BREAKING Gabrielle Giffords Shot: Congresswoman Reportedly Shot In Arizona [UPDATED]

This even certainly put the dead birds and fish on the back burner! I feel for the people who were killed and lost their lives - but I am more in tune to nature. The loss of the little girl hurts the most, she was young and innocent. We are giving this Jared psycho the publicity he craves - lets get back to nature for a while.

reply to post by Cobra.EXE


WOW, nice catch. I never heard anything about that case.

From the link provided-www.eutimes.net...

According to this SVR report, Federal Judge John McCarthy Roll was the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona who this past Friday issued what is called a “preliminary ruling” in a case titled “United States of America v. $333,520.00 in United States Currency et al” [Case Number: 4:2010cv00703 Filed: November 30, 2010] wherein he stated he was preparing to rule against Obama’s power to seize American citizens money without clear and convincing evidence of a crime being committed.

The case being ruled on by Judge Roll, this report continues, was about bulk cash smuggling into or out of the United States that the Obama administration claimed was their right to seize under what are called Presidential Executive Orders, instead of using existing laws. The Obama administration used as support for their claim before Judge Roll, the SVR says, the seizing of all American citizens’ gold, in 1933, by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s signing of Executive Order 6102, which was ruled at the time to be constitutional.

Now the parent's have barricaded themselves in their home?

FBI: Family of suspect in Giffords shooting blocking access to house

Family members of the suspect in the Gabrielle Giffords shooting on Monday blockaded themselves into their home north of Tucson and were refusing FBI agents' entry.

At about 12:25 p.m., agents began banging on the blockade built with 4-by-4 double-thick plywood, yelling, "This is the FBI. Let us in." The blockade is preventing access to the front porch of the home.

Rosa DeLauro!!!!!



Ashley Turton: worked for Congress before becoming a lobbyist, Turton served as chief of staff to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, a Democrat from Connecticut. She also spent time as an aide to Rep. Richard Gephardt.
www.aolnews.com...




DeLauro: Arizona shootings shouldn't curtail contact with public
MILFORD -- U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd, said Monday she worked together on several bills with the Arizona congresswoman who was gravely injured in a shooting on Saturday.

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, remains in critical condition after the shooting that killed six people, including a little girl, and injured 14. Police charged

Read more: www.ctpost.com...

reply to post by JacKatMtn


Man reporting has gone down hill. Does the FBI have a warrant? I am sure they do, but the report is anemic.

Originally posted by crazydaisy
This even certainly put the dead birds and fish on the back burner!
I feel for the people who were killed and lost their lives - but I am more in tune to nature.

Aye that's a valid point.

for avoid chemtrail-toxins,
have closed-loop oxygen life support system
indoor planted aquarium with bubbler for air-purification,
and all the windows shut and insulation tape on the doors.

This should give you a very rough point of comparison to the number of plants needed to supply oxygen for life support in a sealed system.
"A net production of 500 g to 600 g of dry algae per man per day is required for oxygen regeneration" This would be about 850-1000 g wet algae grown in a 20L tank.
cedb.asce.org...…
or "17.5 trees per person" to produce oxgygen but 20 trees per person to consume the CO2 according to NASA.
www.nas.nasa.gov...…

answers.yahoo.com...

The loss of the little girl hurts the most, she was young and innocent.

Well if it makes you feel any better,
it's possible she was part of a ritual sacrifice.

note the names
Christ (ina) of 9-11, like Christ the Child of God,
John the Judge, like John the Baptist,
Gabriel (le) like the Angel, astronaut husband.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I believe that was just one of those local alert type postings on the Local News site...

more to come style...

I am pretty sure that the FBI has already been in the home, since they mention gathering some items from the home, but this reaction by the family to blockade entrance is weird at the least...

Some glimpse into what the shooter had to live with there?

Link to all three victims (Plus Rosa DeLauro with the two women)

Originally posted by MEARC
I think there may be a connection between the deaths in recent weeks. Right now it is pretty sketchy, but the details I am trying to string together are:

1. Duke Energy (buying Tilton's company, Progress which has deeper ties to aviation) has recently built the "Duke Energy Aviation Facility" at Charlotte's international Airport
2. Mitre has the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development, etc., etc.
3. Giffords introduced HR 1441, designed to prevent the sale of military aircraft and parts on the open market and is on .

Giffords is also on the following committees:
Committee on Armed Services
Subcommittee on Readiness
Subcommittee on Air and Land Forces
Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Committee on Science and Technology
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

I smell something around an millitary aircraft and Iran. I wouldnt rule out that the birds are a part of it either - testing ability of unmanned aircraft to use chemilcal weapons against a highly specific target.

Maybe ramping up a deal to sell unammaned aircraft developed and tested by Mitre, distributed through or training provided by Duke/Progressive and sold on the open market (to Iran)?

www.progress-energy.com...
www.mitre.org...
www.edisonfoard.com...

reply to post by GeneralAwesome

A gun has never killed anyone without any action from a human being. Attempting to ban them, or their accessories is a knee jerk response typically used by people who have elementary school level thought processes.

A ban is not about guns themselves -- they are objects -- what a ban does is prevent people from owning them since they are inherently so dangerous. Talk about elementary school level thought.

Its all about the people. That is the whole point. You don't pass a law against guns, you pass a law against just any Joe owning one, or you put controls on what types and when and where. It is all about the people. Good God.

In a civilized society the fruitcake gets up on a soapbox and spouts his vitriol. He doesn't shoot anyone. America is a very violent society. Why the hell you gloat in it is beyond most of us in the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Serenity08
You sure like your free speech. I wonder if anyone takes a shot at some "greedy bankers" or the "rich" are you going to take responsibility for their actions. I mean you are laying the blame for all our problems on them. Am I for the Federal Reserve system? No, but your own words are sort of hypocritical.

You sure like your free speech too it seems. As far as anyone taking a shot at greedy bankers goes, I'm sure they don't need any motivation from me to do it. I think that the greedy bankers have provided hundreds of millions of people plenty of motivation all on their own. Further, I did not set up a website with crosshairs over greedy bankers. There is no hypocrisy in anything I've said. It would seem that the hypocrisy you sense is internal.

Originally posted by Serenity08
Palin is a well known NRA supporter, hunter, and second amendment advocate. She has never called for violence against anyone. If she has, please give the full quotes and/or video. Using a target on a map is a symbol, not declaring "Hey, go shoot these people in opposition to me." It's more like, "This is the region we are targeting to get our message out in and raise money to defeat those on a different political agenda." I wonder how many times we can find examples of the liberal's in politics using the word target. I mean it wasn't that long ago that people on tv or radio talk shows that leaned liberal outright called for conservatives deaths and heads.

Palin created a website and had crosshairs put on people and districts. Please show where I have done the same. Alas, I have not. It's pretty plain and clear that putting crosshairs on people and/or the districts they represent was a poor choice of imagery. There are nutjobs like this guy out there who will surely take it the wrong way. I was stating that hate-mongering, exaggeration, distortion and outright lies is not a good route for modern politicians. Sure, it might get them elected, but look what happens when you start putting crosshairs onto people/districts. Even if the crosshairs weren't intended as a subtle cue to have the crosshaired politicians eliminated, someone sure got that message, didn't they? And now at least 6 people, including a 9-year old girl are no longer on this Earth.

Originally posted by Serenity08
I said it yesterday, this would be used to attack Palin, the Tea Party, gun rights, and conservatives. It's just too bad the killer wasn't wearing a Palin 2012 t-shirt when he did this, but then again his political views have been formed from many groups.

I, personally, am not "attacking" Palin. I am merely saying that putting crosshairs over people and districts sends the wrong message, whether she intended for people to start shooting or not. No matter her intention, putting crosshairs over people/districts in such a way creates doubt about her intentions. Further, any unstable people out there who see A TARGET over someone... well, you can connect the dots. I'm sure it was immediately obvious to you and many others that Palin would indeed get heat over her controversial website. People had been saying that it was a bad choice (crosshairs) all along, from the moment she put them there. THEY WARNED THAT THIS SORT OF THING COULD HAPPPEN, and (voila!) now it has. Politicians and personalities need to be VERY CAREFUL about the fashion in which they deliver messages. No one should even remotely encourage their followers to kill anyone, whether verbally or graphically. It's simply a bad manner in which to conduct one's self, campaign or political agendas.

I don't think my post here was hypocritical nor extreme. What's wrong with observing that extreme views and violent (suggestively violent) imagery might be a less than positive, and potentially dangerous, way of doing business? I'm certainly not pro gun control and am in no way attacking the IRA. Gun control just leads to law-abiding citizens being unarmed when armed criminals attack. Still, Palin's website is a testament to lack of foresight, insight and good taste. She should have those crosshairs removed and substituted with a better choice of imagery. Is she responsible for this shooting? We will never truly know, most likely. However, because of her poor choice of imagery, the question EXISTS. Had that imagery been removed all those months ago when people pointed out that it might be a *wise* idea, there would be no question. For the record, as I've stated in other posts, I am not affiliated with any political party. I simply want the best ideas, the best people, regardless of political affiliation. I believe that a well-stocked buffet is the best kind. Being all of one "thing" is too one-tracked, too tunnel-visioned for my tastes.

This country is healthy when we debate ideas and enact them without this sort of violence. If a lid isn't put on this, it could erupt into a situation similar to that of Ireland in the 80s/90s. Remember hearing about explosions in British malls and Irish pubs? Is this where we're going? If you like that, then by all means encourage Palin and others to start using violent imagery and calling for gunfire.

reply to post by Sinnthia


Would it make you feel better if he had reloaded multiple times in the process of shooting?

How about used a car to plow into the crowd instead? What then, ban cars? Afterall, why should a nutjob have the ability to drive a car when he could use it to decimate large numbers of people?

Blaming an object is symbolic of someone without any other argument.

Why were the warning signs ignored? Why didnt local police act on them?

Stop blaming guns, stop blaming hi cap mags, and start placing blame where it rightly belongs. On the individual who actually committed the acts.


While not used as a weapon (although books do have that nice hard binding which could cause injury) religious texts give people the motivation and the neuroses to kill. They should be banned too right?

reply to post by wayno


A gun is no more dangerous than a car. They are only a threat when in the wrong hands.

Shall not be infringed is very clear, any and all gun restrictions are unconstitutional and need to be done away with immediately.

Originally posted by wayno
A gun makes it so much easier for a crazy person, or an angry person, or simply a mistaken or confused person to take a life -- to kill. It is human to err. Why make it easier for the consequences to be fatal? Its one thing to fcuk up with a fist, or words, or whatever, but when you do it with a gun there is no saying "sorry".
You're right. It's people. That is why you shouldn't give them guns. That is why Jared shouldn't have been sold his.

Well, cars kill too. Motorcycles. Lawnmowers. Swimming pools. Hammers. Drills. Broken glass. With the logic you present, all of the items just listed should be banned, too. Sure, people with criminal or bad psychological backgrounds should not possess a firearm. Because they've broken the law or they are unstable. However, why ban guns in general? Do you know what would happen? This would happen:

Law-abiding citizens would not have guns. Criminals would. Criminals don't abide by the law and would obtain guns *illegally.* They're criminals, after all. Therefore, when ARMED CRIMINALS conduct robberies and home invasions, law-abiding citizens would be defenseless.

See, law-abiding citizens realize this. Therefore, they would acquire firearms for self-defense ANYWAY. So, by banning guns, you would EMPOWER CRIMINALS and force good people to BREAK THE LAW in order to protect themselves. This is why a gun ban is a bad idea and should never happen. -IMHO

Originally posted by GeneralAwesome
reply to post by wayno

 

A gun is no more dangerous than a car. They are only a threat when in the wrong hands.

Shall not be infringed is very clear, any and all gun restrictions are unconstitutional and need to be done away with immediately.

cars have speed limits, regulations on how they are maintained, who can drive them, and on, and on. ....
as it should be

the same goes for guns. -- there is a place and time, and at the local shopping centre is neither.

reply to post by GhostLancer

However, why ban guns in general? Do you know what would happen? This would happen:

Law-abiding citizens would not have guns. Criminals would. Criminals don't abide by the law and would obtain guns *illegally.* They're criminals, after all. Therefore, when ARMED CRIMINALS conduct robberies and home invasions, law-abiding citizens would be defenseless. ...

To answer this I will simply quote my own statement made earlier:

And, to put you straight about access, it is true that someone who disregards the law generally won't hesitate to try and get one illegaly. The difference is, with fewer guns floating around, like here in Canada, it is harder for them to get one. The end result is still fewer deaths.

In a town near me, 1 mile from Detroit, but in Canada, they did not have one single murder in 2010. You can hypothesise all you want, but I am living the reality.

Originally posted by wayno


cars have speed limits, regulations on how they are maintained, who can drive them, and on, and on. ....
as it should be

the same goes for guns. -- there is a place and time, and at the local shopping centre is neither.

Lol what?

Cars dont have speed limits, roads do. Cars can and do go faster than the speed limit, proving that all the laws in the world wont stop someone.

There is no law requiring maintenance at a certain interval, they are the manufacturers recommendations.

Since you say you are Canadian, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the U.S. Constitution if you want to talk about it. We have whats called the 2nd Amendment, which protects the rights of the citizens to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.

I assume the word infringe has the same meaning in Canada eh?

I don't know if this has been posted yet but here's his mugshot

Originally posted by wayno
A ban is not about guns themselves -- they are objects -- what a ban does is prevent people from owning them since they are inherently so dangerous. Talk about elementary school level thought.

There is countless ways for someone to decimate large groups of people. This is a technically complex society. With technical complexity comes infinite options for doing damage. The ways are only limited by your imagination. The reason most people can’t grasp how many ways are available is because they don’t have the mindset of someone that is out to hurt people.

If he could not buy a gun legally, then he would have gotten one illegally. Even people in France and Europe can buy guns from local drug dealers. And he had connections to local drug dealers.

If he couldn’t get one illegally, then you can make one with a piece of pipe chunk of wood, and a nail.

If he could not get his hands on a gun, he could have made an explosive and carried it in a backpack and boom.

If he could not buy any explosives (including fireworks) then there is simple instructions on the internet, or in books at the local book store on how to make gun powder.

If he could not get, or make an explosive then he could of just got a large van, and run them over.

If he couldn’t get a vehicle, he could of got gasoline and set everyone on fire.

If he could not get anything flammable, then he could get a long strip of iron and sharpen it into a blade and chop everyone to pieces.

If he couldn’t find anything to sharpen a piece of iron with, then he would take the blunt piece and bludgeon people with it.

If he couldn’t find a piece of iron, then he could take a conveniently shaped rock and bludgeon people with it.

If he can’t find a single solid object on the face of the earth to pick up and strike someone with, then he will learn martial arts, and break their necks with his fist of furry. (owww buddy...... god save me...... please)

Where does it end?
After a while, you will have everyone locked up in rubber rooms. The question then becomes, who is building those rubber rooms, and who is managing the people in those rubber rooms? How do you know that they won’t snap too?

Think of the news headlines………. All those poor innocent people in their rubber rooms. The manager for that block of rooms snapped and deliberately starved them to death. He starved to death the people he was responsible for taking care of. Think of the shock and horror of all the people in the world. The idea that you could be under the mercy of someone that wants to kill you. The public will demand action. They will demand that people be put in place to keep track of the people that take care of them. Now we will have to assign people, to keep track of the people, that keep track of the people.

It is a pointless exercise. Don’t waste your time. Where there is a will, there is a way. That is a fact of life.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
I don't know if this has been posted yet but here's his mugshot

That is really creepy.

They'll probably link him to a conspiracy website or call him a truther as if to say that was a reason why he was crazy,just like the pentagon shooting.