns = More Murders? A Myth. More Guns = Fewer Murders

[news.investors.com]

"So what happened in the countries that banned either handguns or all guns?

It did not go well: In every single place that we have data for, murder rates went up. Chicago and D.C. provided spectacular failures within the U.S.

But this has been true worldwide. The U.K., Ireland and Jamaica, despite being island nations that can't blame a neighbor for supplying guns, have suffered more murders after gun control was passed.

So what has happened when Americans have been allowed access to guns? Consider a simple fact. Concealed handgun permits and gun sales have been soaring over the last four years.. Yet, murders and violent crime have been falling.

That isn't just a recent phenomenon. If you look at the U.S. over the last few decades, even after accounting for other factors, the states that have had the biggest increases in concealed handgun permits and gun ownership have seen the biggest drops in murder and violent crime rates.

Gun control just does not work. Indeed, it makes things worse."

*********

But don't let the Facts get in the way of Ideology -

I'm afraid that is totally wrong about the U.K.

I wish bloggers would stick to the facts instead of constantly feeding you guys false info.

Look at this: [en.wikipedia.org]

Gun violence went up at first after the law was enacted, then it DECREASED and has stayed down ever since.

Sad that the blogger decided not to mention that part of the facts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2013 10:15PM by swimmer.

UK is violent crime capital of Europe
[www.telegraph.co.uk]


[www.infowars.com]
Ben Swann Destroys Piers Morgan’s Anti-Gun Argument
Infowars.com
Jan 9, 2013


18 Facts That Prove That Piers Morgan Is Flat Out Lying About Gun Control
[thetruthwins.com]

18 Facts That Prove That Piers Morgan Is Flat Out Lying About Gun Control
By Michael, on January 11th, 2013

Piers Morgan is getting on television every night and flat out lying to the American people about gun control. Nearly every statistic that he quotes is inaccurate and he fails to acknowledge a whole host of statistics that would instantly invalidate the arguments that he is trying to make. Yes, the UK has a lower gun murder rate than the United States does, but what Piers Morgan fails to tell you is that the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. A woman in the UK is not allowed pull out a gun to protect herself against a gang of potential rapists. So perhaps that explains why the UK has about 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people than the United States does. While UK newspapers are declaring that the UK has become the "violent crime capital of Europe", crime rates in the United States have actually fallen dramatically over the past 20 years. This was also a time period during which gun laws became much less restrictive in the United States. Today, murder rates in the U.S. are generally far higher in cities that have very strict gun control laws (such as Chicago) than they are for the general population. The cold, hard numbers make it clear that when there are more guns there is less crime, but hardcore leftists such as Piers Morgan are absolutely obsessed with gun control and Morgan continues to relentlessly attack the 2nd Amendment night after night. We need to start pointing out that he is not telling the truth.

The following are 18 facts that prove that Piers Morgan is flat out lying about gun control...

#1 The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

#2 The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

#3 Piers Morgan continues to insist that there are more than 11,000 gun murders in the United States every year. But that is flat out wrong. According to the FBI, there were 8,583 gun murders in the United States during 2011. And as Ben Swann recently pointed out, 400 of those were justifiable homicides by law enforcement and 260 of those were justifiable homicides by private citizens.

#4 The United States is #1 in the world in gun ownership, and yet it is only 28th in the world in gun murders per 100,000 people.

#5 The violent crime rate in the United States actually fell from 757.7 per 100,000 in 1992 to 386.3 per 100,000 in 2011. During that same time period, the murder rate fell from 9.3 per 100,000 to 4.7 per 100,000. This was during an era when gun laws in the United States generally became much less restrictive.

#6 The city of Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the United States. So has this reduced crime? Of course not. As I wrote about the other day, the murder rate in Chicago was about 17 percent higher in 2012 than it was in 2011, and Chicago is now considered to be "the deadliest global city". If you can believe it, there were about as many murders in Chicago during 2012 as there was in the entire nation of Japan.

#7 After the city of Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring every home to have a gun, the crime rate dropped by more than 50 percent over the course of the next 23 years.

#8 Approximately 200,000 women in the United States use guns to protect themselves against sexual crime every single year.

#9 Overall, guns in the United States are used 80 times more often to prevent crime than they are to take lives.

#10 Only about 3.5 percent of the gun murders in the United States are caused by rifles.

#11 According to Gallup, an all-time record 74 percent of all Americans are against a total handgun ban in the United States.

#12 Down in Australia, gun murders increased by about 19 percent and armed robberies increased by about 69 percent after a gun ban was instituted.

#13 When Piers Morgan claims that there are only 35 gun murders in the UK per year, he isn't exactly being accurate. According to official statistics, there were 59 gun murders in the UK in 2011. It is also important to keep in mind that gun crime was already super low even before the gun ban in the UK was instituted, and that a 2009 article in The Telegraph declared that gun crime had doubled over the past decade even though it is widely acknowledged that crime statistics in the UK are massively underreported.

#14 The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.

#15 The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

#16 A 2009 article in The Telegraph had this stunning headline: "UK is violent crime capital of Europe".

#17 Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the truth is that the UK is a far more violent society than the United States is. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?

#18 According to Gun Owners of America, the governments of the world slaughtered more than 170 million of their own people during the 20th century. The vast majority of those people had been disarmed by their own governments prior to being slaughtered.

But you won't hear many of these statistics on the mainstream news, will you?

...

I'm not going to argue with you guys. You know I believe you have the right to own guns, and I back that right. I just like fact to be facts, and not hyped-up half truths.

Peirs Morgan uses twisted facts, just like the all bloggers. Plain and simple, you can not count on things you hear on tv OR read on the net as being true.

I consider all these sources just as suspect as the mainstream media. They all twist facts, print half truths and make everything appear like it all lines up with their opinion.

John Lott is not a blogger - he an Economist and a Journalist --

[en.wikipedia.org]

The Investors Business Daily Newspaper is not a Blog, unless you would call the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Boston Globe blogs.

[en.wikipedia.org]

But from what I've read in the articles John Rose posted and many others, the UK crime RATE is much more than the US crime RATE. The numbers of crimes may be less than the US and it may be decreasing, but it's just a higher rate than in America - and that's the whole point. Piers Morgan said the UK has less crime than the US, and he was wrong. Of course, there's less crime, because there are less people living there, but the Crime Rate is greater in the UK than in the US. And there may be less GUN crime because they're not allowed to have guns - instead they just use knives and other stuff.

Anyway, the Constitution is the law of the land and any Infringement on our Right to Own and Bear Arms is Unconstitutional, including Executive Orders.

The elephant in the room that we're not allowed to mention is that the Crimes are Gang Related Inner City Crimes, not law-abiding gun owners. Criminals will always get their guns illegally and they just love it when guns are banned because they know their victims are defenseles sitting ducks.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2013 12:58AM by KidRaw.

Kidraw,

Remember I've studied constitutional law. The constitution does not forbid the government for regulating gun sales. The executive orders, or any of the presidents proposals do not infringe on our constitutional rights from what I've read.

Background checks seem logical, and regulating magazine sizes pretty reasonable changes to me. Does anyone really need to shoot that many bullets, that fast? Really?

What do you think should be done, if anything?

Not sorry I asked at all. I was just referring to guns...But heres my take on some of what you wrote...

I agree with you on psychotropic drugs. Perhaps not banned, but at least restricted to their original focused intended use only which was for adults.

When you start talking about banning books, I'll have to leave you there. You will never get me to agree to banning any books or videos.
It's just to Un-American.
Don't forget there's a lot of violence in our history books, literature considered to be classics, and the bible.

Outlawing gluten, grains, chocolate and coffee would be great for our health, but that would kill the economy instantly.

School choice, Yup, I'm all for it! As long as choices are not restricted by costs. Any child should be allowed to attend any school they want. It should be free if they can't afford it. College as well.

Taxes is too big of an issue to cover here, but I do consider them necessary and constructional. They are also unfairly enforced, and a pain in my ever strained finances.

Too many subjects in that last paragraph to address.

That is Gracie named after G. Allen. She really IS a comedian. That shot was not posed. I put that film camera down picked up my digital, looked down and she walked up and sat there and "lined up a shot" We were laughing pretty had, and almost forgot to take a picture of it. I also have her sister Ginger named after G. Rogers. And yes, she's a dancer! These two could make their own cat circus!

I didn't know that you studied constitutional law. Are you a lawyer? I'm helping my daughter with her political science college course and we're reading the book - American Government: Roots of Reform. Do you think the Constitution is a living breathing document or the original intent?

Here's are some old black and white photos you might appreciate -

[nedhardy.com]

Me a lawyer...NOOOOOOO oh nooooooo!

I'm sorry I should have said that I've studied the law of the Constitution, informally. I just like to understand things that effect life.

Sorry, I missed your question about original intent, KidRaw.

By now you should know, I always like to find the logical center! lol

No seriously, I believe the framers of our constitution wanted to make sure certain things never changed such as (inalienable rights). Then they allowed a vehicle for progress (amendments), and a branch for future interpretation (the supreme court). So my answer is somewhere in between those two schools of thought.

I think they understood they were writing a document that would endure. However they were all forward thinkers, and new changes would need to be made to keep up with progress. There is no way they could understand what life if the world would be like hundreds of years in the future so they made sure we could adapt with the times, and not have to rewrite a new constitution.


They wrote that ALL men were created equal, but did not outlaw slavery. I believe they knew slavery had to end for our country to survive, but they also knew that "We the People" of the time were not ready to accept that as fact yet.

I think they also foresaw global trade, woman's suffrage, emancipation, and other progressive issues we have had to deal with. I think they expected us to carefully consider, and amend when absolutely necessary. That is why they set such a high bar for amendments, and high requirements for Supreme Court Justices.


Cool photos! Thanks for the link!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 06:12PM by swimmer.

swimmer,

The framers were a smart bunch of guys, but I think they stubbed their toe with that whole Executive Order thing. Maybe they didn't foresee men having such evil in their hearts...

Cute kitty pic!

veganjuice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> swimmer,
>
> The framers were a smart bunch of guys, but I
> think they stubbed their toe with that whole
> Executive Order thing. Maybe they didn't foresee
> men having such evil in their hearts...
>


I don't understand what you mean. The vast majority executive orders are the most boring and benign subjects you could think of. Do you mean EO's in general, or is there a specific executive order that you think was inspired by evil?

By the way, Power to issue E.O's is not directly granted by the constitution.


List of executive orders:

[www.archives.gov]

The history behind the concept:
[en.wikipedia.org]






> Cute kitty pic!

Thanks!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 02:53AM by swimmer.

<<<They did succeed in huge steps in gun control. The Brady bill for example. Little by little they chip away at the freedoms. They know they couldn't pull it off all at once.>>>

Great point veganjuice!

swimmer, use that analytical mind and research the Fabian Society and Agenda 21. The Psychopaths who Rule the World know that things must be done incrementally or otherwise, we might wake up. Here's something that might pique your interest. The author of 1984, George Orwell, belonged to the Fabian Society and 1984 did NOT come out of his imagination!!!

Peace and Love..........John

PS I have files on the Fabian Society and Agenda 21 and would be happy to email them to you if you are interested.

Swimmer, I just ran across this product --

[www.selinanaturally.com]

and remembered that you had a digestive issue years ago and told us about a meal supplement that you used. I ended up using it myself for a while and then the rest sat around for a few years as survival food until it got pantry moths in it and I threw it away. I was just wondering if your stomach issues got resolved, and if not, this product may be good for you.

This thread is all over the place now.


Veganjuice, Great points, but I don't agree:

First, power and responsibility for regulation of commerce is assigned to the federal government by the constitution. We can't, and DON"T EVER want to change that, or well become like Europe!!!

The green power debacle has been taken out of historical context. We the people paid a big part part for development of ALL power industries in this country. If you look at the beginnings of the coal and oil industries, you would find that we the people paid for the start up and there was lots of favoritism, and waste back then, and lots of fighting over it as well. There were major tax breaks, selling U.S. owned land at less then 1/10 the value. It all happened back then too. Hell almost half of the railroads were put there to move coal. That land was also pretty much given away. And they pretty much had a slave labor force.

The complete development of nuclear power was paid for by the people through the military. And when the technology was transferred to new energy companies, big oil and coal companies got in on the action, AND campaigned against it.

So why not support green power development like we did other power industries?


Now back to gun rights. People seem to think that gun regulation is against the constitution, or harmful to us as a country. I don't. We regulate the air waves (free speech). We regulates voting. We regulate every other amendment in and out of the bill of rights. Why is there so much opposition to gun regulations? I don't see how Brady or any of the gun law changes caused gun owners any harm, or took away constitutionally granted rights.


Thanks for the link KidRaw, I did use Garden of Life products for a while. I'm healthy now, as long as I eat simple, and mostly raw. I don't really need to use products like that anymore.

Lots of edits, cuzz lots of typos!



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2013 03:17PM by swimmer.

swimmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The constitution grants the rights to bear arms in
> order to maintain a militia.



The right to keep and bear arms is a 'natural right' of Individuals, and also stated in the Second Amendment.

[constitution.org]

"(1) The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not establish the right to keep and bear arms. None of the provisions of the Constitution establish any "natural" rights. They recognize such rights, but the repeal of such provisions would not end such rights. Such rights were considered by many of the Framers as obvious or "self-evident", but they were immersed in the prevailing republican thought of the day, as expressed in the writings of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Madison, Hamilton, and others, which discussed "natural rights" in some detail. Others argued that at least some of the rights needed to be made explicit in the Bill of Rights to avoid having future generations with less understanding of republican theory weaken in their defense of those rights. That has turned out to have been a good idea.

(2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution."

Campaign trying to link questioning the Official Story with hate? [www.youtube.com]

People running around trying to give the illusion of "activity" on the day of Sandy Hook? [www.youtube.com]

Guns and music, some interesting symbolism from two very talented and creative artists.

ZZ Ward: [www.youtube.com]

Mayer Hawthorne: [www.youtube.com]

I guess you could call it adult content, but not dirty.

KidRaw,

You're right that some of the founders believed that baring arms was a "natural right", but it was not part of John Locke's Life, Liberty, and Property statement. Locke also stated that "estate" or property was a natural right as long as it DID NOT interfere with the first two natural rights.

Thomas Paine later wrote that rights could not be "granted" by a government because that would imply they could be "taken" away, and that would be against "natural law".

None of the writings were specific and did they did not mentioned guns.


The founders all considered choosing our leaders to be a natural right.

I have to wonder why there was silence when several republican governors tried to systematically take away peoples voting rights last year. It was so bad the supreme court had to step in to stop it in a couple of states.

Tell me, do you think the right to own a gun is more important than the right to vote?

Well, if you don't own a gun, you can get killed, but if you can't vote, you probably won't get killed; but otherwise, I never thought about it because that's like comparing apples to oranges or setting up a strawman argument.