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.

 

A list of already debunked theories, re: Sandy hook

page: 20
54
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 





BUT Think about this... You cannot tell me CNN (and others) are clueless to all the "conspiracy" theiories and showing all kinds of people with that sign...They know.
Why select that picture of random guy (her grandfather I believe) who didnt die?


How about you think about this:

If he's her Grandfather....then he's not some random guy is he?
He didn't die?.......her Grandfather didn't die?......what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Maybe they selected the picture because it showed her in a family situation?.....you know with her family, Grandfather included...because he's part of the family!...........you think that may be possible?




posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I cant see Ats keeping these threads going
Ive stayed out of the Sandy Hook theories it makes me sick to thank of all the bone matter on the walls while people in hear argue over what the lady next to the other guy looked like,etc,etc
I cant wait untill Daddy Obama can get out of the Ocean,
& tell us all how we can be safe,& what we have to eat,
and what we should do about our ever dwindling personal liberty and general well being.
Happy NewYear



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
reply to post by Sek82
 

Guns have constitutional protection. Ammunition does not. It's that simple

the subsequent Supreme Court case McDonald v. Chicago specifically addressed ammunition, “it logically follows that the right to keep and bear arms extends to the possession of handgun ammunition in the home; for if such possession could be banned (and not simply regulated), that would make it “impossible for citizens to use [their handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”*

Eta: I'm off topic, sorry. If the OP would like some theories to debunk, I have one. The investigation team of this case is inept in that they couldn't differentiate between an assault rifle and a pistol until the next day.
edit on 25-12-2012 by Sek82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


Well the NSSF is fighting in court over what you would call ammunition and they have broken it down to pieces. Shell casing lead bullet black powder and so on. So do you like their definition better than.


I was merely asking if you're properly qualified to make a legal assertion and declare it as fact.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32
..... With no regard for the victims.


There's that propaganda line again.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


No, they didn't change the topic to free speech, as you don't have a right to free speech on a privately owned site.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Druid42
 


You can keep linking to it all you want. doesn't make it any less of a ludicrous argument. You have no idea what those people decided to do writing their bulletin. Yet you throw it here as CONSPIRACY!!!! The people in the church must now be involved in it as well!!! There are over 100 reasons why that bulletin doesn't cover it enough for *YOU*. Like its any of your business what a church does in wake of a tragedy in regards to a church bulletin.

It is ridiculous. If a church bulletin not talking about it enough for you is evidence of a conspiracy, then all hope is lost.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
..... With no regard for the victims.


There's that propaganda line again.


Thers that deflection again when all arguments fail.. Point and shout propaganda



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


No, they didn't change the topic to free speech, as you don't have a right to free speech on a privately owned site.


I'll ask you this too. Are you legally qualified to make that assertion? Because I'm not so sure that claim would hold up in court if anyone really wanted to find out.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Argyll
reply to post by DarKPenguiN
 





BUT Think about this... You cannot tell me CNN (and others) are clueless to all the "conspiracy" theiories and showing all kinds of people with that sign...They know.
Why select that picture of random guy (her grandfather I believe) who didnt die?


How about you think about this:

If he's her Grandfather....then he's not some random guy is he?
He didn't die?.......her Grandfather didn't die?......what the hell does that have to do with anything?

Maybe they selected the picture because it showed her in a family situation?.....you know with her family, Grandfather included...because he's part of the family!...........you think that may be possible?




I do- But I think they selected that Picture purposefully and displayed it prominently KNOWING the theorists would run with it.

You could be totally right and that was the best picture they had to use.... But I dont think so. They used it to make it an "issue" with conspiracy theorists and discredit us (as a whole) buy making us look like we see "devils" in everything..

That is my opinion-

And I have considered your opinion and already said its totally possible- I mean its 50/50 right? But look at how that picture is flying over the web and being laughed at and making anyone doubting parts of the event look silly.

And no. I do not think there is a "Satanic Conspiracy" in Newtown- But I think the picture is making alot of other people think so and ...Its moving the issue to the realm of...IDK, not wanting to be overly rude...



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


No, they didn't change the topic to free speech, as you don't have a right to free speech on a privately owned site.



Free speech is more than just a right granted by constitution, law, or statute.

It is an idea.

And whether or not we have a LEGAL right to free speech on a privately owned site, many of us believe that we have a HUMAN RIGHT to freedom of belief and expression, and as such we will continue to ADVOCATE for the right or privilege to SPEAK OUR MINDS, where we want, when we want, and how we want.

-R



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


No, they didn't change the topic to free speech, as you don't have a right to free speech on a privately owned site.


I'll ask you this too. Are you legally qualified to make that assertion? Because I'm not so sure that claim would hold up in court if anyone really wanted to find out.


Is that all you can do? Repeat the same idiotic question over and over again? And to think you call other people trolls



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 

The NRA, NSSF and the rest of the gun lobby are the ones who pick apart a weapon or it's ammo and try to change the meaning behind it to suit their needs. That is how they try to fight any gun control. Muddy the waters and make them give up. Explo Systems Inc got in trouble for 6 million pounds of explosives illegally stored at their Ammunition bunker and storage facility at Camp Minden. So are you saying you should be allowed to have what they had because of your 2nd amendment?

edit on 25-12-2012 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
..... With no regard for the victims.


There's that propaganda line again.


Thers that deflection again when all arguments fail.. Point and shout propaganda


Maybe you ought to go back and respond to the other things I said before you accuse me of deflecting or avoiding any subjects or questions.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by EffTheCIA
 


No, they didn't change the topic to free speech, as you don't have a right to free speech on a privately owned site.


I'll ask you this too. Are you legally qualified to make that assertion? Because I'm not so sure that claim would hold up in court if anyone really wanted to find out.


Can you be banned from this site, and others? Then you don't have a right to free speech on here.

Can you provide any precedence that challenges the right of site owners to dictate what they wish to allow on their site?

Did you agree to the terms of service by creating your account on this site?

Nice try though.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by RedBird
 


But thats simply not true. You dont have a human right to yell fire in a closed space.. nor do you have the legal right...

Nor do you have the right to verbally harass someone in your office because of free speech. You'll get fired and/or sued.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by DarKPenguiN

Originally posted by bknapple32
And banning online munition sales impedes what right exactly?

Less in Shipping costs?

I have never bought ammo online but ammo is heavy and I paid nearly $100 to ship a computer. Even if you save a bit on the price I imagine the shipping would be insane...

In fact, I know nobody who purchases ammo online when there are perfectly good Gun Stores and Sporting Good Stores where you can purchase the same.


The problem is in us allowing them to push through new legislation in response to isolated incidents. This means at best we are allowing them to "wag the dog". And at worst, we're rewarding criminal behavior. New legislation requires balance and careful study, not snap judgments on "random" events.


So, what is your point? nothing has been done thus far, so you have to allow that someone, somewhere is working on it, otherwise you are being presumptious as to balance and study.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedBird
Free speech is more than just a right granted by constitution, law, or statute.

It is an idea.

And whether or not we have a LEGAL right to free speech on a privately owned site, many of us believe that we have a HUMAN RIGHT to freedom of belief and expression, and as such we will continue to ADVOCATE for the right or privilege to SPEAK OUR MINDS, where we want, when we want, and how we want.

-R


I'm glad some people on here aren't mindless drones. Myself, if I had the resources, I would challenge the supreme court on whether the internet is covered by the 1st amendment. I'm willing to bet it is.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by bknapple32
 
Bk, you're being silly. That is not expressionism or speaking freely, that is inciting Panic which is illegal.



posted on Dec, 25 2012 @ 07:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32

Originally posted by EffTheCIA

Originally posted by bknapple32
..... With no regard for the victims.


There's that propaganda line again.


Thers that deflection again when all arguments fail.. Point and shout propaganda


Maybe you ought to go back and respond to the other things I said before you accuse me of deflecting or avoiding any subjects or questions.


What other things? You last, god knows how many posts, all ask the same dumb question. Nothing to respond to



new topics

top topics



 
54
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join