Two journalists killed in shooting during live newscast at Smith Mountain Lake

a reply to: Crowdpsychology

On different note, It’s interesting to see that so many people in this thread who argues for the official story automatically believe that the shooter and/or crew must be actors and that everything must be staged, if this would in fact be a false flag. I hope people realize that there are many type of implementations/tactics involved in different types of false flags and/or psyops, one of them being manipulation of weak minded individuals into conducting an act that benefits the handlers and their objective. And correct me if I’m wrong but Vester and his situation seems to be a perfect case when it comes to grooming someone into acting out.

That thought has not escaped my mind either. However, the people who think this was an act are completely off-base. These people were real, and they are really dead. That is certain.

a reply to: Sovan

The hand is darker, you can clearly see color, and that pete guy is full of #.

Strange how the lady isn't moving when the damn frame is frozen!

Illuminati confirmed right there.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I don't care about all the pro-gun posters who will now start screaming about their rights to have weapons to kill people, this should have been a priority the first time kids in school were murdered.

If you "right to bear arms" is more important to you than the lives of innocent Americans, even when those arms are not for self defense and are weapons of COMBAT, you are the problem, end of story.

Fine, I'm the problem then, what are you going to do about it? I have a second amendment right, and it shall not be infringed.

An amendment can be changed.
I know many Americans seem to think your amendments are some kind of religious text hammered in stone and unchangeable, but that's not actually true.

All you need is a consensus that something needs to be changed, and the government of the day with the support of the population can change it.

Like it or not, societies move on, priorities change, focus shifts.
Stomping your feet like a petulant child because you've had your toy taken away changes nothing

It takes more than a 'consensus'. We have a ratification process that dilutes out knee-jerk emotional agendas. It takes 3/4 of the individual states (38 of 50) to reach their own agreement on the proposal. Not just 75% of the population must agree. It doesn't matter if 80-90% approval comes from a few of the most populated states.

Like it our not, we have a constitutional republic and we value our Bill or Rights. Stomping your feet won't change that.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What I did say is that if someone kills others and then themselves, they're a nutcase.

Ahhh...ok, but only if they kill someone else before they kill themselves. Right? But if they kill themselves and no one else beforehand, they're not a nutcase. Right? Interesting distinction, that.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

In addition to the amendment process, I'd also point out that public opinion has been shifting against most gun control positions for at least a couple of decades now. Here is one set of long term polling data that shows this general trend in public attitudes regarding gun control pretty clearly. The question of a handgun ban is particularly telling, because one can infer that nearly three quarters of the American public supports at least some form of private firearms ownership; also on that question, note the 20 point pro-gun shift in the last two decades (and you see a similar shift on the 2nd question regarding generic more/less strict gun control).

a reply to: matafuchs

a reply to: tigertatzen

The reason he was not seen was the light from the camera. The shooter knew exactly how to approach. The camera man pans out and he waits. Till it is back on the reporter. Calculated....cold....certain.

His lawsuits show that he was an attention-getter and in the end he did the ultimate. This is the first murder that I am aware of to be tweeted hours after it happened with a video.

Yes, I could see he was being pretty stealthy about it, and I meant to ask about the lighting too...that can affect periphery also. She saw him, that's obvious. But maybe due to the lighting, she didn't see his entire body...tough to do anyway just at a glance...and thus didn't see the gun. Maybe she looked puzzled because she saw him there with his phone...that would have been odd, but not threatening. So many questions. And I think this is the first time anyone has actually filmed themselves in the act, too...one of the reasons it was so shocking, I think.

A friend of mine just pointed this out to me. An old friend who is NOT into conspiracies even pointed out the peculiar nature of the incident. Notice how all the news stations stop reporting on the killing and the victims? It literally went dead and they switched back to politics, katrina, and the new hurricane. They went from reporting on this all day, to a complete black out. This is after people began questioning the authenticity of the video.

All day reporting to ZERO reporting. Or one report every now and again.



This isn't odd to you guys?

a reply to: FelisOrion

Not really, because a quick search online will bring up any number of articles from today and yesterday both. My local news was talking about it yesterday and this morning.

I'm sure when the funerals happen there will be a good bit of coverage. Right now web media is down to writing articles about the victim's father talking about senators and gun control and the shooter killing his cats.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I don't care about all the pro-gun posters who will now start screaming about their rights to have weapons to kill people, this should have been a priority the first time kids in school were murdered.

If you "right to bear arms" is more important to you than the lives of innocent Americans, even when those arms are not for self defense and are weapons of COMBAT, you are the problem, end of story.

Fine, I'm the problem then, what are you going to do about it? I have a second amendment right, and it shall not be infringed.

An amendment can be changed.
I know many Americans seem to think your amendments are some kind of religious text hammered in stone and unchangeable, but that's not actually true.

All you need is a consensus that something needs to be changed, and the government of the day with the support of the population can change it.

Like it or not, societies move on, priorities change, focus shifts.
Stomping your feet like a petulant child because you've had your toy taken away changes nothing

It takes more than a 'consensus'. We have a ratification process that dilutes out knee-jerk emotional agendas. It takes 3/4 of the individual states (38 of 50) to reach their own agreement on the proposal. Not just 75% of the population must agree. It doesn't matter if 80-90% approval comes from a few of the most populated states.

Like it our not, we have a constitutional republic and we value our Bill or Rights. Stomping your feet won't change that.

None of what you just wrote contradicts what I stated.
If there is a consensus then change will come, you can say whatever you like about how likely that is or isn't.
Demanding that the world stop to afford you a right (which is not actually a right, as it has no impact on your quality of life) that the rest of your society thinks puts them at risk is backward and will not stop change.

Mark my words, laws are going to change in America, owning a gun unsuitable for what you claim to want it for will become increasingly difficult - and socially unacceptable - and eventually it will no longer be relevant to your society.

You can complain about it all you like, it's not going to stop the evolution of your society and guns will become a thing of the past in your general population within the next 20 or so years.

Even if your government doesn't do this now, repeated shootings will cause public opinion to change. This is inevitable, and if the pro-gun crowd had a clue about where this is all heading they would agree to all safety checks and sensible laws on the sale and ownership of these weapons so the chances of such shootings occurring are lessened.

i was watching ABC news just a few minutes ago, and i think i got a reasonable explanation for all those that say they should have seen him coming or standing there.

the third victim Vicki Gardner's husband was doing a interview, and he said she told him she/(they?) didn't see him. she said that the light from the camera that she couldn't see.

Vicki Gardner, who woke up from a medically induced coma Thursday afternoon after her second surgery, told her husband she could not see the shooter, allegedly Vester Lee Flanagan, approaching because of the lights of the camera.

Home> U.S. Virginia On-Air Shooting: Survivor's Harrowing Tale of Facing Down Gunman

so even though Alison Parker was use to the lights, i still think that may have contributed to not really recognizing him.

can anyone confirm if siblings were involved in the OP and this following incident:

www.adelaidenow.com.au...

i feel as if i've seen the same surname in both gun incidents!

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I don't care about all the pro-gun posters who will now start screaming about their rights to have weapons to kill people, this should have been a priority the first time kids in school were murdered.

If you "right to bear arms" is more important to you than the lives of innocent Americans, even when those arms are not for self defense and are weapons of COMBAT, you are the problem, end of story.

Fine, I'm the problem then, what are you going to do about it? I have a second amendment right, and it shall not be infringed.

An amendment can be changed.
I know many Americans seem to think your amendments are some kind of religious text hammered in stone and unchangeable, but that's not actually true.

All you need is a consensus that something needs to be changed, and the government of the day with the support of the population can change it.

Like it or not, societies move on, priorities change, focus shifts.
Stomping your feet like a petulant child because you've had your toy taken away changes nothing

They wont be stomping their feet if they try to change that. they will be killing politicians left and right. Ill be righ there with em too if they take away a right writen down in the bill of rights. Promise you the country will be much more quiet afterwards and th epeople who tried to have it changed exiled,killed or worse.

eureka.. found a reference to them being siblings in an 'old tweet', but the content has been deleted :

Old Tweets: FoxNews (Fox News) - TweetTunnel
tweettunnel.com/foxnews

Tune in now for @greta's interview w/ Arissa Sadler, sister of Anthony Sadler – who .... DHS

a reply to: Sovan

What does that have to do with this incident?

originally posted by: Rocker2013

originally posted by: ngchunter

originally posted by: Rocker2013
I don't care about all the pro-gun posters who will now start screaming about their rights to have weapons to kill people, this should have been a priority the first time kids in school were murdered.

If you "right to bear arms" is more important to you than the lives of innocent Americans, even when those arms are not for self defense and are weapons of COMBAT, you are the problem, end of story.

Fine, I'm the problem then, what are you going to do about it? I have a second amendment right, and it shall not be infringed.

An amendment can be changed.
I know many Americans seem to think your amendments are some kind of religious text hammered in stone and unchangeable, but that's not actually true.

All you need is a consensus that something needs to be changed, and the government of the day with the support of the population can change it.

Like it or not, societies move on, priorities change, focus shifts.
Stomping your feet like a petulant child because you've had your toy taken away changes nothing

You're 100% correct, amendments can and have been changed. It must be kept in mind however, that of 11,000 attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution, only 27 amendments has passed.

It's extremely difficult and for good reason.

When you go changing/altering amendments you can set a very dangerous precedent. If you meddle with 2nd amendment of the United States Constitution, what's to keep the government from meddling with the 1st which guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition?

These things need to be thought over very carefully to ensure the risk does not outweigh the reward.

a reply to: iProphecy

or the 4th which for all effective purposes, has all ready been done along with the 5th. it only takes one word and they can usurp those two rights.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: iProphecy

or the 4th which for all effective purposes, has all ready been done along with the 5th. it only takes one word and they can usurp those two rights.

Yes, when the unreasonable becomes reasonable.

a reply to: iProphecy

Yes, when the unreasonable becomes reasonable.

but wouldn't you say that their reasonable is usually a little unreasonable. i understand the reasoning for it, but some of the ways they go about gathering their reasons are unreasonable.

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: iProphecy

Yes, when the unreasonable becomes reasonable.

but wouldn't you say that their reasonable is usually a little unreasonable. i understand the reasoning for it, but some of the ways they go about gathering their reasons are unreasonable.

They get to decide what is and is not unreasonable, when you have semantics on your side it's difficult to lose. The government is spying on everything we do … without any real benefit or justification.

But to them it's perfectly "reasonable".