IMO the most important thing about Sandy Hook shooting...
3 2013-01-05 by [deleted]
...is that there are so many people who don't believe the official story, and are doing something to expose the truth. Whether it be the discussion of inconsistencies through media, or the making of youtube videos about a lack of tears. I've shared a few videos about the numerous inconsistencies, including the media's misreports, which of course, people are accepting as genuine reporting mistakes.
The worst ones being that Nancy or Adam Lanza had any association with the school, which they did not. This of course ties into the motive that he killed the children at Sandy Hook because he was jealous of them, because he felt his mother loved them more than him, and he feared that his mother was going to have him committed to a mental facility. Let me remind you, neither Adam, nor Nancy Lanza has any association with the school, even though there was a misreport that Adam had an "altercation" with four members of the staff on December 13th, which hasn't been mentioned since people started checking the facts.
Ignoring the half-baked motive that a person could act so violently, due to the fear that he was considered a danger to himself and others, there's still the question of why he would kill his own mother first, if he she was the reason for him killing anyone in the first place. Even if all reports were true, wouldn't he want her to live to see what she drove him to? I believe Nancy Lanza could have provided the crucial information as to why Adam would or would not kill those children, but what do you know, she's dead now...
Whether or not you believe that the Aurora theater shooting and the Sikh temple shooting are related incidents, in that they were operations where witnesses reported multiple gunmen/accomplices and the media claimed them to be "lone wolf/gunman" events, there is one undeniable connection. The increased demand for gun control, and the US economy teetering on the edge of the cliff. I'm not really expecting a civil war, but the more amendments that are broken through supposedly "legal" means, the less of a brow people will raise towards national disobedience.
29 comments
4 dudewheresmyreality 2013-01-05
You got it. It's amazing what kind of videos pop up on youtube when you search for "Sandy Hook". Where in the past it may have all been legitimate news stories, the consensus now seems to be one of disbelief of the official story.
It says a lot about the public perception we have of our leaders. And it probably isn't a good sign that we keep calling bullshit on their half-assed cover-ups and diversions to unrelated issues such as gun control.
The trend seems to be one of lack of trust in government by the public and occurring simultaneously is the increase in government monitoring, restrictions, and control over its people.
I believe we are undoubtedly reaching a tipping point.
2 no1113 2013-01-05
Shit - quite the contrary...it's a fucking GREAT sign. What's happening is that the public is starting to finally see through the bullshit we've been fed all our lives. It's not a good thing for TPTB...but...whatever. Fuck them.
2 dudewheresmyreality 2013-01-05
I knew someone would say something about that comment. I just couldn't think of how to word it correctly. Of course it's great that we are noticing the bullshit. I think what what I meant to say was it's not a good sign that this is even necessary. It's not a good sign that we created a society where people need to fight to get the truth. It's not a good sign that we let things get out of hand to the point where it has come to this.
2 no1113 2013-01-05
This is all after the fact, of course, but maybe this:
:)
Agreed.
Absolutely agreed.
Absolutely dang tootnin' agreed!
Channeled Ned Flanders for a second there. Sorry.
2 dudewheresmyreality 2013-01-05
lol.. the internet is an odd place. Never had someone dissect my words so swiftly.
1 no1113 2013-01-05
:)
Some have said that I am a swift and thorough dissector of words.
1 creepynoises 2013-01-05
http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
1 maxzutter 2013-01-05
That page disproves stories about Victoria Soto, the Phelps family, a Morgan Freeman quote, facebook spam about a note from a kid in the school, and other incidents that aren't related to whether or not Adam Lanza was actually a lone gunman.
0 sushisection 2013-01-05
I think lanza did it and of the story in the media is true. However, I think the government jumped at the opportunity to make legislation out of the event.
My biggest question though is why? The only logical motive I can think of is that lanza had violent thoughts and the psychotropic drugs gave him the energy to act. Lanza supposedly had aspergers and depression. His mother had took him out of public school during high school, my guess is that he was bullied. This victimization probably messed his mind up, and thus went to therapy and prescribed drugs.
All of my inforation comes off of the Wikipedia page. Yall can look at their sources. I believe they are mainly from NBC, CNN, and ABC
1 maxzutter 2013-01-05
The official story is that he was on medication as a child, but wasn't at the time of the shooting. So either the motive doesn't stand up, or the media is lying and saying he wasn't on any medication.
3 TheTruthWasOutThere 2013-01-05
Don't you get it? They are saying he committed the shooting because he was off his childhood meds. It's the beginning of a move to require adults to continue taking their childhood prescriptions.
When you are a kid, your parents can legally force pills down your throat. When you are an adult, you can stop that.
Adam Lanza stopped taking his meds at some point. We are being led to believe that this explains his behavior.
2 maxzutter 2013-01-05
I'm really glad I was never tested for ADHD. One of my friends who was tested said that the test was rigged, and any normal kid could go in there and be diagnosed with ADHD. I swear I feel different on the days that I don't drink fluoridated water.
-1 SoundSalad 2013-01-05
ಠ_ಠ
-2 Cthululz 2013-01-05
This is just silly. No one can know what's in the mind of someone who snaps and kills people. Of course there will be inconsistencies in the media. The media are whores for attention and will say just about anything to get viewers/readers.
If you're insinuating that somebody somewhere is somehow causing people to go out and slaughter innocent people in an agenda to push for gun control I think you might need to check your marbles. There would be infinitely easier ways to strip 2nd amendment rights as has been shown with just about all the others in the bill of rights.
2 Jerrdon 2013-01-05
There may be easier ways, but there is no faster way.
2 maxzutter 2013-01-05
Name one, please.
1 Cthululz 2013-01-05
Declaring martial law would pretty well do it in one fell swoop.
2 maxzutter 2013-01-05
They're saving that for when the riots start.
-3 typicallyliberal 2013-01-05
what amendments are being broken? this is just laughably stupid. Your whole perspective is completely fucked and moronic. The only reason you care is because it involves guns and because you believe they will use it to take your guns away. But really - they haven't yet. They aren't going to. It's pretty damn clear that the most that can be done is create more stringent requirements for purchase, raise taxes (ammo isn't even taxed), and close existing loopholes in the law.
Your perspective on why you should keep guns is laughably moronic - you think it's going to keep the government from coming and 'taking' your guns? Or sending you to a FEMA camp? The only thing you are signing up for is suicide by the police - so excuse me for not jumping on your silly ass bandwagon.
0 maxzutter 2013-01-05
I don't own any guns, and if you don't know about the amendments that are being trampled on, you should really start doing some research.
Oh and you have 1 link karma, it's like you're trying discredit yourself.
0 typicallyliberal 2013-01-05
Only in this subreddit would someone say something so stupid. But this is a discussion.
I'm pretty well informed actually. Which is why I think you aren't really making a point. Whatever police state you think may or may not happen has little to do with whatever legislation is included in the NDAA. So I'd love for you to explain what you are talking about.
2 maxzutter 2013-01-05
The first amendment, the right to assemble and petition the government was negated when occupy wall street and other peaceful rallies were broken up by police and swat.
The second amendment, the right to bear arms, has been ignored after natural disasters, in the name of public safety.
The fourth amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures, is worthless when people are being pulled over and searched for no reason other than to fill monthly quotas.
The fifth amendment, protects the right to due process, unless they consider you a terrorist, in which case you can be detained indefinitely without trial.
The tenth amendment, limits the power of the federal government... no comment.
If you really think that you're "well informed" but still choose to ignore what's happening around you, then why bother posting to r/conspiracy?
0 typicallyliberal 2013-01-05
And what does this have to do with gun control? This is no different than what was done at the NYC GOP convention years prior. The issue here are things like 'free speech zones'. Completely irrelevant to gun control.
This is at best a rumor related to hurricane katrina and has not been demonstrated to be anything regarding an actual policy of the government during hurricanes. See: every hurricane prior to and post katrina.
What's new here? You referring to the joke legislation put forth by states like Arizona? Unfortunately - I think most of the gun rights advocates find themselves on the wrong side of this legislation so I don't see how you think it applies.
Right. Which has what to do with gun control? What is having a gun going to do to stop this? Suicide by police? Not for me.
Indeed - I'll take this as your tacit admission that you don't know what you are talking about in regards to this issue. I always appreciate this argument which seems to completely disregard the 14th amendment.
Because I'm informed of everything you mention and don't see how it's one greater plot that with gun control, will seal our fate. If anything the gun control issue is a hilarious sidetrack to distract the gun-toting folks from the fact that they are already living in a police state. Your point that guns are the only thing preventing such a state is nothing but an exclamation of your actual ignorance.
1 maxzutter 2013-01-05
I never claimed this. I agree that we already live in a police state. Just because I think the second amendment is important doesn't prove that I'm ignorant.
1 typicallyliberal 2013-01-05
I think failing to articulate a reason why the 2nd amendment is any bit relevant is why you are ignorant.
1 maxzutter 2013-01-05
It's relevant because when people turn on each other for food and water, the ones with guns will be the ones to survive.
1 typicallyliberal 2013-01-05
oh good point. we will need them for the zombie apocalypse
1 maxzutter 2013-01-05
Google "economic collapse 2013"
1 typicallyliberal 2013-01-05
Yes, I get that you think the 2nd amendment is important for economic collapse scenarios.
1 maxzutter 2013-01-05
The official story is that he was on medication as a child, but wasn't at the time of the shooting. So either the motive doesn't stand up, or the media is lying and saying he wasn't on any medication.
2 maxzutter 2013-01-05
I'm really glad I was never tested for ADHD. One of my friends who was tested said that the test was rigged, and any normal kid could go in there and be diagnosed with ADHD. I swear I feel different on the days that I don't drink fluoridated water.
1 Cthululz 2013-01-05
Declaring martial law would pretty well do it in one fell swoop.
1 typicallyliberal 2013-01-05
Yes, I get that you think the 2nd amendment is important for economic collapse scenarios.