Report: Shooting at Fort Hood; Multiple Injuries UPDATE2: Four dead, 16 injured...

old_god... but I saw none of that on this thread and believe me I went through most if not all posts (as any sensible person should before answering).

None might be a bit of an overstatement. There was a glimpse before the thread was allowed to become and stay derailed.

Aside from that you're not wrong.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


The soldier had recently been prescribed Ambien and other drugs for depression, etc. These drugs can and will change one's logic processing, and make people act totally out of character and in opposition to their core character. But Big Pharma will never take responsibility for this problem that they created. Instead, our noble soldiers will be made out to the be bad guys.

Mental health issues, with an argument as the possible trigger:

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) — Unstable mental health may be a "fundamental, underlying cause" of a soldier's shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left four people dead, though an argument with another service member likely preceded the attack, according to investigators.
...

Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, senior officer at the nation's largest Army base, said there was a "strong indication" that Lopez was involved in a verbal altercation shortly before the shooting, though it doesn't appear he targeted specific soldiers during the attack. Investigators also are focusing on his mental health.

news.yahoo.com...

None of that excuses the premeditated act of illegally taking a firearm onto an army base gun free zone. He was willing to break the law, just by taking the weapon on base, everything after that was momentum, he had to have ill intent to take that first step.

No surprise...

On April 3rd CBS News reported that Fort Hood gunman Army Spc. Ivan Lopez "purchased his weapon legally [on] March 1."

According to CBS, an official "with knowledge of the investigation... [said] Lopez bought his weapon, a [Smith & Wesson M&P .45], at Guns Galore, the same shop where Maj. Nidal Hasan, who carried out a deadly rampage at Ft. Hood in 2009, bought his weapon."

This means Lopez went through a background check to get his gun, just like Hasan (Ft. Hood 2009), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School gunman), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard gunman), Paul Anthony Ciancia (LAX gunman), and James Holmes (Aurora theater gunman), to name but a few.

www.breitbart.com...

As with previous mass shootings, there is nothing in the gun buying process that any of the proposed gun control measures would have changed. I don't see this as a gun (control) issue, it's as it always is... A mental health issue.

And as I previously speculated, it was a S&W M&P .45 ACP pistol that was used.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


I don't disagree that it's not a gun control problem, however saying it is just a mental health problem,
most attacks show premediation , not a sudden rage or blackout.
Can you plead crazy if you show premeditation?

In all truth if someone wants to take a lot of people out, they will find a way, crazy or not.

I guess you could argue anyone that thinks of killing others or themselves are mentally ill and to that I cannot argue,
I just class it as criminal.

Mirthful Me
Mental health issues, with an argument as the possible trigger:

FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) — Unstable mental health may be a "fundamental, underlying cause" of a soldier's shooting rampage at Fort Hood that left four people dead, though an argument with another service member likely preceded the attack, according to investigators.
...

Lt. Gen. Mark Milley, senior officer at the nation's largest Army base, said there was a "strong indication" that Lopez was involved in a verbal altercation shortly before the shooting, though it doesn't appear he targeted specific soldiers during the attack. Investigators also are focusing on his mental health.

news.yahoo.com...

None of that excuses the premeditated act of illegally taking a firearm onto an army base gun free zone. He was willing to break the law, just by taking the weapon on base, everything after that was momentum, he had to have ill intent to take that first step.

edit on 4/4/2014 by Mirthful Me because: (no reason given)

not to mention the number of magazines it would have taken to hit that many people, and accounting for missed targets...nobody carries around that many mags, unless they're planning to do something with them...

Mirthful Me
No surprise...


As with previous mass shootings, there is nothing in the gun buying process that any of the proposed gun control measures would have changed. I don't see this as a gun (control) issue, it's as it always is... A mental health issue.

And my guess is that's exactly how you're supposed to see it because this was never about gun control. It's about mind control.

And as I previously speculated, it was a S&W M&P .45 ACP pistol that was used.

Hmm. Same place, same shop, same gun, same conclusion (mental health). Nothing suspicious about that.

N4mYourself
reply to post by Mirthful Me

 

The soldier had recently been prescribed Ambien and other drugs for depression, etc. These drugs can and will change one's logic processing, and make people act totally out of character and in opposition to their core character. But Big Pharma will never take responsibility for this problem that they created. Instead, our noble soldiers will be made out to the be bad guys.

I'd like to know if Fanapt was one of those other meds.

Colorado theater shooter and Adam Lanza were both on it, as well as a few other mass shooters.

N4mYourself
reply to post by Mirthful Me

 

The soldier had recently been prescribed Ambien and other drugs for depression, etc. These drugs can and will change one's logic processing, and make people act totally out of character and in opposition to their core character. But Big Pharma will never take responsibility for this problem that they created. Instead, our noble soldiers will be made out to the be bad guys.

My thoughts exactly...servicemen, both in the US and UK are coming back traumatised because war is traumatic no matter how much we like to think it looks cool in movies, it takes a toll on the mind of men and women.

However the real conspiracy here is how the vets are brushed aside, pumped full of drugs to keep them under control because no one knows or wants to admit they have been traumatised (after all the money being pumped into the war machine has to be justified right) or people (like you and me) are ignorant of what these people have gone through and sadly that we may one day walk past them as they sit on the streets homeless.

Questions should be asked like why did this guy end up in that state in the first place but we all know it won't happen, not with all the noise already being generated by the media.

reply to post by Mirthful Me


It is a false flag, just like the Boston Bombing and 9/11. Right after 9/11 we went straight to war and laws were passed that restricted the rights of everyday men and women. Then Boston Bombing happened and they found another reason to go to war.

th3onetruth
It is a false flag, just like the Boston Bombing and 9/11. Right after 9/11 we went straight to war and laws were passed that restricted the rights of everyday men and women. Then Boston Bombing happened and they found another reason to go to war.

Some things need to be preserved for posterity's sake, and others because their existence would be questioned if there wasn't empirical proof that (in this case) that it had been posted... The above is the latter.

Please inform the waiting and anxious membership what war was engaged in after the Boston Marathon Bombing?

Nobody posted the first press conference in the middle of the night yet ?

>that typo from typing really quickly before having to go AFK
>For what It's worth ^my.

Now on to the meat of this post:
reply to post by Daedalus


The constitution is interpreted by the Courts, The same court that approved ACA approved handgun ownership in DC (and is also really really pro-corporate; which is probably why they did that).


In fact this whole notion of some vast/deep conspiracy to ban guns is just a marketing gimmick..


In anycase; Moving on to something else;
While there likely are issues with many anti-depressants, I think its more of a case of them being over-prescribed or not being part of an overall treatment plan.

NonsensicalUserName
The constitution is interpreted by the Courts

that's the problem. the court's job is to uphold the law...not interpret it to mean whatever they WANT it to mean...

when you allow someone to interpret the law, what you're really allowing them to do is CHANGE the law, to suit whatever personal or political bias they may have...it also opens it up to manipulation from outside forces, seeking to slant the law to suit THEIR personal or political bias....

the constitution is written in plain english...it does not require interpretation..the rules are the rules, and it really IS just that simple...

The same court that approved ACA approved handgun ownership in DC (and is also really really pro-corporate; which is probably why they did that).

the ACA is unconstitutional, and shame on the supreme court for saying it is...and the supreme court, i suppose would hafta approve gun ownership in D.C. as it is the only place on the mainland that isn't a state....the federal government has ultimate authority there. D.C. is a very strange place...it's one of those situations where the federal government forced the ability to have their cake, and eat it too....

In fact this whole notion of some vast/deep conspiracy to ban guns is just a marketing gimmick..

no, it's called incrementalism......little by little...like a boiling frog, or death by a thousand cuts...

little by little, they make new laws, and restrictions, and stupidly, the people continue obeying them, because they're ignorant of the fact that it's illegal....

all these laws on the books about certain kinds of guns (usually black "scary" ones), magazines, kinds of ammo, ability to carry(be it concealed or open)...all of these laws are unconstitutional, and illegal....the constitution very clearly states that you have a RIGHT to own and carry....the constitution is the supreme law of the land, meaning no U.S. code, U.S. ordinance, state, county, or municipal law, ordinance, regulation, or order, can countermand it.....

in short, the constitution is the top law, and no state, county, municipality, etc, can make a law that violates it...this is so obscenely simple, i don't understand how people don't get it...

While there likely are issues with many anti-depressants, I think its more of a case of them being over-prescribed or not being part of an overall treatment plan.

likely issues?

how about there ARE issues (read the side effects on these things), and how about they are the biggest part of the problem?

depression doesn't make you kill people...drugs that cause mania, paranoia, anxiety, and homicidal ideations, make you kill people

reply to post by Daedalus


No I'm pretty sure its the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution. You're simply bothered because its not your own interpretation.

In addition; most anti-depressents treat anxiety, if I for instance take a little bit too much prozac I will feel incredibly apathetic, and kind of unwilling to do anything but sit and think about stuff all day.

But then again, prozac isn't a miracle-pill, its only a part of a larger overall treatment for depression, anxiety, OCD, etc, I was actually a mess before I started taking it.

This is my first post here and figured I would give a little insight from a Soldiers perspective who was actually locked down during this event.

So there we were, about to get off work and the alarm goes off telling everyone they must shelter in place. At this point we are all herded into a central room. Ours just happened to be the worst one they could have picked. A corner room facing the main road (Batallion Ave) with the largest windows. Basically all packed into a fish bowl during an active shooter event. We get no information that everyone else doesn't already know, our updates came from the guys using their phones and looking up the news. We have no inside information.

A couple hours into being packed into the hot smelly room with everyone, a few soldiers began to complain about being hungry and saying they should be given meal vouchers for missing a meal at the dining facility. This upset me quite a bit and as a Staff Sergeant it was my place to put things back into perspective for them. I explained to them that people are dead and dying right now minutes from where we are right now, and here they are complaining about missing a meal? Some soldiers wont go home to their family tonight, and you are really complaining about food? (In case you weren't tracking, many of your soldiers are whining children.) That fixed the issue for a while anyway.

The next thing to happen was one of our LTs came in, nerdy lookin guy about 23 years young. He told us "alright everyone listen up, this is the SOP if anyone comes in the building shooting, we are all to lay on the ground face down." As soon as he left the room most of us laughed a little thinking wow...we are supposed to go to war and fight but if a shooter comes in to murder everyone just lay down and let it happen...made no sense to me.

Some soldier ended up calling CNN, or so we heard from a different LT, and we were told for the hundredth time not to talk to media. I'm sure his call is somewhere here in this forum. Anyway, at about 2100 we were finally released to go home only to be back again early the next morning...for full car searches and pretty much interrogations(not at the gate, at the Batallion).

reply to post by hdvrod33


Great first post! Thanks for the update from inside.

The part you pointed out about being told to lay on the ground face down if an active shooter came in boggles the mind. And yet, somehow it doesn't surprise me under current leadership.

NonsensicalUserName
reply to post by Daedalus

 

No I'm pretty sure its the supreme court's job to interpret the constitution. You're simply bothered because its not your own interpretation.

you are incorrect, sir. the constitution makes no provision for interpretation of the constitution by the supreme court.

i'm not bothered because it's not my interpretation...i have no interpretation...i read what it says, and that's that....it says what it says, whether i like it, or not.

In addition; most anti-depressents treat anxiety, if I for instance take a little bit too much prozac I will feel incredibly apathetic, and kind of unwilling to do anything but sit and think about stuff all day.

so, then, are you asserting, or implying that these drugs, used to "treat" psychiatric conditions, have no deleterious, or negative effect on one's mental faculties, and functioning?

But then again, prozac isn't a miracle-pill, its only a part of a larger overall treatment for depression, anxiety, OCD, etc, I was actually a mess before I started taking it.

i am pleased that prozac is beneficial to you, and helps you live a better life.

BrianFlanders
Hmm. Same place, same shop, same gun, same conclusion (mental health). Nothing suspicious about that.

Well, same place, same shop, but definitely not the same gun... The terrorist Nidal Hassan used a FNH five seven in 5.7x28, which is diametrically opposed to the .45 ACP caliber pistol as far as ballistics go. The conclusion that it's a mental health issue goes far beyond these to incidents at Fort Hood... Mental health issues are fundamental and central causality in all of these mass shootings. Try to identify one mass shooting were the perpetrator was rational and sane...

I'll wager that it can't be done...

NonsensicalUserName
The constitution is interpreted by the Courts, The same court that approved ACA approved handgun ownership in DC (and is also really really pro-corporate; which is probably why they did that).

The above could not be further from the truth.

Here is Article III of the U.S. Constitution in it's entirety:

Article III
Section 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2

1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;10 --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellateJurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

3: The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
Section 3

1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

2: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

U.S. Constitution

Nothing about interpreting the document there..

Here is a synopsis of Marbury v. Madison:

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

Marbury v. Madison

The case that basically solidified the Supreme Court as part of the system of checks and balances, and what is reflexively cited when petitioning the Court... Still nada as far as interpretation...

You can get some insight into judicial review via Alexander Hamilton's Federalist No. 78, but as the progressives routinely poo poo the Federalist Papers as non binding and irrelevant (since they never fit their narrative), I guess we can't get any interpretation there.

Full Text of Federalist No. 78

So the fact is, the U.S. Supreme Court does not, and can not interpret the U. S. Constitution, what they actually do, is interpret legislative and executive branch actions and lower court decisions through the lens of the U.S. Constitution... Often poorly, but alas, that is another discussion for another thread...