Looks like Obomber is going to use today's shooting to create a constitutional crisis

[Aetherous]

Ah I see, thanks for adding that info.

[ShenLung]

My dad went to high school in rural Ohio. During hunting season, sometimes boys would take a shotgun to school and stow it in a locker so they could go out and hunt after class. They all carried pocket knives too, no one thought this was problem at that time.

 

Around these parts, a plant closing down for deer season is a fairly common occurance, if it's a small operation.

[Aetherous]

Nancy Lanza's job, that no one in the media has reported (if this is in fact her)...

http://financial-adv...613/Nancy-Lanza

 

edit: clearing this up, it's not her...there are two Nancy Lanzas in CT, and the link above is not Adam's mother.

http://www.whitepages.com/name/Nancy-Lanza/Connecticut

Edited December 30, 2012 by turtle shell

[joeblast]

...and here it comes...

 

“I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids,” said Obama.

 

Now "regular handguns" are "high capacity weapons" And of course that POS Lt Vance from the CT State Police had to make sure he gave out plenty of misinformation and immediately started talking "assault rifles" on day one. I'm sorry - an "assault rifle" means fully automatic to me. I know some other people pretty much think if it goes boom then its an assault weapon, nevermind how such things are conventionally termed. Just because its black doesnt mean its an assault weapon, and if you think a bolt or lever action is plenty slow enough for us normal folk, you've never seen how fast some people can rip off a ton of rounds with either, its all a matter of training the motion.

 

I'm pretty sure I can bet my entire 2013's worth of paychecks and then some that such things wouldnt make people like Obama or David Gregory take their kids out of schools that have armed guards. "Its not the solution for the country, but its my personal hypocritical solution." IOTW, YOU LIE!!!! (greatest words uttered in that chamber in the last 50 years, imho)

 

Reality doesnt looks like its going to win this misinformation war. Obama is a pig headed liar, just like Harry Reid and Diane Feinstien.

 

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-12-28/guest-post-feinsteins-gun-control-bill-will-trigger-next-american-revolution

All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party - Mao Tse Tung

 

After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a society where the only people allowed guns are the police and the military - William Burroughs

 

let’s just examine the guidelines of the Nazi Gun Registration Program of 1938:

- Classified guns for "sporting purposes"

- All citizens who wished to purchase firearms had to register with the Nazi officials and have a background check.

- Presumed German citizens were hostile and thereby exempted Nazis from the gun control law (meaning officials could have guns, citizens could not).

- Gave Nazis unrestricted power to decide what kinds of firearms could, or could not be owned by private persons.

- The types of ammunition that were legal were subject to control by bureaucrats.

- Juveniles under 18 years could not buy firearms and ammunition.

 

You see, we’ve witnessed the Feinstein gun bill before, many times through history. We know how it ends, so, there is very little incentive for us to go along quietly.

 

The database itself is truly the crux of it all. It basically begs to be defied. When a government has become openly hostile to common people, destructive of their economy, and oppressive of their individual rights, it only follows that gun registration will lead to outright confiscation later down the road or imprisonment for the owner. Many Americans are simply not going to fall into the same trap that past societies have fallen into. The eventual refusal of millions of citizens to voluntarily register will lead to a definite federal response.

 

The Department Of Homeland Security has obviously taken this into account, at least partly, by stockpiling over 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition in the span of a year, most of which are used in weapons distributed by the government for domestic enforcement. Their projected scenario, I believe, involves limited resistance from people like myself; “gun nuts” and “liberty freaks” who are on the “fringe” of the populous. At least, that’s what the headlines will say. In the end, who will care if a few “conspiracy theorists” take a bullet in the quest to end gun violence, right? But then again…

 

What I see in America is a much harder stance against gun confiscation than at any time in recent memory, and far less compromising than in the 1990’s. Gun grabbers are, in my view, walking into a hornets nest. Most average firearms enthusiast may be less aware of the deeper problems at hand, but they know when they are about to be raped, and will react in kind. We in the Liberty Movement are often accused of “radicalizing” people against government authority, but I have to say, if that is the case, then the Feds are doing a much better job than we ever could.

 

Simultaneously, the UN (which most gun owners despise) is helping matters along by using the recent Sandy Hook shooting as a springboard for a reintroduction of their failed international Small Arms Treaty:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/28/un-arms-treaty-nra_n_2373417.html

 

"European and other U.N. delegates who support the arms trade treaty told Reuters on condition of anonymity they hoped Newtown would boost support for the convention in the United States, where gun control is an explosive political issue."

 

"Newtown has opened the debate within the United States on weapons controls in ways that it has not been opened in the past," Abramson said, adding that "the conversation within the U.S. will give the (Obama) administration more leeway."

The UN has always claimed that their small arms treaty would NOT restrict private gun ownership in the U.S., and that it only deals with the international trade of illicit arms. Yet, they try to use gun control actions in the face of Sandy Hook as a rationale for reopening negotiations? They can't have it both ways. Either they are trying to tie the treaty to domestic gun ownership in the U.S, or they aren't. Will our government sign on to an international agreement to restrict private gun ownership on top of Feinstein's gun grab bill?

 

To put this in the most basic terms: registration and restriction equals revolution. Count on it. It is not a matter of what we "want", it is a matter of what is necessary. Without a citizenry armed with weapons of military application, we lose our last deterrent to tyranny, and thus, we lose everything. When backed into a corner, a victim has two options: he can lie down and die, or, he can fight regardless of the odds. Sadly, this is where we are in America; fear, servitude, subservience, or civil war.

 

Let us hope our weapons are never needed --but do not forget what the common people knew when they demanded the Bill of Rights: An armed citizenry is the first defense, the best defense, and the final defense against tyranny. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government -- and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws - Edward Abbey

So I basically have to sound like the stereotypical gun zealot here, just because that's the rational argument here that can be backed up with real world data & scenarios (I also despise the absolutely useless and utterly incompetent United Nations, who want nothing more than to have their dysfunctional body be declared the world's single overarching government.)

 

It is just about the point where the federal government is openly hostile towards its citizens - they have been covertly so for quite a long time.

 

See what happens when we let them get away with voter fraud?

[joeblast]

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

[i am]

Hmm...I had a long post written out and reconsidered. Basic idea:

 

Obama is no worse than any other modern politician, with no more radical ideas. Left or right. I don't understand the vehement hate of him. The "you lie" incident would have been just as apt, if not more so, for any modern politician. The fact that it happened with him and never anyone else showed the disrespect and open mistrust the white, male political establishment has for someone not like them.

 

I absolutely agree about learning from the past, but anytime you bring a comparison to Nazis into the conversation, whether you're talking about Bush or Obama, you've lost credibility in my eyes (which doesn't need to bother you any).

 

I like guns. I hunt. Where I live, having a gun leaning up against the wall by the door is totally normal. Most left wing, urban liberals don't understand this, and how could they? But I don't see the conspiracy, just differing opinions.

 

In Obamas place, any politician would take advantage of a moment when they could push their agenda. At least in the news I listen to, there's no conspiracy about it. It's spoken as matter of fact that for years now the democrats have given up on the gun regulation issue because they've seen they can't get anywhere. They are going to take advantage of a sway in public opinion, by those who weren't completely decided, to see if now they can get something done. Pretty simple...and how change usually happens, good or bad. Those who don't agree can speak up, and they are.

Edited December 31, 2012 by i am

[Aetherous]

NDAA....NDRP executive order...

 

I'm a liberal and totally non-racist. I argued against Romney during the election...but Obama is the one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

[Birch]

I have a fishing rod and its intent is fish-killing. I can fish the fish out of the water but someone else kills and guts them. And most often cooks them too. I am learning the gutting part before I learn the killing part. Cooking, whatevs.

 

If I had a gun, its intent is killing or injuring. I most definitely include myself in the killing or injuring if I have a gun in my hand -even though till now I have done everything but kill or injure.

 

How do people with guns in their hands see things? Possible they see things in ways that make them wish to take the guns out of people like them's hands.

 

 

[h.uriahr]

I have a fishing rod and its intent is fish-killing. I can fish the fish out of the water but someone else kills and guts them. And most often cooks them too. I am learning the gutting part before I learn the killing part. Cooking, whatevs.

 

If I had a gun, its intent is killing or injuring. I most definitely include myself in the killing or injuring if I have a gun in my hand -even though till now I have done everything but kill or injure.

 

How do people with guns in their hands see things? Possible they see things in ways that make them wish to take the guns out of people like them's hands.

 

The intent behind the rod is YOUR intent. The rod merely catches. You have heard of catch and release I'm sure.

 

My intent with a firearm is home defense. I do however enjoy target shooting. A firearm is merely a soulless tool. It cannot operate on it's own. In terms of murder, accidents or domestic abuse, alcohol far exceeds any firearm related deaths but yet you don't here anything in the media about that nor do you here about Osama Bin Hitler wanting to ban alcohol.

 

A nation that's been disarmed is a helpless nation.

[ShenLung]

I have a fishing rod and its intent is fish-killing. I can fish the fish out of the water but someone else kills and guts them. And most often cooks them too. I am learning the gutting part before I learn the killing part. Cooking, whatevs.

 

If I had a gun, its intent is killing or injuring. I most definitely include myself in the killing or injuring if I have a gun in my hand -even though till now I have done everything but kill or injure.

 

How do people with guns in their hands see things? Possible they see things in ways that make them wish to take the guns out of people like them's hands.

 

I had intended to adress this in your 'what is spirit' post, and probably still will, when I get around to it. Teaching people to discern the spirit of things has surfaced a lot recently, outside of TTB, in the realm of martial arts, I've been working on the concept, transforming the idea of certain concepts .. the spear hand technique is approached as another form of strike. In the mind of most martial artists, any technique winds up being reduced to the spirit of 'to strike' or to bludgeon.

 

This is disrespectful to the true spirit of the technique. The true spirit of a spear hand is to pierce, or to cut, if used as a sword. The reason that this technique is not widely taught in the western world is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the spirit is, and how to transform the spirit. With this misunderstanding, a martial artist attempting to make use of spear hand will wind up breaking their bones when attempting to break wood or stone with it.

 

Gun, and bullet, also have their spirit, irreducible, that, without proper respect for what this spirit is, can lead to harm. Many who, when asked to define the spirit of a bullet, will say "to kill". This is incorrect. The true spirit of a bullet is to pierce, the same as the spirit of the spear hand. What use a person makes of this essential nature may vary, but the power to kill is an essential nature of the spirit of the person who kills, not the implement that represents their desires.

 

This, above all other things, led me to the practice of dharma teachings, so that I would not desire to deliver death to others, but respect the desire for life in all sentient beings. I need no tools to deliver death, only desire.

Edited January 1, 2013 by ShenLung

[GrandmasterP]

Blaming a gun for killing is like blaming a pencil for bad spelling.

We do Zen archery, factor out the cultivation side and those arrows were designed to kill both prey and people.

Both targets would be pretty safe if I was the shooter as I am useless.

Edited January 1, 2013 by GrandmasterP

[Birch]

I was mulling over this a lot today. My post was not intended as an argument against guns but as a meditation close to that of Shen Lung's. I have heard of 'catch and release' but I wonder about the point of that. Only fish I have caught and released are those not meeting criteria for killing and eating.

I was mulling specifically about this ability to separate one's intent from the 'spirit' of the rod, or gun. I appreciate the sharpness of the distinction between the purpose of a rod (pulling fish out of the water) or a bullet (piercing things) and the idea that one's intent is the determining factor. Part of me feels it's less clear cut than this but all I can point to are cherry-pickings about 'self-defence' shootings. Apech speaks to ideas in a similar way in the 'Cultivation without ideology' thread.

[Owledge]

Obama: "I think there are a vast majority of responsible gun owners out there who recognize that we can't have a situation in which somebody with severe psychological problems is able to get the kind of high capacity weapons that this individual in Newtown obtained and gun down our kids."

Well, you became commander-in-chief, so it's kind of a hypocritical thing to say.

Edited January 1, 2013 by Owledge

[ShenLung]

I could say that I feel that there are a great number of people that I do not trust with weapons. Really getting down to the meat of it, I feel that the entire world should divest themselves of all armaments, and turn them over to me. I can be responsible with weaponry, but I don't trust anyone else completely with weapons, up to and including a salad fork.

 

That is an unreasonable position, however, because I'm quite sure there are a goodly number of folk that are concerned that I have access to weapons. The best balance is that others are permitted to arm themselves, and this keeps me, or others like me, from making use of our own weaponry in an irresponsible manner. Unless I go bat-arsed crazy, in which case, all bets are off, weapon or no weapon. If ShenLung is on a rampage with a salad fork, having someone nearby armed with a pistol or rifle is a good insurance policy!

 

Back when the United States was coming into being, the idea behind allowing private ownership of arms was essential. The first line of defense of the nation was the militia; that is, every able-bodied person, armed with their own arms. Maintaining a permenant army was not the goal of the founders, as they saw the potential for abuse in the maintenance of a standing army. All this machinery of warfare, all of these soldiers, and nothing for them to do ... the temptation to make use of the army would be so great as to draw the nation into conflict after conflict, when merely standing back and doing nothing is usually the best and wisest course of action.

 

As the financial reality begins to sink in, the level of unsustainable spending and debt creation takes it's toll, our government will soon be incapable of financing even the very basic and fundemental functions of governance. The soldiers, half a world away, go unpaid. Who then will be capable of performing the vital task of national defense? Should we, as a people, surrender arms, and hope that the blue helmeted forces that will one day patrol our streets suddenly change from the habits of extortion, profiteering, rape, and murder that have so characterized them up until this point?

 

Some day in the future, as in times past, the world may have need of the American people, with their independance, their sense of justice, and their weapons. Keeping the second amendment, there should be a relaxing of restrictions, not more restrictions. If incidents such as the school shooting are a concern, let us focus on the things that lead a person to wish to do harm, not the tools that are used; in all honesty, there is no effective method of disarming the world, even if we wanted to do so.

[Aetherous]

http://www.wdbj7.com...0,3014631.story

 

Text of letter:

 

January 1, 2013

 

Dear Parents/Guardians:

 

On the evening of Dec. 27th, 2012, the Giles County Sheriff’s Department, the Town of Narrows police department, and the Giles County Schools, were notified by the Va. State police regarding information on a web-site. This web-site discussed the shootings that occurred at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Included in this discussion on the web-site was how “Sandy Hook” was referenced in the Batman movie “The Dark Knight Rising.” This reference was in a map that appeared in a scene in this movie. Another zone on this map appearing in the movie was “Narrows.” The author, who posted this article, did an online Google search based “on a hunch” for “Narrows Schools.” From this search, information for Narrows Elementary/Middle School and Narrows High School appeared.

 

Based on this information, we have been in communication with our local law enforcement officials (i.e. – the Sheriff’s Department and Town of Narrows police) to discuss this issue further. Additional precautions have been taken for the immediate future and additional safeguards will be installed at each of our facilities in the near future.

 

Again, please realize that there were no specific threats made against any of our schools in Giles County. However, based on this information, we are working with our local law enforcement officials to continue to ensure the safety of our students and our staff members.

 

If you have any questions, please contact your child(s) school or the Giles County School Board office.

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

Dr. Terry E. Arbogast, II Superintendent

 

 

Who really knows is this was the location and time of the next attack. Perhaps the police and superintendent had other info besides this theory. Interesting that they actually took it seriously, though!

Edited January 2, 2013 by turtle shell

[i am]

NDAA....NDRP executive order...

 

I'm a liberal and totally non-racist. I argued against Romney during the election...but Obama is the one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

 

I don't doubt what you say about yourself. As far as Obama, I just don't see it.

[Owledge]

I don't doubt what you say about yourself. As far as Obama, I just don't see it.

Then you need to educate yourself, search for some facts. I mean, it's actually quite obvious, for example how Obama is continuing where Bush left things, and is often continuing it in a more extreme way. He's the president who fully runs drone warfare, killing civilians, backs Israel's crimes, lies and deceives people, seeks to deconstruct the Constitution, continues the patriot act, continues and expands illegal sanctions against Iran, didn't close Guantanamo and fully continues to run secret prisons for the abductions that they're still doing and during his presidency, we were presented with the ridiculous fake Osama apprehension story.

Where is Obama less rotten than Bush? He's just dressing the whole thing differently. The USA have democrats and republicans so that you can divide the people in two and properly fool both halves.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Owledge

[chi 2012]

Well Obama did save the country from another Great Depression. The Libertarian fantasy where the U.S. just sits back and does nothing is just a theory that isn't practical. if you look at the big picture the U.S. has probably had 4 good Presidents in the last 60 years. Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and JFK....JFK prevented a nuclear war from happening and Reagan ended the Cold War.

Edited January 3, 2013 by chi 2012

[Owledge]

Well Obama did save the country from another Great Depression. The Libertarian fantasy where the U.S. just sits back and does nothing is just a theory that isn't practical. if you look at the big picture the U.S. has probably had 4 good Presidents in the last 60 years. Obama, Clinton, Reagan, and JFK....JFK prevented a nuclear war from happening and Reagan ended the Cold War.

It's nice to pose as the savior when you are part of the problem.

Doing just what the banks want, making a blackmail work, is not something I give credit for. He bent down to his monetary masters. (You know, various banks are major contributors to his campaign.) You're judging by propaganda and history written by the winners.

Clinton had the renditions running (circumventing basic legal principles of the USA by sending prisoners to other countries where servile corrupt regimes do the dirty work for them) and he started an illegal war. Reagan was mostly a puppet, he was less bright than George W. Bush ... good intentions, but very naive, and much ugly stuff happened during his administration. JFK was responsible for an act of war against another sovereign country. The CIA told him they wouldn't get caught doing their totally illegitimate thing, and that was good enough for the President of the United States to greenlight it. But I guess he learned quickly, and he was murdered by the federal reserve banksters for the monetary reforms he attempted.

 

To me, a good president is one who wouldn't get elected in the current system, because the system doesn't allow it. First the people have to change the system so that they deserve a better president. It's a perpetual folly of the people to elect a champion instead of a representative. Ron Paul is one of the very few prominent politicians who actually prove sincere, because their actions match their words. And the degree of media manipulation regarding his campaign is appalling and not even in any way hidden. It's the clear message that those who are really in power don't have to conceil their influence; they feel safe and probably get a good kick out of witnessing how easy it is to fool the majority.

 

You have to look past the propaganda storm, beyond the mainstream common-knowledge history version. If you call Reagan a good president because he 'ended a war', then you'd have to love Henry Kissinger. You know... he got the Nobel Peace Prize. ... Truth is, though, that he's a war criminal.

 

The politics in the USA are so far away from legality and following the Constitution that people confuse that sick state with normality. It's telling that when people call Ron Paul a constitutionalist, they say it like he's some kind of quaint freak clinging to ancient concepts, when in reality the Constitution is still a valid part of the US legal system. Bush should have been hanged for treason for his utter disrespect of it, but people take a lot of shit without seeing clearly.

 

Man, there's so much stuff to open your eyes. I, too, started off with shaping my opinion based on the official version of events, but some things were unsatisfying and so I investigated. Many people now realize what's going on. It takes some courage to realize most of our idols are crooks. Not much left then, but that which is left is what we need to focus on. It's not about being on the winner's side. It's about being on the right side.

 

In short: In a system like the one the USA had for a long time now, there is no such thing as a good president, because the president is of very little relevance.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Owledge

[Aetherous]

I don't doubt what you say about yourself. As far as Obama, I just don't see it.

 

Well I gave you a couple of links...but it's all good to agree to disagree as well.

 

Well Obama did save the country from another Great Depression.

 

This may be true. I don't dislike everything about him, like some do. Only a few very key things.

[ShenLung]

In the simple personal relationship between one person and another, it is foolish to expect one to provide the other with happiness or fulfillment; these things can only be provided from within. How much more foolish, then, to expect what is needed from those with whom one has no personal relationship whatsoever?

 

Presidents get the credit when good things happen, they get the credit when bad things happen. But they are just men. Miserable, flawed, and incapable of helping even themselves; driven by desires for power and control over others, how can anyone seek solutions from them?

 

In truth, answers are not guaranteed. Solutions are not guaranteed. These things are possible, yet the source can only be found by looking within. So long as they are sought from without, they will never be true answers; never be true solutions.

[ralis]

This article in the WSJ exposes the lies from the right wing in regards to Obama's so called spending spree. His spending is the lowest since Reagan, at 1.4% growth. The data contained in this article are from the Congressional Budget Office. The CBO is non partisan and anyone can see the facts for what they are.

 

http://www.marketwat...ened-2012-05-22

Edited January 3, 2013 by ralis

[Owledge]

Hah, yes, well, probably the only mistake greater than trusting what Obama says is trusting what his political opponents say about him. They need to use lies to attack him, since there's so little truth they can attack him with that's 'safe' for the sheeple's ears.

 

Although I wouldn't trust some fancy statistics published by the Wallstreet Journal. You can take authentic numbers and take them out of context and thus mislead people. It's a long information chain and you only have to manipulate at one point to make it all untrustworthy.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Owledge

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

HAW! I came in here to see how low the thread has gone, and I find that video turtle posted... im just laughing right now...

[Owledge]

HAW! I came in here to see how low the thread has gone, and I find that video turtle posted... im just laughing right now...

Not really something to laugh about. It shows how safe the planners of false flag incidents feel.

Are you aware that the sinking of the Titanic was a real life enactment of a novel published earlier? It followed the book in almost every detail. It was the banksters getting rid of a bunch of influential opponents to the Federal Reserve Act, and now they can laugh their asses off how sceptical 'experts' believe that it was some freak metaphysical synchronistic coincidence of life rather than realizing it was all a setup. Escaping into superstition when the truth is too frightening to believe.

Edited January 3, 2013 by Owledge