Everything wrong with Sandy Hook compiled in one v

[anus]

If the US government indeed has some hidden agenda for one world government or *insert conspiracy theory here*, I think that the first thing they would do is to install people who speak about the government's hidden agenda.

 

So, on one end you have conspiracy theorists installed by the government to speak about what the government's hidden agenda actually is, and on the other hand you have the government denying what the conspiracy theorists are saying. The result? Massive confusion, which is an excellent way to establish an authoritarian dictatorship.

 

So it could be that people like Alex Jones themselves are installed by the government.

 

Just something for you conspiracy theorists to think about.

 

Btw, I neither believe nor care about conspiracy theories, though I do find them interesting to read.

[sivispacem]

 

Seems someone has an Elitist view of themself.

 

The Idea that 'we' must prove anything to your satisfaction is unreal. Especially since you don't accept any idea/opinion that you haven't approved.

 

I really dislike all these Quoted quotes

I'm worth it.

 

It has nothing to do with "proving to my satisfaction", and everything to do with being logically flawed. My arguments have largely not been that the statements are incorrect- though many of them are- its been the fact that there is no explanation of how certain kinds of evidence imply the conclusions that are drawn from them.

 

Good for you. No obligation on you to come in here and complain.

[DestaliusDark]

If this is all supposed to be a secret run by the goverment.

Why in f*cks name, would they place hints in movies?

 

This isn't some retarded detective show where you find clues on the strangest places, since when does batman have anything to do with shooting kids in a school?

 

 

 

[boxmonster]

Flip the Sandy Hook map upside and it directly corresponds to nondescript suburbs in the area. Coincidence? Yes.

The conspiracy theorists just got lucky having to barely rotate the map. All they had to do was scale it. Mine still matches the shape of the highway better.

[AtomicPunk]

 

This reminds me of those dollar bill folders after 9/11. It's so much more exciting to imagine being victimized by evil overlords than admitting we're all a little f*cked up.

 

Honestly, it's f*cking disrespectful. You want to change things? Go into politics. Quit listening to guys like Alex Jones (who are the real manipulators out there) and start helping things rather than building brick walls of idiocy and cynicism.

 

Jeez.

Alex Jones is a zionist misinfo agent. http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Alex-Jones-summary.html

It's widely known throughout the conspiracy circuit. In every subject, He tries to lead people away from the truth when they start calling evil by it's name. There's many who spread misinfo/disinfo here aswell. People get paid to saturate forums and do this. They're getting desperate because the truth is being discussed on the internet. That's why Sen. Jay Rockefeller, and his criminal family want the internet shut down immediately and only available to the government. They've been exposed.

 

and 911truth.org lays all the facts out pretty well. Hundreds of engineers, scientists, etc., etc., can't all be crazy, tinfoil hat wearing nuts.

Edited January 18, 2013 by AtomicPunk

[sivispacem]

Like I said before, the critical tenet of every single conspiracy theory is that there is a bigger conspiracy underneath it. In fact, it's infinitely regressive- or, more accurately, regressive to the point at which everyone is involved in the conspiracy, and therefore self-defeatist and contradictory. I do love the "oh, you disagree with me, you must be a Zionist/shill/disinformation agent/brainwashed/a lizard man et cetera" line of reasoning- the height of maturity, tact and logic. It's a great way of trying to dodge the inevitable difficult questions you get asked when your stories don't make cognitive sense. Like "why can't you explain how your so-called "evidence" actually implicates the government"?

[lil weasel]

Will you kindly prove that the Obama's government, its employees, or others interested in disarming the general public in violation of (or infringing more of) the second amendment are Not twisting 'facts' in this (and other) situations...

[Clem Fandango]

So the only remaining, non-debunked piece of evidence is the Batman map? Ignoring that Occam's razor tells us we should assume that it's a coincidence, let's assume it's irrefutable evidence that someone had foreknowledge of the event. Why should we believe it was a government conspiracy? There is no evidence of that- it could have been some kind of freaky death cult or a left-wing terrorist organisation. TELL ME HOW IT LINKS TO THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

[AtomicPunk]

So the only remaining, non-debunked piece of evidence is the Batman map? Ignoring that Occam's razor tells us we should assume that it's a coincidence, let's assume it's irrefutable evidence that someone had foreknowledge of the event. Why should we believe it was a government conspiracy? There is no evidence of that- it could have been some kind of freaky death cult or a left-wing terrorist organisation. TELL ME HOW IT LINKS TO THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM

The government, Hollywood, Wall Street,----They're all connected at the hip by the same club members!!

 

 

@Sivi

Who said they were lizard people in any post in this thread? Oh, it's that trick again.

 

I cannot wait, like tens of millions of others, to read the 'Official Report' on Sandy Hook, coming in march. It should be a interesting read. I'm going to buy me a high pair of bullsh*t boots just beforehand because I'm sure it's about to get deep. About like the 911 report. I'm even expecting to hear about swamp gas or hysteria as part of the explanation at this point.

[Clem Fandango]

The government, Hollywood, Wall Street,----They're all connected at the hip by the same club members!!

And how is the Batman map linked to that conspiracy at all? How do we know the creators of Batman (or some random chump on the production team) weren't part of the same cult or terrorist organisation as the Sandy Hook shooter? That would be a much more logical conclusion.

[sivispacem]

 

Will you kindly prove that the Obama's government, its employees, or others interested in disarming the general public in violation of (or infringing more of) the second amendment are  Not twisting 'facts' in this (and other) situations...

It's very hard to prove something which doesn't exist. In essence, you are trying to ask me to prove the imperceptible- somewhat akin to asking me to prove what a randomly selected person is currently thinking. It's not logical. I'm not making the argument that Obama isn't "twisting facts" to suit his own political opinions, I'm arguing that the evidence used to try and support the argument that he is "twisting facts" to suit his own political opinions is fundamentally flawed. That isn't to say that the statement is factually incorrect, just that it hasn't been adequately demonstrated.

 

The implication of your statements is that, despite there being no evidence so far produced to corroborate the idea that Obama is "twisting facts" of these events, you believe he is purely because someone has not demonstrated that he isnt? Don't know you it's a logical fallacy to believe something exists purely because there is no evidence that it does not exist?

 

In fact, there are a few other questionable aspects of your comment:

 

1) Firearm restrictions are not tantamount to a disarming of the populace. If you are to claim Obama is disarming the populace, you need to prove it.

2) It's questionable whether the currently proposed or underway actions actually violate or infringe the Second Amendment rights of the citizens. Remember, it's not the job of the citizen to apply the constitution- that's the Supreme Court's job.

 

 

@Sivi

Who said they were lizard people in any post in this thread? Oh, it's that trick again.

I'm discussing a line of argument that you consign to, but not specifically your use of it. The fact that you took it entirely literally as if applied to your posts serves to indicate you are either poorly endowed with analytical or perceptive skills (in which case your assessment of conclusions from evidence is drawn into question) or you are being deliberately obtuse. Personally, I'm settling for a combination of the former and the latter.

Edited January 19, 2013 by sivispacem

[JOSEPH X]

 

I cannot wait, like tens of millions of others, to read the 'Official Report' on Sandy Hook, coming in march. It should be a interesting read. I'm going to buy me a high pair of bullsh*t boots just beforehand because I'm sure it's about to get deep. About like the 911 report. I'm even expecting to hear about swamp gas or hysteria as part of the explanation at this point.

Looks like you've already decided it's a cover up, so you can save that money you were going to spend on those bullsh*t boots.

 

Question: What have truthers ever done with the truth?

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Will you kindly prove that the Obama's government, its employees, or others interested in disarming the general public in violation of (or infringing more of) the second amendment are  Not twisting 'facts' in this (and other) situations...

It's very hard to prove something which doesn't exist. In essence, you are trying to ask me to prove the imperceptible- somewhat akin to asking me to prove what a randomly selected person is currently thinking. It's not logical. I'm not making the argument that Obama isn't "twisting facts" to suit his own political opinions, I'm arguing that the evidence used to try and support the argument that he is "twisting facts" to suit his own political opinions is fundamentally flawed. That isn't to say that the statement is factually incorrect, just that it hasn't been adequately demonstrated.

 

The implication of your statements is that, despite there being no evidence so far produced to corroborate the idea that Obama is "twisting facts" of these events, you believe he is purely because someone has not demonstrated that he isnt? Don't know you it's a logical fallacy to believe something exists purely because there is no evidence that it does not exist?

 

In fact, there are a few other questionable aspects of your comment:

 

1) Firearm restrictions are not tantamount to a disarming of the populace. If you are to claim Obama is disarming the populace, you need to prove it.

2) It's questionable whether the currently proposed or underway actions actually violate or infringe the Second Amendment rights of the citizens. Remember, it's not the job of the citizen to apply the constitution- that's the Supreme Court's job.

 

 

@Sivi

Who said they were lizard people in any post in this thread? Oh, it's that trick again.

I'm discussing a line of argument that you consign to, but not specifically your use of it. The fact that you took it entirely literally as if applied to your posts serves to indicate you are either poorly endowed with analytical or perceptive skills (in which case your assessment of conclusions from evidence is drawn into question) or you are being deliberately obtuse. Personally, I'm settling for a combination of the former and the latter.

I find your bottom sentence very ironic since prior to you editing your post you thought lil' weasel was actually agreeing with you by misreading his post.. lol You were even thanking him for making such a good point, despite he was actually disagreeing with you.

 

 

And then you went off on atomic punk about how he has poor analytical and perceptive skills... lol

 

All you do is try and attack the messenger rather than the message itself. Many people are complaining about how they can't even debate with you anymore because all you do is go "I'm right, you're wrong- ad hominem ad hominem".. then rinse and repeat. It's not even a discussion, it's just like talking to a computer thats been programmed what to say. Like how you took literally and wanted me to prove that everyone who disagrees with me is explicitly in bed with the government.. lol

 

You use this stragedy when debating, people get so sick of it that they just give up, then you prance around acting as if you debunked anything.. it's a joke.

[AtomicPunk]

Will you kindly prove that the Obama's government, its employees, or others interested in disarming the general public in violation of (or infringing more of) the second amendment are  Not twisting 'facts' in this (and other) situations...

It's very hard to prove something which doesn't exist. In essence, you are trying to ask me to prove the imperceptible- somewhat akin to asking me to prove what a randomly selected person is currently thinking. It's not logical. I'm not making the argument that Obama isn't "twisting facts" to suit his own political opinions, I'm arguing that the evidence used to try and support the argument that he is "twisting facts" to suit his own political opinions is fundamentally flawed. That isn't to say that the statement is factually incorrect, just that it hasn't been adequately demonstrated.

 

The implication of your statements is that, despite there being no evidence so far produced to corroborate the idea that Obama is "twisting facts" of these events, you believe he is purely because someone has not demonstrated that he isnt? Don't know you it's a logical fallacy to believe something exists purely because there is no evidence that it does not exist?

 

In fact, there are a few other questionable aspects of your comment:

 

1) Firearm restrictions are not tantamount to a disarming of the populace. If you are to claim Obama is disarming the populace, you need to prove it.

2) It's questionable whether the currently proposed or underway actions actually violate or infringe the Second Amendment rights of the citizens. Remember, it's not the job of the citizen to apply the constitution- that's the Supreme Court's job.

 

 

@Sivi

Who said they were lizard people in any post in this thread? Oh, it's that trick again.

I'm discussing a line of argument that you consign to, but not specifically your use of it. The fact that you took it entirely literally as if applied to your posts serves to indicate you are either poorly endowed with analytical or perceptive skills (in which case your assessment of conclusions from evidence is drawn into question) or you are being deliberately obtuse. Personally, I'm settling for a combination of the former and the latter.

Why are you insulting me? You mad, bro?

 

If nobody here thinks it's strange that Sandy Hook was circled on a map in the Batman movie, then I don't know what to tell you. The Batman movie massacre happened, then Sandy Hook. They made it clear who and where was next. Mathmatically, what are the odds that it is coincidence? When the fictional 'Official Report' comes out, it will be an interesting read. Can't wait for it.

[Clem Fandango]

If nobody here thinks it's strange that Sandy Hook was circled on a map in the Batman movie, then I don't know what to tell you. The Batman movie massacre happened, then Sandy Hook. They made it clear who and where was next. Mathmatically, what are the odds that it is coincidence? When the fictional 'Official Report' comes out, it will be an interesting read. Can't wait for it.

 

And how is the Batman map linked to that conspiracy at all? How do we know the creators of Batman (or some random chump on the production team) weren't part of the same cult or terrorist organisation as the Sandy Hook shooter? That would be a much more logical conclusion.

[sivispacem]

 

All you do is try and attack the messenger rather than the message itself.

Isn't that ironic, given you've spent the majority of your posts accusing me of being a shill or a hyper-intelligent AI programme? Or, for that matter, calling other posters ignorant sheep. And completely ignoring all the legitimate points raised against you, or when you've acknowledged them just repeating your initial tirade as if repetition makes it more true. I think I've been quite civil given the complete abortion of an argument I've been faced with.

 

 

Many people

Please quantify. Here you are again, using empirically suggestive words without quantifying them. How wonderfully vague.

 

 

are complaining about how they can't even debate with you anymore because all you do is go "I'm right, you're wrong- ad hominem ad hominem". then rinse and repeat.

Look, I can't be held responsible if you can't make an argument that isn't fundamentally self-contradicting. Please allow me to highlight the areas in which you have failed to reasonably demonstrate your theory, and then you can address them as you wish:

 

1) A great quantity of the evidence provided so far to support the idea of it being a false flag attack is factually incorrect or questionable. The correlation between the maps isn't anywhere near as clear as you make out- in fact, a poster earlier provided a far better fit by inverting another piece of map entirely. The theories about the "dead" child sitting on Obama's knee have been thoroughly debunked. The mere existence of a "Crisis Actors" page does not imply any involvement in the events. Nor do individual reactions- people react differently to traumatic grief. The various websites or Facebook pages exhibited by proponents of the theory can be logically explained other ways. The metadata for the "tragedy" PDF suggests it was written after the attack, not before as some have insinuated based on it's location on the web page. No-one has properly addresses any of these critiques- just continued to insist that they are evidence of a conspiracy.

 

2) Even if none of the above were true and all the "truthers" statements factually accurate, there's still no logical connection between these events and observations and the assumption it was a false flag. Even if evidence of foreknowledge is taken verbatim, that doesn't prove on whose part the foreknowledge exists. As another poster quite rightly pointed out, the evidence does not directly implicate the government any more than it does a terrorist cell with staff members at a few crisis response organisations and on the crew of a film. The connection between the apparent evidence and the hypothesis has not been sufficiently explained- and every attempt I've made to request a reasonable explanation has been met with abuse. Every attempt Melchoir has made to request a reasonable explanation has been completely ignored.

 

3) It is obvious that both you and AtomicPunk, as well as several other members on here, hold a predisposed view, a personal theory, which goes along the lines of "it's a false flag, because Obama wants to take everyone's guns and implement martial law". This view, as I've pointed out numerous times, isn't one that comes logically from the evidence provided. It's a theory that pre-existed the Sandy Hook and Aurora shootings- and a view that you've made clear previously- and therefore your attempts to fit the evidence to your theory- as was also pointed out by Icarus- are completely illogical. The evidence you have presented as having supported your hypothesis does not in actual fact support it- which is as clear a demonstration as any of theory-based evidence (bad) instead of evidence-based-theory (good).

 

 

It's not even a discussion, it's just like talking to a computer thats been programmed what to say.

...and now we're at it again.

 

 

Like how you took literally and wanted me to prove that everyone who disagrees with me is explicitly in bed with the government.. lol

You explicitly said anyone who disagreed with you was in bed with the government. If you don't want people to take your sarcastic comments in a debate as factual, wait until you are outside the sphere of the discussion to make them.

 

 

people get so sick of it that they just give up

Do you think I'm not thoroughly fed up of you being completely unable to explain to me how you connected the dots between your evidence and the theory that it's all been set up as a false flag to take away everyone's guns so that when Obama implements martial law no-one can fight back? There are so many unproven variables in that statement- that require substantial and complex further evidence- that it's genuinely laughable.

Edited January 20, 2013 by sivispacem

[EverBlazin]

Just watched the video. It talked about websites set up before the shooting. I looked it up and found this: the main page is taken down, but google cache has a stored snapshot. The date of the post is 10th december.

 

Google cache

 

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:sFg-ITDrjT0J:www.arlingtonlocalschools.com/news/2012/12/10/talking-with-your-child-about-the-sandy-hook-tragedy+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

 

 

Edit - just done watching the amazingatheist "sandy hook troof" video. That explained most of it, but never explained why they'd post articles under the wrong dates. It is at least a dumb mistake to make.

Edited January 20, 2013 by EverBlazin

[Talakua]

Britain is so bad that they want to ban knives.

I don't know who you think "they" are, but i assure you no sane person in Britain wants to ban knives. Considering that there are already knives in every home and practically every person uses knives on a daily basis, a knife ban would be the most impractical and retarded idea in the history of the universe.

[Mr Rabbit]

Britain is so bad that they want to ban knives.

I don't know who you think "they" are, but i assure you no sane person in Britain wants to ban knives. Considering that there are already knives in every home and practically every person uses knives on a daily basis, a knife ban would be the most impractical and retarded idea in the history of the universe.

what about new coke?

[TheGodDamnMaster]

Complete garbage.

 

A Reddit user by the name of Preggit did a lot of homework and debunked many of the conspiracy theories surrounding the event.

 

http://www.reddit.com/r/skeptic/comments/1..._making/c7xjgzr

 

 

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

All you do is try and attack the messenger rather than the message itself.

Isn't that ironic, given you've spent the majority of your posts accusing me of being a shill or a hyper-intelligent AI programme? Or, for that matter, calling other posters ignorant sheep. And completely ignoring all the legitimate points raised against you, or when you've acknowledged them just repeating your initial tirade as if repetition makes it more true. I think I've been quite civil given the complete abortion of an argument I've been faced with.

Lol you actually think I thought you were literally a "hyper-intelligent AI programme"...

 

 

I meant it as your come off as very robotic-like. You focus on the tiniest of most insignificant details like 'the circle on the batman map and the map the guy shows has about a 20% difference, that's a logical fallacy.. " ..you don't stop and just take a step back and look at the bigger picture.. You seem like a very ideal UK-conditioned person, someone who's been raised to believe CCTV's watching your every step is a normal thing. It's hard for someone whos been born behind bars to realize they're in jail.

 

[sivispacem]

 

Lol you actually think I thought you were literally a "hyper-intelligent AI programme"...

Well, your the one who claimed I was. Numerous times. As I said before, if you don't want idiotic statements taken seriously in debates, don't make them.

 

 

I meant it as your come off as very robotic-like.

I gathered that. You don't need to explain things that are self-explicit. Just the various things you've said which have no bearing on the conclusions you've made from them.

 

 

You focus on the tiniest of most insignificant details like 'the circle on the batman map and the map the guy shows has about a 20% difference

That's because it's important. You claimed that the Batman map and the Sandy Hook map are completely identical. That's obviously not the case if there's a 20% difference between marking characteristics in them. I do find it very strange that when I highlight discrepancies in your argument they're automatically the "tiniest of most insignificant details", when they're the fundamental tenets and statements on which your argument is based. I mean, isn't that rather moving the goal-posts when you claim the slightest discrepancy in any story other than your own is evidence of government complicity, but the slightest discrepancy in your own statements is completely insignificant?

 

 

that's a logical fallacy

You obviously don't understand what a logical fallacy is. Claiming a circle is a different size than it actually is is a failure in perception. Claiming that two matching circles is evidence of a government plot is a fallacy. It's not as if it isn't self-descriptive. Logical- to do with reasoning or logic. Fallacy- a misconception or mistake.

 

 

you don't stop and just take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Oh, and your so schooled on the "big picture" how? It's a totally absurd claim. It's the last fall-back of a conspiracy theorist whose lost his argument- and one that I notice has done nothing to rebut the three simple logical errors that he has made in his arguments. Look, claiming that I don't see the "big picture" and you somehow do is patently ridiculous. Partially because you have in no way quantified or qualified your understanding of this "big picture" by relating it back to anything tangible or real, but primarily because you yourself have spent the best part of...how long is this thread now? Nearly ten pages...trying to explain how some loosely fitting circles and websites that got edited after Sandy Hook are evidence of a government conspiracy, and quite literally forcing the "evidence", with no reasonable regard for rational explanation, technical understanding or reasonable analysis, to fit your convoluted theory. And you have the audacity to call me narrow-minded?

 

 

You seem like a very ideal UK-conditioned person, someone who's been raised to believe CCTV's watching your every step is a normal thing. It's hard for someone whos been born behind bars to realize they're in jail.

It does really amuse me that conspiracy theorists think the UK is some prison-state hell-hole where everyone is bar-coded and tracked twenty four hours a day. I don't know where it comes from; whether it's the American right with their misguided idea that social market economies and partially-direct democracy with a centrist lean are implicit of oppressive police states, or whether it's the idea that security cameras (which I hasten to point out are almost entirely run by private companies for the purposes of building security, as is the case in the US) are an automatic infringement of freedoms even though according to both the ECHR and the UN there's absolutely no expectation of privacy in public. It's totally absurd- all the more so because most measures of freedom- ease of doing business, property ownership, political, press- actually rank the UK between slightly and enormously above the US. So the irony is palpable when you have some audacious young wingnut trying to claim that those born in the UK are "behind bars", when their own country is less free in almost every measurable way. A story involving a spouted water-boiling implement and a large, lidded pan springs to mind.

 

Oh, and it's CCTV cameras. The system is called "closed circuit television". The cameras are a separate entity. CCTVs cannot watch anything. They are systems.

[lil weasel]

There is no logical reason for a Government to disarm the populace unless there is some nefarious thinking going on behind the closed doors.

 

We start with the simple ‘No need’ argument. {The need is to keep the People as powerful as the Government}

Then the ‘too much ammunition available’. {So what?}

How about, ‘It’s not suited for Hunting’. {Doesn’t need to be.}

Forget about the ‘Target Shooters’. {but guns are all designed to kill.}

Guns are only designed to ‘Kill’ {So are knives, Bows, Slingshots.}

It has an ‘automatic loading capability’. {And?}

If you pull the trigger, repeatedly, fast enough it sounds like the already ‘outlawed’ machine gun. {Compelling… not}

It’s Okay to further ‘Infringe’ the Second Amendment, since it’s already been infringed and a ‘High Court’ already says it can be done. {Anybody heard of the Domino Theory?}

 

 

Screw the Constitution and especially the Amendments, it’s only an olde piece of ‘paper’ that doesn’t mean anything now that we are a modern world.

Let’s Review some of the others, how changes could be useful:

[1] To keep the Media honest the Licensing should be implemented. If they divulge information that is incorrect or the Government feels is not in the public domain the permission to operate should be withdrawn.

[2] No necessary to common peace and wellbeing of the Government Leaders.

[3] Enough said.

[4] To protect the common peace and ensure criminals are dealt with effectively the Police and other Government Agencies should no be hindered in the preforming of searches.

[5] To protect the common peace and ensure criminals are dealt with effectively the Police, and Courts should not be hindered by individuals ‘claiming’ innocence. All information would be required to be revealed even if it puts the individual in a ‘bad light’.

[6] The trial of the individual should be at the convenience of the Government. When the accused has the proper evidence amassed against said individual the trial may proceed. There should be no rush to judgment. Defense counsel will be provided at the time of trial.

[7] Trials should be adjudicated by a panel of one to three Judges (depending on the nature of the crime), since very few people know the nuances of law. Civil cases will be Arbitrated by a single lawyer.

[8] Fines should be crippling to the criminal. Bail should be denied unless it is obvious the individual didn’t commit the crime. Punishment should be fitting the crime.

[9] The Government has the power to do all things. When the President issues a Executive Order the Congress has 30 days to make it law. Failure to enact a Presidential order will require the President to issue another every 30 days. Failure to enact the Presidential Order does not reduce its authority.

[10] Unless the Government gives an individual a specific ‘right’ all power is retained by the Government.

 

Considerations must be made that most of the ‘Founding Fathers’ were engaged in (by modern morals) criminal activities. Tax evasion, smuggling, slavery, insurrection. Thus, it is understandable that they favour criminal activities.

 

But, we live in a modern world. All of our Governmental Leaders are Honest. They don’t think of evading the laws of the land. Would never contravene the intent of other Government bodies like the Congress. Nor, work to make the rulings of our most Honest of all Supreme Court invalid. What President would think to ‘pack’ that court just to get his/her laws approved.

So it’s easy to see that “The People” don’t need an Ace in the Hole.

But, before any of these simple and useful changes can be made the current guns must be removed from the hands of the hoi-polloi, as some of those wicked, evil, individuals might get upset to the point of using their guns, bows, slingshots to try to overrule the Government Leaders.

We live in a Modern World. We don’t have cabals and secret societies. There are no conspiracies, however small. We don’t have Government employees covering their asses, when mistakes are made. All of our Governmental Leaders and drones are Honest. There is no need to spy on the governed, except of course those who might not be patriots. The Government (of individuals) don’t think of evading the laws of the land. Government workers never contravene the intent of other Government bodies like the Congress. Nor, work to make the rulings of our most Honest of all Supreme Court invalid. What President would think to ‘pack’ that court just to get his/her laws approved?

So it’s easy to see that “The People” don’t need an Ace in the Hole like the Second Amendment, in order to protect “from enemies foreign and domestic.

 

 

 

[sivispacem]

 

There is no logical reason for a Government to disarm the populace unless there is some nefarious thinking going on behind the closed doors.

Your post would have made oh so much more sense had you just finished it here. The rest of it seems...well, confused at best. Completely incomprehensible at worst. Care to condense it into a statement that makes sense? I get the impression that you think personally (not that your personal annotations are worth a grain of salt) that the constitution is being infringed in relation to second amendment rights. If that's the crux of your argument, why not post it in a thread where it's actually on topic rather than wasting everyone's time by posting an ill-thought-out and largely nonsensical diatribe in a thread where it barely applies?

 

If your claiming there is some "nefarious thinking" going on behind closed doors, care to step up to the plate and quantify it, like the various conspiracy theorists in this thread have utterly failed to?

[GrandMaster Smith]

 

Lol you actually think I thought you were literally a "hyper-intelligent AI programme"...

Well, your the one who claimed I was. Numerous times. As I said before, if you don't want idiotic statements taken seriously in debates, don't make them.

 

So you don't know when to take obviously sarcastic statements seriously, such as me saying you have a robotic personality you take is I think you're a computer program... (lol)

 

 

I meant it as your come off as very robotic-like.

I gathered that. You don't need to explain things that are self-explicit. Just the various things you've said which have no bearing on the conclusions you've made from them.

 

....Then go off and say I don't need to explain things that are self-explicit.. hahah

 

That's a logical fallacy Sivispacen because you didn't apply Occams Razor. What's more plausible, that I assumed you have a robot's level of common sense, or that I believe you're actually a 'hyper intelligent computer program?' This shows you have a very low ability to observe and take in what you have read, your ability to conceptualize what other's have said seems to be rather detrimental. As a matter of fact you have ... (see? Anyone can ramble on for days about irrelevant things trying to discredit credibility, it doesn't prove anything)

 

 

 

You claimed that the Batman map and the Sandy Hook map are completely identical. That's obviously not the case if there's a 20% difference between marking characteristics in them

 

Is your circuitry misfiring Siv.. cpu perhaps overheating? Please explain how the size of the circle the guy drew around Sandy Hook Elementary effects the plain fact that the batman map has Sandy Hook Elementary School circled and marked as Strike Zone 1.. ?

 

 

 

when they're the fundamental tenets and statements on which your argument is based

 

The size of the circle the guy had drawn to show where the Elementary school is on the google map is not the the basis of by argument. It doesn't even effect anything at all.. this is what I exactly mean by picking the minute details and missing the picture at large..

 

 

 

 

Claiming a circle is a different size than it actually is is a failure in perception. Claiming that two matching circles is evidence of a government plot is a fallacy.

 

LOL I can't believe one can be so naive.. Are you being serious right now or are you really derped in the head?

 

Show me where I've claimed where two matching circles is evidence of a government plot. Please for the love of god show me where I claimed by basis of the Sandy Hook Massacre all comes down to the size of the circle on the batman map, NOT THE FACT THAT THE MAP HAD BEEN RENAMED SANDY HOOK AND SHOWS THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AS A STRIKE ZONE..

 

derp de derp der diddily derp

 

 

 

 

 

.... even though according to both the ECHR and the UN there's absolutely no expectation of privacy in public

 

See look, this is your problem RIGHT HERE: "even though according to both the ECHR and the UN there's absolutely no expectation of privacy in public"

 

You CANNOT think for yourself.. You have to have the UN and ECHR tell you that you to have no expectation of privacy in public, so you follow as commanded. You are not a human being, you're a product of the state who thinks as you're told to think.

 

You are a very knowledgable and intelligent person, but I feel your common sense falls apart when it comes to connecting the dots.

[Clem Fandango]

I have asked you multiple times to explain how the Batman map is evidence of a government conspiracy, when there are numerous other logical explanations (terrorist cell, cult, f*cking coincidence etc.) and Occam's razor shrieks in our ear, shakes us by the arm, demanding we refer to them first. Are you going to answer or should I assume you're doing your best to ignore this fact because it interferes with your process of contorting evidence to fit some preconceived idea? Here's a tip, if it takes any amount of mental gymnastics to explain your beliefs to yourself, you're probably wrong.

[GrandMaster Smith]

I have asked you multiple times to explain how the Batman map is evidence of a government conspiracy, when there are numerous other logical explanations (terrorist cell, cult, f*cking coincidence etc.) and Occam's razor shrieks in our ear, shakes us by the arm, demanding we refer to them first. Are you going to answer or should I assume you're doing your best to ignore this fact because it interferes with your process of contorting evidence to fit some preconceived idea? Here's a tip, if it takes any amount of mental gymnastics to explain your beliefs to yourself, you're probably wrong.

What more evidence do you need that this event was planned than facebook pages being made in advance for deaths of people who haven't even died yet or maps showing the Sandy Hook school as a strike zone?

 

All I'm saying was that this event was planned.

 

 

Who it was or why it was done is questionable.

 

If the government was involved it would be only a very small portion. I honestly doubt the government would've had very much to do with it, it would be more along the people who are above the governments themselves, the ones who pull the strings from behind the curtains.

[Clem Fandango]

I have asked you multiple times to explain how the Batman map is evidence of a government conspiracy, when there are numerous other logical explanations (terrorist cell, cult, f*cking coincidence etc.) and Occam's razor shrieks in our ear, shakes us by the arm, demanding we refer to them first. Are you going to answer or should I assume you're doing your best to ignore this fact because it interferes with your process of contorting evidence to fit some preconceived idea? Here's a tip, if it takes any amount of mental gymnastics to explain your beliefs to yourself, you're probably wrong.

What more evidence do you need that this event was planned than facebook pages being made in advance for deaths of people who haven't even died yet or maps showing the Sandy Hook school as a strike zone?

 

All I'm saying was that this event was planned.

 

 

Who it was or why it was done is questionable.

 

If the government was involved it would be only a very small portion. I honestly doubt the government would've had very much to do with it, it would be more along the people who are above the governments themselves, the ones who pull the strings from behind the curtains.

So you admit there are absolutely no grounds on which to claim this is a government conspiracy to make people accept gun confiscation and subsequent martial law?

 

f*cking finally.

[tuff_luv_capo]

 

didn't watch lol

Tuff Luv Capo likes this post

[GrandMaster Smith]

I have asked you multiple times to explain how the Batman map is evidence of a government conspiracy, when there are numerous other logical explanations (terrorist cell, cult, f*cking coincidence etc.) and Occam's razor shrieks in our ear, shakes us by the arm, demanding we refer to them first. Are you going to answer or should I assume you're doing your best to ignore this fact because it interferes with your process of contorting evidence to fit some preconceived idea? Here's a tip, if it takes any amount of mental gymnastics to explain your beliefs to yourself, you're probably wrong.

What more evidence do you need that this event was planned than facebook pages being made in advance for deaths of people who haven't even died yet or maps showing the Sandy Hook school as a strike zone?

 

All I'm saying was that this event was planned.

 

 

Who it was or why it was done is questionable.

 

If the government was involved it would be only a very small portion. I honestly doubt the government would've had very much to do with it, it would be more along the people who are above the governments themselves, the ones who pull the strings from behind the curtains.

So you admit there are absolutely no grounds on which to claim this is a government conspiracy to make people accept gun confiscation and subsequent martial law?

 

f*cking finally.

Absolutely there are grounds to suspect this being a false flag attack.

 

The fact that there are so many holes in the story, the fact that people used in news interviews have been linked to CrisisActors.org, the very fact that major events have been foreshadowed in mainstream media time and time again, the fact they have gun restriction and regulations ready to be put in place the very next day.. or the fact that the school has been marked as a strike zone or there were foundations set up for these people's deaths before the event ever even happened.

 

I don't think you understand what a false flag is. Who else would want to restrict our 2nd amendment right, the very amendment made to fight against a tyrannical government.. hmmmm