It's not every day that one grins like a Cheshire Cat at his daughter's "funeral," now is it?
Posted on 03/19/2015 11:23:46 PM PDT by Olog-hai
A “gun shop” that suddenly appeared in the heart of Manhattan last week only to close its doors after two days was actually an elaborate ruse by a pro-gun control group that sought to lure potential customers in order to make their anti-firearms case.
States United to Prevent Gun Violence set up the “Guns with History Gun Shop” on Manhattan’s Lower East Side, and pretended to offer for sale guns used in high-profile crimes. The phony sales pitches were really part of a “social experiment”—pretexts for telling customers about the dangers of gun proliferation in unconsummated transactions recorded by hidden cameras, according to the group. In one such conversation, the bogus clerk shows a replica Bushmaster assault rifle like the one Connecticut State Police said Adam Lanza used in the Sandy Hook school massacre. […]
Pro-gun advocates called the effort a misleading stunt.
“This is a tasteless PR stunt designed to further an anti-gun agenda, and it’s out of touch with reality,” NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker told FoxNews.com. “As gun ownership has risen to an all-time high, violent crime has fallen to a 43-year low, and the firearm accident death rate has fallen to the lowest that it has been in over a hundred years. A clear majority of the American people support the use of firearms for protection and put more faith in gun ownership rights than in gun control.” …
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Okay, so you don’t want to answer even the most basic questions about your point-of-view. This tells me that you read some conspiracy theory at one point (that suited your perspective) and failed to apply even the most rudimentary critical thinking analysis to that narrative.
The questions I have asked are the most elementary follow up questions imaginable to such a conspiracy theory. How can you possibly not have an answer to them?
You don’t like that I’m challenging you on this. Yet you so casually dismiss the deaths of dozens of people by hiding behind the most preposterous of conspiracy theories. It is stuff like this that makes conservatives look bad. You should read your own tag line.
Prole, you are welcome to answer my questions in comment #19 as well.
I ask a question and you launch a witch hunt for the "conspiracy theory guy". I am not playing that damned game.
If you are so capable of logic, then tell me what you KNOW. First hand.
Apparently nada, zip, nothing.
The list of sources for the wiki article includes a tremendous number of news outlets who make unabashed war on the Second Amendment and the articles linked there make no bones about their anti-gun positions.
There is one official report (without the appendix) linked. While an executive summary is a long way from primary documents (police and coroner's reports, for instance) It is something.
But, instead of answering questions, you are busy trolling for a conspiracy guy.
You want so desperately to lump me in with people who you consider crackpots that you are willing to jump to entirely unsupported conclusions about someone you don't know.
You are willing to accept the Anti-2nd Amendment ravings of ABCNNBCBS, and a host of other media outlets, and seem willing to piss away the rights fought and died for by millions of service men and women over more than two centuries over a body count that could have been the result of a school bus wreck.
None of us want to see kids get killed, but I have to question that.
I also have to question why the demolition contractors were required to sign non-disclosure agreements--a gag order, for all practical purposes.
Obviously, there is something to hide or they wouldn't be hiding it. The question any normal person would ask is what and why? I could accept that they didn't want Facebook posts of blood stained walls and other morbid curiosities, but you jump me as If I was a 9-11 'troofer'.
I'm not, I'm a scientist--we question everything--with a healthy amount of curiosity about an event that was sloppily reported by the usual suspects, with conflicting and often erroneous reports, but immediately seized as an opportunity to push gun control legislation by Feinstein, the NYT, the usual media suspects and politicians, from the highest levels.
If you want someone who doesn't give a d@mn about dead kids and is willing to exploit them for their own ends, I suggest you examine that lot.
In the meantime, my focus is on keeping the tribe of kids, grandkids, and great-grandkids I have from losing their rights over the actions of a small group of people, because defending them, and them defending themselves is more important to me.
I can't help the ones who are dead, but I can't help but notice the well-oiled machine that seeks to destroy the right of every American to Keep and Bear Arms is lubricated with the blood of innocents.
There were notable irregularities in the reporting, from reporting the wrong brother as the shooter, the mother as a school employee, to wild-eyed nonsense about the weapons used, etc. etc. etc. Now that the feeding frenzy is over, I'd like to see if I can sort out what was what.
Can you explain to me why a community would rebuild a school back in the woods where there is abundant concealment and cover for a terrorist instead of well out in the open where it is harder to attack?
That seems like a strategic blunder to me as well.
So, yes, I have questions. I am still trying to find the data closest to the source, unfiltered by the inaccurate hyperbole of the every gun is a 'high-powered AK-47 Glock Assault weapon with cop-killer bullets and high capacity magazines' (the average media description of a 'Cricket' rifle) media crowd.
You seemed so sure of what had happened, I thought you might have some of that primary information, but instead you (disappointingly) refer me to a wiki article with a who's who of liberal media articles (2nd hand info at best, colored by writer bias). As I said, there was only one official report linked in that pile. If that's the best you have, you don't have any more than anyone else who had the TV on that day. So you only "know" what you have been told, you haven't done any research from primary sources.
Yet you are willing to jump me on the web over asking questions, to try to Alinsky me on this forum by claiming I harbor some "conspiracy theory".
Nope.
Thanks for playing.
I figure your attack-dog stance means you are a troll, looking to pounce on some slob who embraces some wild-eyed theory because the media made a total effing mess of reporting the event.
Me, I'm just asking questions.
I definitely don't need you to tell me what I think. How can I not have answers to follow up on a conspiracy theory? I just don't have a conspiracy theory to follow up on. Ever think of that?
Your willingness to jump to conclusions unsupported by data, try to pigeonhole me as a crackpot even though I am just asking questions--for sources of information!--to judge me when you don't know jack about me or what I think, and brand me with being 'uncaring', all reek of a liberal hiding behind the flag.
Who is making a bad name for who?
The link is in the midst of the cites for the wiki article you linked. You find it. It is the one official report of events in the whole pile.
It's not every day that one grins like a Cheshire Cat at his daughter's "funeral," now is it?
Why was the school razed, and everyone even remotely connected to the school placed under legal gag order to never speak of ANYTHING related to the interior of the school?
Why is Robbie Parker, a proven pathological liar, nowhere to be found?
What about the LIES of Sally Cox?
I would like to see your defense of Gene Rosen, and his lies as well.
I have nothing to defend, but I have plenty of truth for all the liars you are defending.
Give it a rest.
Nope.
But you can believe whatever the pretend-crying and pathological-lying Stalinists and other losers are telling you. It is your right.
The thought of hashing this all out with you guys is a bit tiresome, but I'll give you a few tools to help you sort it out if you like. Please read the following links if are willing to see things in a way other than how you want to see them (or how Alex Jones wants you to see them).
If asking for information constitutes being a conspiracy theorist in your book, you must have a real thick book of conspiracy theorists.
Like I told you, I was just asking for information. You sent me to an open source article with a pile of media cites from the usual anti-gun liberal suspects, and less than 0.5% of the primary information sources I asked for. If that constitutes proof for you of much of anything, may I suggest you take up Climatology? You would likely be wildly successful with the AGW bunch.
(BTW, that whole global warming thing really does appear to be a conspiracy).
My only moment of gullibility was in thinking you might have some factual sources. You proved you didn't.
I'm a scientist, and it takes a far better grade of evidence than sophomoric internet badgering to get me to believe anything. So keep your snotty BS to yourself, and I'll find the facts without your "help". Now, you'd better go before your mommy finds out you're on line again.
Again, please post the link to the primary source that you found. You haven’t so far so either A) it does not say what you claim it says or B) you are unfamiliar with how to use the copy & paste feature of your computer.
If it is B), I can walk you through it.
You provided the link, to the wiki article. The report I found was down in the extensive list of references to that article you referred me to. I suggest you look up your own link and follow it and dig through the extensive list of references I did to find the link to the report. After all, YOU claimed that the article and its source were ‘evidence’, so one would think you had SOME passing familiarity with the content. I am not doing your work for you, so get your little mouse hoppping and find the link you posted and dig through all the “evidence” you had me sift through. I do not require your help with a computer, I have been working with them since paper tape and punchcards.
How am I supposed to know which source fulfills your criteria?
Well anyway, obviously you are embarrassed by what you found so you don't have the courage to post it here for others to see. If you argument rests on evidence that you found but refuse to post then you fall squarely in the crowd of conspiracy theorists and I am wasting my breath.
Finally, at least read the snopes.com link I posted earlier in comment #29. I say this on behalf of your poor grandkids, who are embarrassed to bring their friends to Thanksgiving dinner because they have a grandpa who is “just asking questions” about Sandy Hook.
Pro-Gun-CONTROL..
You are in such a hurry to classify me as a "Conspiracy theorist" that you can't get over the fact that I was only looking for sources of information.
That makes YOU the paranoid lunatic, or just an idiot looking for someone to argue with.
Now, go find the link to the ONE official report in the 200 odd media articles and reports cited in the wiki article you sent me a link to. They are listed as "References" at the bottom of the page.
If you use the criteria I used, namely that the report be something other than the ravings of the press against gun ownership disguised as a news report (not an op-ed nor the babblings of ABCNNBCBS and others, but an official report), you will find that the list of 'references' is very short indeed.
I think even someone of your limited intellectual abilities should be able to figure out which report of the entire pile is germane and not merely another hyperbole-charged pseudonews account.
Considering that often the initial news accounts were differing and even contradictory, I'm just looking for the facts.
It really sounds to me as if you are the one who needs professional 'help'. Do you look under the bed for 'conspiracy theorists' every night before you go to sleep, or does your mommy do that for you?
Got it. You are embarrassed that the one article you found does such a weak job of supporting your argument that you don’t want to post it here.
I take this to mean that you’ve realized how ridiculous the Sandy Hook Hoax narrative is and this is your face saving way of getting out of it.
What argument?
Post where I took a side in all this. Give me the link.
There are many contradictions in the news reports from this incident, and I am looking for facts.
I was, as I said, looking for information. Period. End. Of. Story.
You are the delusional one finding "ooooh! Conspiracy Theorists!" where there aren't any. I'm looking for facts, and getting your bs, right down to an article where 99.5%+ of the 'sources' are the very news agencies who issued the conflicting reports in the first place.
Then you refer me to Snopes and Huffpo? Really?
I'd almost bet you watched Captain Kangaroo for the financial news content. Thanks for nothing.
If you would pillory everyone looking for answers, well that's mighty Progressive of you.
How utterly troll-like to set up a straw man argument and then go after me for asking questions.
When I first got here we'd hash out why something was or wasn't correct, from Waco to a host of other incidents, not just shout down people (even those who haven't taken a side).
Funny you would resort to Alinsky tactics, the concern troll gambit, and all the other liberal methodologies to attack someone who is merely asking for facts. That speaks volumes about you.
Now, I understand times are tough out there, but our of curiosity, how much do you get paid for this sort of dreck? Is it by the word or the post?
And yes yes, of course you are not saying that Sandy Hook was a hoax, you are merely a “scientist” that is “just asking questions.” Just like those that are “just asking questions” about whether the moon landing was real or “just asking questions” about whether 9/11 was an inside job.
I see you are still too embarrassed to A) provide a link to the article you found and B) provide an answer to how an entire elementary school could be convinced to go along with the hoax.
Oh, but wait, you don't need to provide a coherent theory because you are... “just asking questions.”
Like I said before, there is nothing remotely credible about the words of Robbie Parker, Gene Rosen, Sally Cox or the Soto sister. I am an expert, by trade, on the analysis of human behavior. These pathological liars that you so ardently defend are destructive to our Constitutional freedoms, and I have NOTHING to prove to you. You are defending the indefensible by taking their side in all of this.
YOU provided the link. Now be a good little troll and go figure out which one it was.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.