It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Man arrested for meme in Connecticut "showing interest in mass shooting"

page: 7
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ya, I was so sad to learn that was why trump couldn't have his tanks in his parade...
My imaginary tank has a working gun also, just in case some crazy driver comes at me head on...

Do I should crazy to you? Are you and your friends gonna stop encouraging me to get a gun my own protection yet??




posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 02:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: uncommitted

Funny, I don't remember asking you a goddamned thing... are you speaking for dawnstar now?


This is a public forum, I'll respond to what I want, you think you own it?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: uncommitted

Well.. Im an idiot, so a stupid response is well within my capabilities. At least usually.

Yes, that was my response to your response. Weve got that part of this communication down!

Can we take your response to my response to your response to mean that is a viewpoint you personally hold? I was kinda thinking it was just a snarky response to someone elses response (I think Im doing this right, please correct me as creatively as possible), but not that you actually were using it as a valid justification..

If an idiot thinks something is silly, does that mean its brilliance is simply so unfathomable it wraps back around again? I think: maybe, probably.

Im sure there is some sort of parable applicable here.. Something about people on train tracks while you, the freethinker, have your hands on the switch lever.

Im told its a "thing," and I believe it, that good intentions can lead to bad things.


No, you aren't doing it right, just sounds really stupid. Sorry, will do my best to respond if you can actually articulate yourself correctly.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Ya, I was so sad to learn that was why trump couldn't have his tanks in his parade...
My imaginary tank has a working gun also, just in case some crazy driver comes at me head on...

Do I should crazy to you? Are you and your friends gonna stop encouraging me to get a gun my own protection yet??


I'll be real honest, I couldn't care less whether you own a gun or not. Unless and until you've had your rights removed by due process and been institutionalized as a threat to public safety, you should be allowed to buy what you want. That's something that's always bothered me a lot about these conversations... if someone is too mentally disturbed to be trusted with a forearm, then they also pose safety risks behind the wheel of a vehicle, around knives, blunt objects, etc. and should be institutionalized as we used to do with their kind.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

And, you dont see a slippery slope there. Ya we used to institutionalize the mentally ill.. far more than needed to be.
I actually tried, along with my son, to help one of his friends. Seemed to be a nice girl at the beginning although it didn't take me long to figure out that she needed someone to look after her, to help her. Her mother had died a year or so before, and she was trying to go it alone. Then, she went off her meds, I actually was scared of her, she was driving my son crazy. Come to find out she had been arrested a few times for assault, and ended up in jail again. They let her out, then they came back when she missed her court dates and they eventually dropped the charges.
And, I started locking my doors!
But this girl didn't need to be institutionalized, she just needed someone to help her navigate through life, be there to remind her to take her meds. But, they just let her back out on the streets.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: burdman30ott6

And, you dont see a slippery slope there. Ya we used to institutionalize the mentally ill.. far more than needed to be.
I actually tried, along with my son, to help one of his friends. Seemed to be a nice girl at the beginning although it didn't take me long to figure out that she needed someone to look after her, to help her. Her mother had died a year or so before, and she was trying to go it alone. Then, she went off her meds, I actually was scared of her, she was driving my son crazy. Come to find out she had been arrested a few times for assault, and ended up in jail again. They let her out, then they came back when she missed her court dates and they eventually dropped the charges.
And, I started locking my doors!
But this girl didn't need to be institutionalized, she just needed someone to help her navigate through life, be there to remind her to take her meds. But, they just let her back out on the streets.


Sounds like you were in some degree of fear from her, yet I'm not seeing any mention of her being armed with a firearm... thus, you're starting to see a slippery slope of your own. What could she have done behind the wheel of a car? With a knife? With a can of gas and a book of matches? What could she have done with her words? Institutionalization wasn't eliminated as SOP in the US because it was ineffective, it was eliminated because we started allowing emotions to trump common sense and Rights. Nobody was thrown in Bellevue without some manner of due process, but we're now seeing 2nd Amendment infringing laws and even more suggested that deprive Americans of a Constitutional Right without due process... OK, so a few nuts have misused their 2nd Amendment Right, laws restricting everyone's access and ease of access are no more the answer for that problem than making access to cars more difficult is an answer to drunk driving.



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Lol you're funny. Sandbox not big enough for you?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 03:39 PM
link   
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

...and now you're speaking for uncommitted?

Wow, musical unsolicited soapbox time, round and round it goes, ya?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 03:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: DictionaryOfExcuses

...and now you're speaking for uncommitted?


Nope. Speaking directly to you on my own behalf in response to your childish words. What was it? "Funny, I don't remember asking you a goddamn thing." Alright Samuel L. Jackson, the jig is up.


Wow, musical unsolicited soapbox time, round and round it goes, ya?


You would know, wouldn't you?


Don't worry.
edit on 22/8/2019 by DictionaryOfExcuses because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/8/2019 by DictionaryOfExcuses because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 03:57 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Star for your patience and kindness. I cant tell you how refreshing and rare it is!

I would love to "articulate" (whatever that means) my ideas more good, but Im struggling to figure out where the failure to communicate is originating.

I hear stories of yore, surely untrue, that tell about how in "saving that one life," we can end up costing many, many more. And that, in our haste to be doubleplusgood (a truly righteous and noble cause), we can inch deeper back into psuedo-feudalism and authoritarianism. Not only without actually addressing the issue, but making things worse through myriad vectors.

Vectors which disappear entirely when we only look at the portion of the train track with the single person (myopic). That group of hundreds on the track which we have now directed the speeding train might as well not exist. We never saw 'em or considered them, or maybe they committed wrongthink and deserved it.

I do understand that urban living and easier living in general enables us to examine the real issues in human civilization. Even given that unquestionable truth, I cant help but think the people who founded the US might have been on to something.

I know, its ridiculous blasphemy! Surely we know better now, since humans have matured and changed our behavior so dramatically..

But maybe.. When our solutions involve eroding that foundation from multiple directions with epic levels of disingenuousness, the structure built on it could fall?



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 04:11 PM
link   
so does any one have a photo of the meme he shared? im in like 15 messed up meme pages on fb so i see all kinds of henious yet oddly hilarious memes on a daily basis

talkingpointsmemo.com... lol this shows some of the memes from his Instagram ill admit the sumo wrestling trump one is kind of funny but then he talks about sending transgeder people in to gas chambers ,but id assume his post about wanting to mail spiders to the FBI may have gotten some attention from the feds which he seemed to have a mild obsession with. no threatening posts on instagram though but few people commenting about the incident .

i guess the meme was on fb and that seems to have been taken down so kind of hard to see the context as to what the meme was but it seems the only guns he had access too was a .40 hand gun and a .22 rifle that both belonged to his dad ,but was trying to build a 300 black out apparently

abc7ny.com... this link says it wasnt on fb so i guess we may have to wait for a trial to find out what ever the meme was

He didn't make any comments on Facebook, but there may have been other memes, as they call it, that he might have reposted, but he didn't make any statement on Facebook," he said. A search of Wagshol's home turned up a .40 caliber handgun, .22 caliber rifle, rifle scope with laser, 4- firearm optic sites, firearm flashlight, numerous .40 caliber, .22 caliber and .300 Blackout rounds of ammunition, body armor with a titanium plate, camouflage shirt, pant and belt, ballistic helmet, tactical gloves, camouflage bag and computers. The firearms are registered to Wagshol's father. Wagshol was held on $250,000 bail. It wasn't immediately clear if he has a lawyer who could respond to the allegations.
so the stash of weapons as stated earlier is a 22 rifle and a hand gun...... not exactly an arsenal or weapons cache but with out knowing what the meme was in context kind of hard to see , guess he didn't even have an assembled rifle for the magazines he had


wtvr.com... now if you look at what these people posted they seem to be making direct and at least semi credible threats as more then a few of them threatened to blow up buildings and an army recruitment center but dont think any of them shared memes



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 04:24 PM
link   
www.tactical.../memes-get-man-redflagged/ ah found the meme hope the link doesn't get eaten by the profanity censor but its the emperor from star wars and says "when the alphabet boys bust in through your door thinking you just have a few coat hanger seers,so you play along before breaking out the belt-fed boogaloo toys" so other then being an idiot and posting online about the intent to get illegal high capacity magazines for a gun he hadnt even gotten all the parts for. i see waaaaaaay worse memes then this daily on fb(but i sure as hell dont share them lol)

and note to any government agents this is just a quote of a meme and expresses zero intent joking or otherwise of committing any actual violence (sad that we have to add this now)



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Wow, if that was the actual meme that sparked this, then a lawsuit against this even happening is certainly warranted. The guy broke an Unconstitutional state law... and the method utilized to discover his crimes was itself not warranted.




posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

eh i think they just added the part about the meme he shared to try to validate red flag laws, but i think was got him actualyl arrested was being in possession of the over 10 round magazines so i dunno if he could pull it off but the meme its self is waaaaaaaaay tamer then 90 percent of the stuff i see on the atf forbidden memes page im in on fb let alone some of the truly terrible but still hilarious memes i see daily



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: LogicalGraphitti

www.oyez.org... its actually not illegal to do just highly frowned upon first link is the court ruling

www.theatlantic.com...

Ninety-three years ago, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote what is perhaps the most well-known -- yet misquoted and misused -- phrase in Supreme Court history: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." Without fail, whenever a free speech controversy hits, someone will cite this phrase as proof of limits on the First Amendment. And whatever that controversy may be, "the law"--as some have curiously called it--can be interpreted to suggest that we should err on the side of censorship. Holmes' quote has become a crutch for every censor in America, yet the quote is wildly misunderstood. The latest example comes from New York City councilmen Peter Vallone, who declared yesterday "Everyone knows the example of yelling fire in a crowded movie theater," as he called for charges against pseudonymous Twitter @ComfortablySmug for spreading false information during Hurricane Sandy. Other commentators have endorsed Vallone's suggestions, citing the same quote as established precedent. More Stories The 140-Year-Old Dream of ‘Government Without Taxation’ Annika Neklason An illustration of small islands covered in the debris left by a storm The Media Barely Covered One of the Worst Storms to Hit U.S. Soil Alia Wong Lenika Cruz Mourners carry the caskets of two victims killed in an attack on the Tree of Life synagogue. France’s Jews Look to Pittsburgh ‘Across a Narrow Bridge’ Rachel Donadio FBI officers walk past a memorial outside the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh Gunman Embraced Conspiracy Theories. He’s Not the First. Kathy Gilsinan In the last few years, the quote has reared its head on countless occasions. In September, commentators pointed to it when questioning whether the controversial anti-Muslim video should be censored. Before that, it was invoked when a crazy pastor threatened to burn Qurans. Before that, the analogy was twisted to call for charges against WikiLeaks for publishing classified information. The list goes on. But those who quote Holmes might want to actually read the case where the phrase originated before using it as their main defense. If they did, they'd realize it was never binding law, and the underlying case, U.S. v. Schenck, is not only one of the most odious free speech decisions in the Court's history, but was overturned over 40 years ago. First, it's important to note U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I. As the ACLU's Gabe Rottman explains, "It did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience."
and a 2nd snippit


In 1969, the Supreme Court's decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech--and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan--is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" (emphasis mine). Today, despite the "crowded theater" quote's legal irrelevance, advocates of censorship have not stopped trotting it out as thefinal word on the lawful limits of the First Amendment. As Rottman wrote, for this reason, it's "worse than useless in defining the boundaries of constitutional speech. When used metaphorically, it can be deployed against any unpopular speech." Worse, its advocates are tacitly endorsing one of the broadest censorship decisions ever brought down by the Court. It is quite simply, as Ken White calls it, "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech."
so it would seem as far as the "meme went" he would dodge that aspect of the charges (probably boned for the over 10 round magazines but those are misdemeanors) now as far as the school suspending him he may very well have a case

but while legal id still not go out of your way to yell fire in crowded theater as its kind of a lame thing to do



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

www.cbsnews.com... if it was this guy it was a de-milled and empty tube or what amounts to a large club but still not smart trying to bring it through a frigging airport

if you ment this guy riversidecountynewssource.org... his too was inert but idiot was shooting in his own house so not the best example of "good people" but PTSD can mess people up and veterans can have some pretty bad flashbacks from time to time

WRITER’S NOTE: As the author of this article, I have since learned that the “rocket launcher” seized by the sheriff’s department was inert and could not even be fired. According to Mr. Rutledge’s friends and family, it posed no danger whatsoever to anyone, other than as a big club that, at worst, could bonk someone on the head. While speaking with Mr. Rutledge’s family members I have learned a lot about the alleged suspect; including the fact that he is a decorated war Veteran suffering from PTSD, and that he was a danger to nobody but himself. I am currently working with his family to write an update to my original article that better explains Mr. Rutledge’s circumstances and struggles with depression and PTSD.
so hey at least if the launcher had been real and live he was probably trained in how to use it



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

I was mistaken, it was a granade launcher, sorry about that...

www.buzzfeednews.com...



posted on Aug, 22 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

was it a real grenade launcher or one like the one i possess that requires no permits?

en.wikipedia.org... for one of these ya need a permit,and a extra DD permit for each round

www.americanspecialtyammo.com... for these no permit needed (but you can get one if you want to actually shoot explosives or flechettes/buckshot/one really big bullet) and they will ship directly to your door, mostly a novelty and after i used all the smoke and firework rounds a few 4th of July's ago its mostly sat on the floor of my plow truck unused and slowly rusting ,did get pulled over with it in the truck once and the cop asked his usual any "guns rocket launchers grenade launchers" in the vehicle and said i was the only person who ever answered yes to the grenade launcher aspect but we both had a good chuckle about it and he let me off with a warning for speeding and he gave me back my actual gun after the traffic stop

just saying often the media hypes things up and they aren't always what they appear to me ie they call a missile launcher a missile launcher when its a novelty or a grenade launcher well a grenade launcher when its not actually one

guy from your link was in new jersey so the 37mm would be a no go there ,the slave owning manual could either be a real publication or more likely a meme its self(albeit a pretty tasteless one) . but owning guns as a drug user/dealer tends to be a big no go on its own but with his new drug charges he will be banned from owning any guns in the future

www.nj.com... id assume the sawn off shotgun and supressor tubes would be the bulk of his gun charges and why hes getting life as he was allready banned from gun ownership in general let alone any of the class 3 stuff he got caught with which were in no way legally owned

Rubino faces charges of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, possession of firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime, and possession of firearms by a convicted felon. The latter charge stems from Rubino’s 1999 conviction in Sussex County Superior Court for writing bad checks, according to the complaint. Public records show Rubino wrote between $200 and $1,000 in bad checks and was sentenced to three years of probation. If convicted of the most serious charge, drug-trafficking, Rubino faces a maximum of life in prison.



from your link

www.buzzfeednews.com...

On Aug. 9, Rubino was charged with federal drug and weapons charges. Authorities said the weapons were related to the drugs, and there are no charges against him related to any threat of mass violence.


edit to add was not a "real" grenade launcher but with what they caught this guy with he very well could have had lethal ammo for it www.justice.gov... there is the list of weapons and various illegal shenanigans he had

but his launcher was this www.brownells.com... very over priced (i paid like 150 for mine lol) illegal as hell in NJ but federally will ship with zero background check directly to your door via post office

unlike guy in OP this guy from NJ is def gonna spend the rest of his life in prison
edit on 22-8-2019 by RalagaNarHallas because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 06:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: gallop
a reply to: DBCowboy

is saying "I'm going to kill you, and your family."

a threat, or a pre crime?

Where do we stop and think "Naw, he didn't do it yet. lets just ignore it."

After it's happened? When we consider "If only someone had stopped him there.."


So you would censor Kathy Griffin when she held up a severed head of Trump?


I'd tell her to gtfo and stfu, a meaningless ignoramus she is.

But she isn't bolstering the idea that she is going to do that. How many people so far, have left seemingly 'free speech' posts before acting in atrocity.

Someone known for satire might just be being satirical... but someone unknown, espousing 'free speech' to let it be known they adhere to such things, is another thing entirely.

Ignoring that, isn't helping anyone, anything, nor anywhere.

It is a slippery slope, I understand.. but we're at the precipice of disaster as a species.. lines are needed, liked or not. We're not going to get any better using old standards.. face it, we're doomed. this is how it is now. those that wish ill intent, will get away with it with standard fare, and those caught in the traps will suffer the ire of the pretence of preventing it.

I dinduniffin'...

edit on 23-8-2019 by gallop because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2019 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: gallop

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
Opposing every move to even begin to stop the maddness of mass shootings is madness as well.


There was no mass shooting though, this is presuming guilt.


Would you rather wait until people are dead and then say 'I knew there was something odd going on'?


Hindsight is always 20/20.

Would you rather live in a police-state?


It isn't a police state not to act on information received and proceed accordingly, it's common sense.



dressing anti-freedom as "common sense" is in itself, frightening.


using free speech for ill intent, is worse, imo.


So you would censor the state rep hat just wished that Trump be assassinated?


Did the said rep say they would carry out the assassination? I'm guessing not. If they had, an there was a risk it was a credible threat do you not think that should be investigated? You do know that any such threats are - at least were investigated routinely by the FBI if someone had made comments to suggest it was a valid threat don't you?


So you'd want to censor her.

'kay.

Or at the very least, punish her for having made an offensive statement.


Would you applaud someone being caught for a post on social media they had made, that led authorities to detain them, after the fact, after finding they had sincere intent on committing a crime and had justifiable ability to do so?

Or nah?

Would it be better to have death and discussion, or not...

We're not living in the 90's anymore.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join