Sandy Hook/Aurora shooting conspiracies

[Balerion]

That was nearly 150 years ago! Things have changed since then a little: no more slavery, women given equal rights, fuck women in the military now!

What does that have to do with anything? In what way does that suggest they wouldn't send the military in against civilians?

"Sir, 150 armed men are rebelling in Georgia!"

"What? Where are the police and National Guard?"

"Wiped them out."

"Send in the army!"

"But sir! Women are in the military now!"

"Oh, well, then just forget it. Get their leader on the phone and so I can congratulate them on becoming The Independent Republic of Atlanta."

 

[James R]

Balerion,

There are elections every couple of years in Iran, as well. Pretty sure somebody there needs to die before those people are free.

What makes you so sure of that?

Is violence your only solution to problems? Or just the first resort?

Not paranoid.

Oh yes you are.

I understand that the greater immediate threat is a lunatic with a gun. But you can't live in a totally free and totally safe society. One comes at the expense of the other.

If you want to live in a society of any kind, you're going to have to sacrifice some of your freedom. We agree on that. You can't expect to do as you please if you need to count on other people to help you.

I think our right to own weapons is more important than our personal safety.

Pardon me for speaking my mind here, but what a blindingly stupid statement that is. You surely can't actually believe it. You really want me to believe that you'd rather be injured or killed than give up your precious guns? Cold dead hands and all that?

This is where I shake my Australian head and say "Only in America!"

 

[origin]

This is where I shake my Australian head and say "Only in America!"

Most Americans, according to the polls, are also shaking our heads. Unfortunately the gun lobby is trying to scare the politicians into inaction. The US is capable of doing great things and it is also capable of doing some frighteningly bone headed things.:shrug:

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

As I mentioned previously (and inadvertently started this debate/debacle) gun control is an issue that I'm very dispassionate about. The right to bear arms affects me very little and lacking the right to bear arms would perhaps affect me even less.

I am not by any means anti-human rights or freedoms. But I personally think the average American (being one myself) or better yet, the majority of Americans would fall under one or more of the following categories:

a) Not emotionally fit to use a firearm responsibly
b) Not mentally fit to use a firearm responsibly
c) Not skillful enough to use a firearm safely/effectively
d) Not interested in owning a firearm

I unabashedly categorize myself under each of those four categories.

Therefore I believe that restrictions could be put into place in order to effectively limit the right to bear arms to those of sound mind and emotional state, train and regularly assess gun owners on safety and proper usage, and potentially run similar checks on immediate family members, co-occupants and dependents. Why not? Owning a lethal weapon is a serious responsibility and should be treated as such.

 

[ElectricFetus]

What does that have to do with anything? In what way does that suggest they wouldn't send the military in against civilians?

Today's military is not like the conscripts of old, they have been highly trained to "defend the nation", asking them to shot on that very nation they are to defend would blow their minds, they likely would defect. Even less financed armies like that of Tunisia and Egypt rejected murdering their own people, only militarizes that live off systemic corruption would be willing to do that: because it is either they kill and loot or be killed. The US military service man of today have very cushy pension and benefits and don't make any income off of looting or bribing at check points or by any means of throwing around their power, if they were ordered to kill their own people they would bulk, they having not prescient

 

[Balerion]

Today's military is not like the conscripts of old, they have been highly trained to "defend the nation", asking them to shot on that very nation they are to defend would blow their minds, they likely would defect. Even less financed armies like that of Tunisia and Egypt rejected murdering their own people, only militarizes that live off systemic corruption would be willing to do that: because it is either they kill and loot or be killed. The US military service man of today have very cushy pension and benefits and don't make any income off of looting or bribing at check points or by any means of throwing around their power, if they were ordered to kill their own people they would bulk, they having not prescient

That's a lot of assumption right there, and of course has absolutely nothing to do with your previous post. So I guess we'll just pretend that was a mistake?

Anyway, if it ever came to the point where there was a legitimate revolution, those fighters would be branded as terrorists, and I see no reason why most soldiers (I don't doubt there would be those who agreed with the cause) wouldn't do as they were told. They could also view the revolutionaries as a threat to their "cushy" pensions and benefits.

 

[ElectricFetus]

That's a lot of assumption right there, and of course has absolutely nothing to do with your previous post. So I guess we'll just pretend that was a mistake?

Anyway, if it ever came to the point where there was a legitimate revolution, those fighters would be branded as terrorists, and I see no reason why most soldiers (I don't doubt there would be those who agreed with the cause) wouldn't do as they were told. They could also view the revolutionaries as a threat to their "cushy" pensions and benefits.

I pretty sure it has everything to do with my previous post. As for a new US revolution, FAT CHANCE! Also there is a big difference between a handful of terrorist and millions of revolutionaries, especially revolutionaries that come for the same country, that might even be family.

 

[Balerion]

I pretty sure it has everything to do with my previous post.

If it does, you haven't articulated how.

As for a new US revolution, FAT CHANCE!

It has happened before. And nothing you've said about the changes in our military culture suggest it couldn't happen again.

Also there is a big difference between a handful of terrorist and millions of revolutionaries, especially revolutionaries that come for the same country, that might even be family.

What is the difference, besides the numbers? If it's a thousand, they're terrorists, but if it's a million they're revolutionaries? What caveman logic brought you to that conclusion?

 

[ElectricFetus]

Well all my last few posts have been that today's America and its military aren't going to revolt any time soon nor turn on its own people.

It has happened before. And nothing you've said about the changes in our military culture suggest it couldn't happen again.

Strawman: wasn't saying it can't happen. Technically a giant meteor killing most life on earth is possible, happened before and will likely happen again, doesn't mean we need to live in fear because the chance of it happen in even the next million years is rather low. The probability that the USA will enter another civil war is not likely any time soon. If you wish to believe otherwise I don't think I can change your faith.

What is the difference, besides the numbers? If it's a thousand, they're terrorists, but if it's a million they're revolutionaries? What caveman logic brought you to that conclusion?

terrorists: Your ordered to chase down a handful of people that murder thousands of your country men

Revolutionaries: Your ordered to gun down thousands of your country men that are protesting against a government body you don't necessarily even like, most of your fellow soldiers are generally conservative thinking and constitutionalists, re-enforced by military propaganda about defending the nation of freedom and liberty that even trains against gunning down civilians of invaded states, let alone other Americans.

The difference from the civil war and revolution
- drafted, uneducated conscripts or volunteers who want to kill the other side.
- far less migration and intermingling of state populations.
- few laws or training against rampaging, mass murder and rape.

 

[Repo Man]

Threads go where they will, but it seems a bit sad to have yet another gun rights thread. This began as a discussion of a particularly odious conspiracy theory.

While it’s often best not to engage with conspiracy theorists on their own turf, as you can probably never convince them, it’s worth setting the record straight on all the myths and phony evidence surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre.

We’ve rounded up every major piece of evidence we could find that leads theorists to say the “official narrative” of events “doesn’t add up” and provided the facts that show why these questions can be easily explained. We’ve ignored the empty accusations with no evidence to support them (it was the Jews!) and focused only on the theories that try to present actual empirical or circumstantial evidence.

Your comprehensive answer to every Sandy Hook conspiracy theory