Originally posted by Captain REX
As well as "How is this a conspiracy?"*snicker*
I've been burned. Live by the smart ass remark, die by the smart ass remark.
The funny thing is that I even spell-checked that post as I was pretty fricken' tired when I posted it...wait a moment...I spell checked it and it was still wrong...there must be a conspiracy against me! 😱
Originally posted by KharmaDogRaz is a reptillian! oh
I've been burned. Live by the smart ass remark, die by the smart ass remark.The funny thing is that I even spell-checked that post as I was pretty fricken' tired when I posted it...wait a moment...I spell checked it and it was still wrong...there must be a conspiracy against me! 😱
Originally posted by Captain REX
Cho is not referring the Satanists. He is referring to the boys and girls that he grew up with and attended Virginia Tech with; he was a social outcast because he was so...weird...but he felt insulted and deranged and decided to murder them all....
I see no Satanist connection other than the crap you're pulling out of thin air.
Oh really?
And I guess you were able to sit down with Cho over some coffee at starbucks and listen to him tell you about the boys and girls that you think he was referring to?
Ummm...no...you never had a conversation with Cho about who he was referring to. And he didn't list 1 single name of any person that he shot during his rampage in either his manifesto or his videos.
So...my question would be...how can you be so sure that he was referring to the boys and girls that he killed and not to his childhood/backround with Satanist activities?
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I've been burned. Live by the smart ass remark, die by the smart ass remark.The funny thing is that I even spell-checked that post as I was pretty fricken' tired when I posted it...wait a moment...I spell checked it and it was still wrong...there must be a conspiracy against me! 😱
It's all good Kharma,
Because unlike you, most of us here don't "live by the smart ass remark".
Don't get me wrong though, I'll use it from time to time. But I don't live by it. Cuz that would be retarded/irrational.
The media has started to push the anti-gun talking points:
ABCNews.com Jumps to Push Gun Control; On TV Tapper Notes Greater Access Option
Posted by Brent Baker on April 16, 2007 - 20:25.
Monday afternoon ABCNews.com was quick to put up a speculative posting, without any real knowledge of what the shooter used, headlined, “Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips” (NewsBusters item), and a bit later ABCNews.com posted an interactive poll with a very leading question: “Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?” But in a World News story, while Jake Tapper highlighted calls for stricter gun laws, he also gave equal time to calls “for greater access to guns” so people can protect themselves and he undermined ABC's idle ammo clip posting by pointing out how since “politicians don't necessarily know the details” of what really occurred, “they don't know whether any laws were broken or any loopholes need to be closed.”
Tapper also discredited the assumption of the unscientific ABCNews.com poll, citing how a Gallup survey found the public is “more inclined to blame these incidents on the ways parents raise their children or on popular culture than on the availability of guns.”
After recalling how following the Columbine shooting, then-President Bill Clinton “called for the Republican-controlled Congress to close the loophole. It did not, which still angers Marjorie Lindholm, at the time a Sophomore at Columbine,” Tapper pointed out how “a massacre in Texas in 1991 prompted a complete opposite reaction -- for greater access to guns” since a patron at the restaurant had to leave her gun in her car “so as not to violate the law against carrying a gun in public.”
Neither the CBS Evening News (at least in the first half of its one-hour broadcast, DC's CBS affiliate did not carry the second half), or the NBC Nightly News devoted a story to gun control or other remedies.
A “The Blotter” blog, run by ABC's investigative unit led by Brian Ross, at 2:30pm EDT posted: “Lapse of Federal Law Allows Sale of Large Ammo Clips.” An excerpt:
High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons....
Virginia law enforcement officials have not identified the weapon used in the shootings today at Virginia Tech, but gun experts say the number of shots fired indicate, at the very least, that the gunman had large quantities of ammunition.
"When you have a weapon that can shoot off 20, 30 rounds very quickly, you're going to have a lot more injuries," said Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
The ABCNews.com home page, by late afternoon, asked: “As Seen on World News: Is Shooting Grounds for Gun Control?” Clicking on the link launched an interactive pop-up:
There are 33 confirmed dead in the shooting at Virginia Tech University, making it the worst campus shooting in American history. Law enforcement officials believe the gunman was firing at least two 9mm semi-automatic pistols.
Do you think this incident is a reason to pass stricter gun control legislation?
- Yes. This shows the violence that can occur when someone has access to handguns.
- No. Violent shootings are isolated incidents and it's irresponsible to link them to gun control.
- I'm not sure. I need more information.
Tapper's story on the April 16 World News:
“Gun violence on a campus, a reminder of that grim morning at Columbine High School eight years ago this week. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 students and a teacher and wounded 24 others, before turning the guns on themselves that day. A public outcry followed. Violent video games and movies were blamed, as were goth culture, heavy metal music and bullying. Then-President Bill Clinton pushed for stricter gun control. Harris and Klebold bought their guns at a gun show, which are exempt from federal background check laws. So, Clinton called for the Republican-controlled Congress to close the loophole. It did not, which still angers Marjorie Lindholm, at the time a Sophomore at Columbine.”
Marjorie Lindholm, former Columbine student: “We're the ones who can change this and nothing's changed since Columbine. You know, and it does make me sick. It makes me physically ill.”
Tapper: “A massacre in Texas in 1991 prompted a complete opposite reaction -- for greater access to guns. At a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen, Texas, a gunman came in and killed 23 people. Suzanna Hupp who survived the attack, had left her handgun in her car, so as not to violate the law against carrying a gun in public. Convinced her parents might still be alive if she'd had her gun with her, Hupp led the change the law to allow Texans to carry concealed weapons. Whatever remedies they seek, Americans regularly react with revulsion to shootings such as today's, but so far these types of crimes have not fundamentally altered public opinion on guns. Polls show Americans support stricter gun control, but they are more inclined to blame these incidents on the ways parents raise their children [45% in Gallup poll shown on screen] or on popular culture [26%] than on the availability of guns [21%], a sentiment then-Governor Bush expressed in a presidential debate in 2000.”
Bush, October 11, 2000: “There seems to be a lot of preoccupation, not necessarily in this debate, butn just in general on law. But there's a larger law, love your neighbor like you'd like to be loved yourself.”
Tapper: “Americans seem skeptical, Charlie, that the evil intentions or actions of one man can necessarily be prevented by laws.”
Charles Gibson: “Jake, it's going to be some time in coming, I suspect, as we get reaction from law enforcement people around the country and from legislators about this. But has there been immediate reaction today?”
Tapper: “Nothing, in terms of any calls for action. People, politicians, don't necessarily know the details yet. They don't know whether any laws were broken or any loopholes need to be closed. So right now, there's just been an outpouring of sympathy and support.”
WashPost Channels European Disgust at Tech Shooting: What Price Gun Rights?
Posted by Tim Graham on April 17, 2007 - 08:08.
The easiest place to find disgust at American gun laws in Tuesday's Washington Post was in Kevin Sullivan's roundup of international reaction from London. The headline was "Shock, Sympathy, And Denunciation Of U.S. Gun Laws: British Newspaper Asks, 'What Price the Right to Bear Arms?'"
One British expert even claimed you could easily buy automatic weapons along with your yogurt and bologna at the supermarket:
"I think the reason it happens in America is there's access to weapons -- you can go into a supermarket and get powerful automatic weapons," Keith Ashcroft, a psychologist, told the Press Association. Ashcroft said he believed such access, along with a culture that makes gun ownership seem normal, increases the likelihood of such attacks in the United States.
Guns and butter? That might be true of a big chain store like a Target or Wal-Mart that has both, but "supermarket" isn't usually the term that comes to mind then. I can't buy an automatic weapon at the local Safeway. The psychologist's comment was preceded by this sentence: "In Britain, there was shock at the scale of the killings, but many people said they were not surprised, seeing the United States as a nation obsessed with guns, where firearms are easy to obtain." The article chronicled European disgust:
Early editions of Tuesday's London papers were dominated by huge headlines and photos of police hauling the wounded out of a building at Virginia Tech. "Executed at Uni," said the Daily Mirror, using British slang for university. The Daily Mail's headline, meanwhile, asked, "What price the right to bear arms?"
Gun ownership is strictly regulated in Britain. The Home Office, which is in charge of public safety, said gun crime accounts for less than half a percent of all crime recorded by police, according to the Press Association.
In a special report on BBC 24 Monday evening, a commentator, Gavin Hewitt, said mass murder on school campuses had become "part of the American landscape." The network showed video footage of Columbine High School in Colorado and the Amish shooting in Pennsylvania, and noted that the powerful U.S. gun lobby had blocked gun restrictions that Europeans regard as simple common sense. "Even after today's horrific tragedy, laws are unlikely to change," Hewitt said.
In France, news of the shootings dominated the Web pages of every major French newspaper. Bloggers responding to the reports overwhelmingly blamed the tragedy on what they called lax American rules on gun ownership.
"In France, it is incomprehensible for us to understand what could prompt someone to own a handgun," a blogger identified as Aliosha wrote on the Web site of the daily newspaper Liberation, adding that it is "the right (almost the duty) for each American to be able to obtain a weapon without much trouble."
I wonder if The Washington Post ever looks at a European social trend and interviews Americans to denounce how backwards the English or the French are for their laws. Or does the liberal press just aim to design a one-way street of denunciation to the American cavemen who have yet to adopt European laws wholesale?
MSNBC's David Shuster Promises to Examine Gun Policies That 'Enabled' Killer
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on April 17, 2007 - 17:22.
Substitute hosting for Chris Matthews on last night's Hardball it didn't take long for David Shuster to bring up the specter of gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shooting. Shuster indicated that gun policies actually "enabled" the shooter to obtain his "weapons of choice." The following was Shuster's intro for the April 16th edition of "Hardball."
David Shuster: "At this hour, investigators are still trying to piece together what happened this morning on the Virginia Tech campus. Tonight, we will tell you everything we've learned about the killer's motive. We will bring you the most gripping interviews we have seen today from students who witnessed the rampage and tried to block the killer's path. And you will hear live from witnesses who saw the aftermath. Many questions are lingering tonight about the response by campus police, warnings to Virginia Tech students, even gun policies that enabled the killer to get his hands on his weapons of choice. But we start tonight with a campus community was rocked to its core and asking the question, why us?"
Due to live coverage of a press conference and interviews with guest about the events of the day that was the only mention of gun policy on the show but somehow I think Hardball will find the time in future editions to hit the gun control angle.
Time's Tumulty: Gore's Gun Licensing Idea Was 'Modest'
Posted by Ken Shepherd on April 18, 2007 - 00:34.
Lamenting how Democrats have lost their penchant for fierce advocacy of new gun control laws, Time's Karen Tumulty described as "modest" former Vice President Al Gore's stance on gun control in his 2000 campaign in an April 17 post at her magazine's "Swampland" blog.:
...in talking to Democrats on Capitol Hill, I'm picking up no enthusiasm for a cause that many have deemed a political loser. Al Gore's relatively modest proposal in the wake of Columbine for licensing gun owners (as opposed to the more radical one of registering their guns) is still widely believed to have been a factor in costing him the election, losing him votes that he might otherwise have goten from, for instance, gun-owning union members.
Making people apply for a license to exercise a constitutional right is "modest"? I doubt Tumulty would see things that way were she to have to get permission from the government to exercise her freedom of the press.
Here's what Gore said in the October 11, 2000, presidential debate on the matter:
MODERATOR: All right. So on guns, somebody wants to cast a vote based on your differences, where are the differences?
GORE: Well, I'm not for registration. I am for licensing by states of new handgun purchases.
MODERATOR: What's that mean?
GORE: A photo license I.D. like a driver's license for new handguns and, you know, the Los Angeles --
MODERATOR: Excuse me, you would have to get the license -- a photo I.D. to go in and before you could buy the gun?
GORE: Correct.
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Because unlike you, most of us here don't "live by the smart ass remark".
That's a smart ass comment right there.
Funny how people tell me to lighten up here, yet when I am light, they criticise me or jump at me for being so. Interesting little dynamic here don't ya think?
Originally posted by lord xyz
You are retarded. You think we are ruled by people who believe 33 and 13 are sacred numbers therefore attack things associated with those numbers. The ****ing Bible codes is more plausable than your ****ed up theory. You really really need therapy.This is the nice way of putting it.
So HE'S retarded because his views are different than yours? and you call yourself a mature poster. 😆 Thanks for the evidence you keep on piling for me Lord that your so mature and people like me Winter and Deano are stupid or retarded for not sharing your moronic views.great logic there as always. 😆 😆
[QUOTE=8801525]Originally posted by Deano
[B]the 'you are really insane and 'you are really psycho' and 'you need therapy' stuff is getting old now. its you who needs to step back and look at it again xyz. because you have contributed nothing. and like i said before, either contribute something worth reading, or dont post. it makes you look the idiot. not to your idiot buddys of course. but thats another story.
Exactly.well said. 👆
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
Oh really?And I guess you were able to sit down with Cho over some coffee at starbucks and listen to him tell you about the boys and girls that you think he was referring to?
Ummm...no...you never had a conversation with Cho about who he was referring to. And he didn't list 1 single name of any person that he shot during his rampage in either his manifesto or his videos.
So...my question would be...how can you be so sure that he was referring to the boys and girls that he killed and not to his childhood/backround with Satanist activities?
Oh, well, in that case, did YOU sit down with Cho over Starbucks coffee? Did he rattle off all his evil cult meetings to you? I think not. I'm using common sense, whereas you're an idiot. doped
I never said that he shot any of the people he was referring to. He was blaming the people he referred to for his insanity and his intentions, as they had abused him (he felt intentionally) and had caused him to go on this rampage.
So, my question would be, where the hell does it say anywhere that he was involved in this Satanic crap? Please show me something credible that ISN'T a conspiracy website.
Originally posted by Captain REX
Oh, well, in that case, did YOU sit down with Cho over Starbucks coffee? Did he rattle off all his evil cult meetings to you? I think not. I'm using common sense, whereas you're an idiot. dopedI never said that he shot any of the people he was referring to. He was blaming the people he referred to for his insanity and his intentions, as they had abused him (he felt intentionally) and had caused him to go on this rampage.
So, my question would be, where the hell does it say anywhere that he was involved in this Satanic crap? Please show me something credible that ISN'T a conspiracy website.
Again, there is no evidence to back up your claim.
Cho never said anything anytime about certain idividuals wronging him. What he did do though was make alot of references to events and actions that clearly resemble Satanic cult activities.
Originally posted by NuclearWinter
[B]Time's Tumulty: Gore's Gun Licensing Idea Was 'Modest'Posted by Ken Shepherd on April 18, 2007 - 00:34.
Lamenting how Democrats have lost their penchant for fierce advocacy of new gun control laws, Time's Karen Tumulty described as "modest" former Vice President Al Gore's stance on gun control in his 2000 campaign in an April 17 post at her magazine's "Swampland" blog.:
...in talking to Democrats on Capitol Hill, I'm picking up no enthusiasm for a cause that many have deemed a political loser. Al Gore's relatively modest proposal in the wake of Columbine for licensing gun owners (as opposed to the more radical one of registering their guns) is still widely believed to have been a factor in costing him the election, losing him votes that he might otherwise have goten from, for instance, gun-owning union members.
Making people apply for a license to exercise a constitutional right is "modest"? I doubt Tumulty would see things that way were she to have to get permission from the government to exercise her freedom of the press.
Here's what Gore said in the October 11, 2000, presidential debate on the matter:
MODERATOR: All right. So on guns, somebody wants to cast a vote based on your differences, where are the differences?
GORE: Well, I'm not for registration. I am for licensing by states of new handgun purchases.
MODERATOR: What's that mean?
GORE: A photo license I.D. like a driver's license for new handguns and, you know, the Los Angeles --
MODERATOR: Excuse me, you would have to get the license -- a photo I.D. to go in and before you could buy the gun?
GORE: Correct.
Ypu do realise slavery used to be constitutional, don't you? As did preventing people drinking alcohol?
You know it is perfectly ok to change constitutional points if they are, in fact, crap.
This juvenile habit of saying that, just because it is in the Constitution, the freedom to own a gun is equitable with the freedom of the press is laughable.
By standards outside the US that proposal was, indeed, exceptionally modest.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Ypu do realise slavery used to be constitutional, don't you? As did preventing people drinking alcohol?You know it is perfectly ok to change constitutional points if they are, in fact, crap.
This juvenile habit of saying that, just because it is in the Constitution, the freedom to own a gun is equitable with the freedom of the press is laughable.
By standards outside the US that proposal was, indeed, exceptionally modest.
No guns no more America.
New World Order Central
Kiss your country goodbye.
Oh and if you don't live in America, don't worry, you will see the same effects.
New WORLD Order. Not New American Order.
Despite Rise in Gun Crime in Britain, ABC News Trumpets UK's Handgun Ban
Posted by Brent Baker on April 23, 2007 - 02:36
World News Sunday continued ABC's gun control crusade, devoting its “A Closer Look” segment to how after the 1996 school shooting in Dunblane, Scotland, Great Britain virtually banned handguns, suggesting it's worth emulating. But though reporter David Wright conceded, in the middle of his story, that “gun crime has risen here” since handguns were outlawed, thus seemingly undermining the premise that making guns illegal lessens crime committed with guns, he hung his story on how “Britain has never again had a school shooting.” But if gun crime is rising, that sounds more like good luck than a result of the ban.
Wright featured two Britons exasperated by the refusal of the U.S. to follow Britain's lead. Gun control activist Ann Pearston contended: “What ordinary people have got to do in the United States, if they really care about what happened at Virginia Tech, is to make the banning of firearms in the United States an election issue.” Mick North, the father of a child killed in the Dunblane incident, fretted: “Nothing happened after Columbine. Nothing happened after Nickel Mines in the Amish community. After a few weeks, nothing will happen after Virginia Tech. Even the death of 32 people may not be enough to build up the necessary momentum.”
For early examples of ABC's crusading post-Virginia Tech, check the April 20 NewsBusters item, “Disappointment at ABC News: 'Politicians and Gun Control: Why Aren’t They Outraged?'” And from April 17, “Nets Blame Virginia's 'Lax' Gun Laws, Gibson and Couric Press Bush on Gun Control.”
Anchor Dan Harris set up the April 22 World News Sunday story:
“With Virginia Tech on everyone's mind, we're going to take A Closer Look tonight at the aftermath of another school massacre, one that changed the lives and changed the law across Great Britain. Eleven years ago, in a small town in Scotland, a man killed 15 elementary students, a crime that Britain vowed would never happen again and since that day has not. ABC's David Wright reports on the lessons of Dunblane.”
David Wright began, from Scotland: “March 13th, 1996, three years before Columbine, this tiny town faced the news every community dreads -- a rampage at an elementary school. Most of the victims, like Sophie North, were just 5 years old.”
Mick North, victim's father: “She would be 16-1/2 now, a young woman causing me no end of problems, no doubt, but problems that I would have loved to have had.”
Wright: “Same age as some of those kids at Virginia Tech.”
North: “Probably just about, yes.”
Wright: “Because of Dunblane, 16 kids will never go to college. The gunman, a former scoutmaster named Thomas Hamilton, killed their teacher, too, before taking his own life. In three minutes time, he fired 105 bullets. Had he arrived at the school during morning assembly as he had planned, the death toll would have been even higher. All of Britain was shocked by Dunblane, even more so because the guns used in the rampage were legally purchased. And as a direct result of what happened here, this country decided to ban virtually all handguns.”
Tony Blair in 1997: “They have done enormous carnage often to wholly innocent civilians, including children. The sooner Britain gets a lead in this, the better. It's the right and civilized things to do.”
Wright: “It helped bring Tony Blair to power. His party made banning handguns a campaign issue.”
Ann Pearston, gun control activist: “We just said after Dunblane that never again was someone going to walk into a school and massacre children.”
Wright: “They never have, not in Britain. Gun crime has risen here during the past decade. But Britain has never again had a school shooting.”
Pearston: “What ordinary people have got to do in the United States, if they really care about what happened at Virginia Tech, is to make the banning of firearms in the United States an election issue.”
North: “Sadly, I won't hold my breath.”
Wright: “Sophie North's father is well aware that the handgun debate is a sacred cow in the U.S., in part because of the Second Amendment.”
North: “Nothing happened after Columbine. Nothing happened after Nickel Mines in the Amish community. After a few weeks, nothing will happen after Virginia Tech. Even the death of 32 people may not be enough to build up the necessary momentum.”
Wright concluded: “Over here, they're watching in horror and sympathy. David Wright, ABC News, Dunblane.”
Howard Fineman to Democrats On Guns: 'You Gonna Do Something Now?!'
Posted by Geoffrey Dickens on April 23, 2007 - 16:28:
Newsweek's Howard Fineman's first instinct when he heard about the Virgina Tech shootings was to call up Capitol Hill and ask members for gun control legislation. On this weekend's syndicated Chris Matthews Show, the Newsweek reporter admitted "the first thing he did" was call the Democrats to demand: "Okay, you gonna do something now?!"
The following conversation occurred on the April 22nd edition of The Chris Matthews Show:
Chris Matthews: "Let's go to a more familiar terrain for us all: policy and politics. Just a week ago, the NRA held its national convention. Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre warned the members of the NRA that the Democratic Congress will threaten gun freedoms.
Quote, this is Wayne LaPierre: 'Today, there is not one firearm owner whose freedom is secure.' Polls do show a majority of Americans now want gun access restricted. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi this week is working on a bill that would prevent gun access by the mentally ill. Congressman John Dingell of Michigan is negotiating with the NRA right now on this, to try to tighten up the laws, give states enough money so they can find people like Cho, who've been through this system, been identified, and make sure they don't buy guns. Is that gonna work?"
Howard Fineman: "I think it might. As a political reporter, of course, the first thing I did was call the Hill and find out from the Democratic leadership, 'Okay, you gonna do something now?!' And the answer I was told, bluntly by Democratic leaders on the Hill, is ‘We are not going to touch it in the macro sense, but this question-"
Matthews: "What do they mean by that? They're not going to address the Second Amendment issue?"
Fineman: "They're not, they're not going to go straight at the Second Amendment issue. If you look at the Electoral College map, you see Ohio, you see West Virginia, you see Pennsylvania, you see Wisconsin, they're not going to do it. Their whole modern mentality is built on avoiding that issue. But John Dingell, who is smart, as a Democrat and an NRA guy, is trying to draw the NRA into at least this one small incremental thing about making sure that mental health records and other state police records-"
Matthews: "Yeah."
Fineman: "-get into the Insta-Check system. What happened in Virginia is, they have Insta-Check, this guy had no criminal record. He had a mental record, which they knew nothing about. By law, they should've known about that. They should've known about it."
Matthews: "Will the Democrats pay a price for the, and I've heard this, that Hillary Clinton has made it, has assured that Dingell's, especially, John Dingell, that there's not going to be any Second Amendment issue in this upcoming campaign. They do not want this to be the fight."
Fineman: "Now, there was a dignified conversation."