Sandy Hook conspiracy theory

[Greg Burnham]

On a separate note I'm surprised a former LEO would take such a stand. Would you like to still be a CHIP today knowing there was a good possibility people you came into contact with would be armed with assault rifles or automatic pistols capable of firing numerous armour piercing or dumb-dumb rounds per second?

I don't know even one police officer or sheriff's deputy that prefers an unarmed victim of a crime when arriving on scene. I would much prefer an armed "good guy"--irrespective of the "type" of weapon--to a dead victim.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Ron Ecker]

I don't know even one police officer or sheriff's deputy that prefers an unarmed victim of a crime when arriving on scene. I would much prefer an armed "good guy"--irrespective of the "type" of weapon--to a dead victim.

Amen. The only gun I own is a pistol that I've never used. But I can understand people owning plenty more. If someone invades my home with the intent to steal and/or kill, instead of hoping I can hit him with a pistol shot I would much rather know that I can hit him with an AK-47. And send him to hell.

[Ron Ecker]

You'll probably end up shooting your significant other, a neighbor or yourself.

I don't have any significant others or neighbors who would bust into my front door armed. But if any of them did, and I had something sufficient to defend myself, they hopefully wouldn't be significant or neighbors for long.

[Greg Burnham]

You'll probably end up shooting your significant other, a neighbor or yourself.

Why? You have no evidence to support your claim.

In 2011 there were approximately 31,940 deaths from guns including suicides. However, there are approximately 270,000,000 guns in the United States.

So the "death by gun" rate is less than 0.015% of the total guns owned. Hardly significant statistically. Indeed, it does not match the current death by car

statistics, which are improving. Yet, no one has suggested a ban on cars.

[Ron Ecker]

Oh, my. You are such a tough guy.

Have you ever had an armed home invasion? If wanting to have something to resist with makes me a tough guy, then that's what I am. Unfortunately I don't. I have a pistol stashed away that wouldn't do me much good. But if someone blasted armed home invaders with, say, an AK-47 to protect his life and those of his family, I would applaud the tough guy. I don't know what you would do, though you appear to have a military background. It seems intrinsically unfair to have armed criminals and unarmed law-abiding citizens, which is what the government would like.

[Greg Burnham]

On a separate note I'm surprised a former LEO would take such a stand. Would you like to still be a CHIP today knowing there was a good possibility people you came into contact with would be armed with assault rifles or automatic pistols capable of firing numerous armour piercing or dumb-dumb rounds per second?

I don't know even one police officer or sheriff's deputy that prefers an unarmed victim of a crime when arriving on scene. I would much prefer an armed "good guy"--irrespective of the "type" of weapon--to a dead victim.

Because of my work I had to carry a gun most of my life. Ihate the xxxxing things. Guys like you make me sick.

Norman,

I neither like nor do I dislike guns. They are what they are. Some people misuse them, but the vast majority do not.

I am neutral toward them. You are entitled to your view. You and I may disagree on this topic. Either way, you do

not make me sick.

For clarity:

I am not advocating an increase in gun ownership nor am I singing the praises of assault weapons. That is not the

point. The only point I am attempting to make is that the Constitution is quite clear as to the "Right of the People"

to defend themselves against a tyrannical government. This is not a simple challenge. On the one hand, we all want

our streets, churches, shopping malls, schools, etc. to be safe. On the other hand, we also need not surrender our

Constitutionally guaranteed right of deterrence against an oppressive government.

For me that is the issue. It is not "rah-rah-rah everyone gets a gun" in my book. It is balancing public safety with

Constitutional concerns in a responsible way.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Greg Burnham

[Ron Ecker]

I've been told that the word "Aurora" does not appear in the Batman movie. It's in the James Bond movie Skyfall.

Bad info apparently. According to this video "Aurora" does appear in the Batman movie, as does "Sandy Hook."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p41_5KLhApg

[Len Colby]

I've been told that the word "Aurora" does not appear in the Batman movie. It's in the James Bond movie Skyfall.

Bad info apparently. According to this video "Aurora" does appear in the Batman movie, as does "Sandy Hook."

Actually you were right the first eer 2^nd time. It's from Skyfall see 40 – 41 sec. of the trailer below; either that or it's the Jooooz! Did you get to the part were he babbled about “Jeshua control of Hollywood” (2:07)?

Why? You have no evidence to support your claim.

In 2011 there were approximately 31,940 deaths from guns including suicides. However, there are approximately 270,000,000 guns in the United States.

So the "death by gun" rate is less than 0.015% of the total guns owned. Hardly significant statistically. Indeed, it does not match the current death by car

statistics, which are improving. Yet, no one has suggested a ban on cars.

Actually the numbers are very comparable According to the DoT in 2010 the were 250,272,812 motor vesicles in the US a slight drop from 2009 and “In 2010, 32,885 people died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in the United States.” I don't know of anyone seriously advocating completely banning guns. I'm always amussed when anti-gun control advocates bring up the automobile analogy because they they oppose controls of guns and gun owners comparable to those put on vehicles and drivers

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2010/vm1.cfm

www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811552.pdf

On a separate note I'm surprised a former LEO would take such a stand. Would you like to still be a CHIP today knowing there was a good possibility people you came into contact with would be armed with assault rifles or automatic pistols capable of firing numerous armour piercing or dumb-dumb rounds per second?

I don't know even one police officer or sheriff's deputy that prefers an unarmed victim of a crime when arriving on scene. I would much prefer an armed "good guy"--irrespective of the "type" of weapon--to a dead victim.

(Greg you edited out parts of this post but I already wrote a reply to them anyway you mentioned an incident when you were going from one assignment to another and someone shot out your windshield but you were not injured. You assumed the gunman did not have an automatic weapon because he(?) shot only once you also recounted that you partner was killed in a later incident with a .38 revolver.)

So if the guy who shot at you had an automatic weapon you would probably and your partner might well have been killed. How does that exactly prove your point? Hope I didn't bring up a sensitive issue regarding your partner but I imagine there were numerous occasions were you or your colleagues came under fire in which casualties would have been higher if the bad guys had more sophisticated weaponry and I also imagine some of your colleagues were killed or injured but would have survived if there had been reasonable gun control in the US.

[Len Colby]

This is the third straight nationally reported tragedy- the Arizona shooting with Gabby Giffords, the Batman shooting in Aurora, and now Sandy Hook, where we have seen no video or photos of the crime scenes. This is unprecedented- in the past, journalists found each other to get the most dramatic photos possible of the crime scenes.

Huhh? Please elaborate?

The mainstream media is growing more confrontational with alternative voices on the internet now. Last night, Anderson Cooper basically urged the college to fire the professor who has publicly questioned the official story of what happened at Sandy Hook. He didn't have him on the show, he dropped any guise of impariality completely, and just ranted and raved against this fellow and all other "conspiracy theorists."

Don this was completely incorrect Cooper did “rant” or “rave” or call for the guy to be fired and the prof. refused to be interviewed even when a CNN reporter came to his door. He then issued a lame back peddling non-apology, apology. Why should Cooper have maintained “any guise of impariality”, some theories like Holocaust denial, belief in a flat earth and this one are worthy of nothing but scorn. Our world views are very different but you've always struck me as reasonable person and I was surprised to see to embrace this nonsense.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/11/kth-exposing-newtown-conspiracy-theory/?hpt=ac_mid

There is so much more, but if you just look at the inconsistentices and questions surrounding this incident, you can't honestly dismiss it as "wacko" or the ravings of "conspiracy theorists."

I can, most if not all these supposed "inconsistentices" (sic) fail under closer examination

At the very least, the media and politicians are using the incident to further an agenda of gun confiscation and more state control over the lives of all citizens.

Uuuh, point us to anyone seriously advocating gun confiscation and it is the anti-gun control crowd that is pushing for things like armed guards in schools, public lists of people with mental and psychological problems and restrictions on videogames and movies.

[Ron Ecker]

There is so much more, but if you just look at the inconsistentices and questions surrounding this incident, you can't honestly dismiss it as "wacko" or the ravings of "conspiracy theorists."

A question you didn't ask is the mystery surrounding the two wounded school employees who survived. I call it a mystery because no amount of Googling on my part has found the answer.

One was Natalie Hammond, variously called "assistant principal" and "lead teacher," who according to one news story ran out of the meeting with the principal and another woman, met Lanza "face-to-face," was shot and then hid behind a door. According to another account, she didn't leave the room and Lanza shot her through the door. Hammond could clear this up, but she was reported to be in seclusion for her own privacy and I can find nothing anywhere that indicates she has ever said a word to anyone about what happened.

But what's maddening is the second survivor, a school employer who according to an early news account has not been identified. I went to the Sandy Hook article at Wikipedia, which presumably people keep updated. The latest footnote I see there is dated January 7. And guess what, Wiki says the second survivor has not been identified.

Anyone want to hazard a guess as to what is going on? Has anyone heard anyone anywhere in the media express the slightest curiosity about who the second survivor is, or does anyone have any idea why we shouldn't be told? Or maybe someone here can tell us.

[Don Jeffries]

Ron,

You raise a good point- I just mentioned some of the most obvious flaws in the official narrative. What about the school nurse, who said in one interview that she looked Lanza in the eye, and in another was hiding under a desk and only saw his legs? This is the same woman who early on called Adam's mother a "nice person" and a "great kindergarten teacher." So how then, are we to accept the explanation that Adam's mother was not, in fact, connected to the school?

Now Gene Rosen-and again I urge everyone to just watch a sampling of his interviews online-is claiming that he's been "harrassed" by all those terrible "conspiracy theorists." What's amazing is that Rosen hasn't been "harrassed" by Social Services or some other agency, who normally would find it extremely suspicious when an old man invites six children who are all unknown to him inside his home, giving them juice and playing with stuffed animals together.

Where is the unidentified school bus driver who inexpicably (and with great negligence) left those kids with a total stranger? Why didn't the bus driver, or Rosen himself, simply march the kids over to the firehouse, which is right next to his home? People online are asking all these questions because real "journalists" aren't. That was the problem with the JFK assassination, 9/11, and every other big event of the past 50 years- the mainstream media simply doesn't cover these stories the way they are supposed to.

Len and other believers in official orthodoxy would have us offer explanations; i.e., why would anyone lie about this shooting? We can't know that, and are accused of recklessness when we speculate. All we can do is be educated observers. As such, what we've been told about what happened at Sandy Hook makes little sense.

[Ron Ecker]

Actually you were right the first eer 2^nd time. It's from Skyfall see 40 – 41 sec. of the trailer below; either that or it's the Jooooz!

Thanks, you're apparently right. And apparently the person who put together the video I posted is a very honorable man.

I guess I should go to more movies, and not just let people tell me about them.

[Mark Wengler]

I am for the 2ND amendment but why could a civilian need a military style weapon?

FOR PROTECTION AGAINST TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT.

You know, like in case there's a revolution? It happened once before in this country, as I recall.

So you are comparing King George 3rd to the U.S government?

[Ron Ecker]

So you are comparing King George 3rd to the U.S government?

I am comparing the U.S. government to itself. The road to what may become tyrannical government started with the coup of 1963. Maybe it started before, but after 1963 the government knows that it really has no limits.

[Mark Wengler]

Ron our government is not the best in the world. But it would never descend to that level. There are to many check and balances in place. No one faction of the government can take over the country.

That sounds like you are talking about the NWO or the Illuminati or even the Freemasons Only the whacked out nuts like Alex Jones Pushes stuff like that