This suggestion by the gun lobby is so obscene it requires its own thread
Sandy Hook massacre a 'hoax', say conspiracy theorists | News.com.au
You know the enemy has lost the debate when they resort to tactics like this, this suggestion is absolutely obscene. The thought that a government would plan and launch an attack on it's own citizens, and children at that, to gain political advantage is absolute paranoia, and a clear reason why military style weapons must be removed from the hands of the lunatic fringe. People who think this way are not rational. This is pure white supremist propaganda which is directly associated with the gun lobby

You know... you say it is a suggestion by the gun lobby yet I don't see anywhere in that article where it actually claims such a thing. I don't see anyone associated with any gun groups saying that. But you need to say that it is just to get your point across. Soon you will point out somewhere that the NRA made this claim.

I read that article and all I saw were individual people. I saw nothing that tagged any of these people as gun lobbyists or anything... conspiracy theorists maybe.

Also, somehow it is white supremacist propaganda? How do you figure that?And directly associated with the gun lobby. Show me where it says any of that.

One. Aren't I entitled to my own conspiracy theory or is that reserved for the pro gun lobby?

I don't see any conspiracy theory from you. All I see you doing is sensationalizing the article and twisting it to fit your own views.

And again... I see nowhere in that article that any of this was connected to the pro gun lobby. You just danced around my points to avoid answering me and then again you throw up the "pro gun lobby" crap like as if that's the end all answer to whatever point you're trying to make.

Two strawmen but you don't address the questions posed by this article, for example what sort of twisted mind thinks a government of what is suggested to be the bravest, fairest nation on Earth? Would put forward such a preposterous position?we will debate those points later no doubt, how can you defend these people by attacking me? Do you honestly think that the person/s who did this is not motivated by the gun lobby, perhaps even funded by the gun lobby? There is no legitemacy in the fact that this comes from an academic and that this somehow not authored by those who support the pro gun lobby. I see its supporters and the lobby as part of the same twisted self interest group

What do I really need to address in this article? It's not reflecting my point of view at all. It's not anything I have heard from anyone I know. Why should I address it if it's not my belief? So there are people in the world that have some crazy ideas. Is this new to you? There are people that think they have been abducted by UFOs. There are people who swear Bigfoot lives in their back yard. There are people who swear the Holocaust never happened. Should we address all of these? I guess not because you know, they're just crazy ideas but they have nothing to do with guns. So because the ideas in this article do deal with guns in a round-about way, then it must be only gun owners and the pro gun lobby that have insane and crazy ideas.

And really... I am not defending anyone. Point out to me where I defended anyone in that article by "attacking" you. I did not. You cast the first stone by twisting this article into something that all pro gun lobbyists believe and think. You further twisted it by making a connection between pro gun lobbyists and white supremacist groups. I take offense to that. I am fully pro gun but I do not believe in any supremacist groups. Because I am pro gun does not make me a racist no matter how you spin it.

Now we have the nub of what you object to in the thread. Ok so you don't agree with the porposition put forward by the wacho academic, I really didn't expect many would and I do find such a proposition, to give it its correct name; conspiracy theory, not only offensive but obscene.

That it emerged immediately after measures were announced that respond to the obscene event in Newtown is not coincidence. You can be pro gun all you like but you cannot deny that the present situation needs some strong measures to prevent future occurrence of these massacres. I find it interesting that you brought bigfoot into this, Did you find him while out hunting? Or do you confine your hunting to other obscure phenomenon?

Being anti gun is not equivalent to being a holocaust denier, just another strawman you ran across the trail. Fact is this thread is specifically about disinformation, about the lengths that the pro gun camp will go to and surprisingly you seem like a reasonable person so why would you align yourself with such people?

Quote:

---

example what sort of twisted mind thinks a government of what is suggested to be the bravest, fairest nation on Earth? Would put forward such a preposterous position?

---

The 9/11 Truth Movement - 911truth.org

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

So you got them, why don't you declare them a terrorist organisation and disband them, sedition is not free speech

Sedition laws are unconstitutional ,they have been since the John Adams adm. His sedition laws were never tested in court because judicial review had not been established yet... but they came real close to dissolving the union a decade into it's creation .
But in a couple of subsequent cases the idea that sedition laws are unconstitutional has been affirmed .
"Suppression of speech as an effective police measure is an old, old device, outlawed by our Constitution." Justice William O. Douglas 'Watts v United States '.

You guys are nuts, NUTS

Yeah a police state is a much less messy affair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

I find it interesting that you brought bigfoot into this, Did you find him while out hunting? or do you confine your hunting to other obscure phenomenon?

---

You see this? This is the reason why I choose not to get into these threads with you normally. Because I bring up a point, then you twist it to however you want in a way to try and make me look like an idiot.

If you read what I wrote, you will see that I was bringing up crazy ideas that people have... crazy ideas from people that aren't necessarily part of the pro gun lobby. Nowhere did I say I believe in or hunt bigfoot yet you had to throw that in there to try and make me look like a fool. You talk about strawmen yet I can now say that you play with smoke and mirrors. When you can't defend a point or make your own, you play games to try and distract from the real issue... case in point, trying to make me look like a fool that is out hunting for bigfoot simply because I mentioned him as an example.

Again, this is why I don't debate with you. I have debated with people like you in the past and I find no need for it. When you face something you can't answer you play games and make subtle insults as if you are a superior intellect or being. I have learned my lesson. I thought I could debate here but I see I should have just stayed silent as I usually try to do. Now, I will go back to ignoring these threads as I am done trying to debate with someone that debates in this way. Don't bother to reply to me as I am going to unsubscribe to this thread.

Quote:

---

Because I bring up a point, then you twist it to however you want in a way to try and make me look like an idiot.

---

That's par for the course by our conservative friends in the Current Events forum. :) I agree it's frustrating but it seems to be an accepted method of discussion here.

Hello clete:

If you look around, you'll see some right wingers on these pages, who BELIEVE that the AG gave weapons to the Mexican drug cartel, so they would KILL an American border agent. They did this for the sole purpose of SOFTENING up the opposition, so Obama could round up all the guns...

Personally, I don't see a whole lot of difference between the two conspiracy theory's. They're BOTH obscene!

excon

Clete ,If you look around, you'll see some left wingers on these pages, who BELIEVE that Bush intentionally withheld vital aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were blacks .

Tom there are many conspiracy theories and I expect that incompetence can look like a conspiracy. Hurricane Katrina as an example, there were many blacks in distress so it is possible some didn't receive the help they needed or expected, an entirely different thing to suggesting that through covert action the government actually created and executed a plan to kill twenty children in a school so gun regulation could be tightened. It is obscene. Obama has already shown there was much action he could and should have already taken without needing the Congress to endorse his actions.

I don't doubt his incompetence rivals Bush in this respect since inaction is incompetence, and that incompetence may well have permitted the circumstance where the massacre could happen but we cannot say Obama is overtly guilty or complicit of their deaths.

Hello again, tom:

Quote:

---

some left wingers on these pages, who BELIEVE that Bush intentionally withheld vital aid to the victims of Hurricane Katrina because they were blacks .

---

Nahhh... Even if Brownie LOVED black people, he was too incompetent to get them food and shelter...

Plus, I NEVER said Bush is a racist. That's cause I don't think he is. Nor did I say anything LIKE that which you attribute to me...

Excon

I don't think the NRA, or pro gun folks are that crazy myself, but I have no doubt gun sales go up every time a loony hollers.

Or the prez gives a speech.

Yes Guns the never die fashion accessory