I have been trying to fact-check the rumor about the LIBOR scandal, and it does appear to be unsubstantiated. A list of subpoenaed individuals is unavailable, and neither FICO nor GE Energy are on the list of subpoenaed organizations, from what I can find.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
[quote]Severiano wrote:
Horrible thing that went down.
So, it was pistols that killed all the children, and the AR15 was in the trunk of the vehicle…
[/quote]
No.
The primary weapon used in the attack was a “Bushmaster AR-15 assault-type weapon,” said Connecticut State Police Lt. Paul Vance [/quote]
Well what do you know. Really.
Really…
I’ll take the word of the state police officer and the chief medical examiner. At a press conference the examiner said the victims suffered rifle shot wounds. The victims wounds varied from 3 shots up to 11 shots each. When a reporter asked about the rifle being in the car the state police officer interrupted and said that was not true.
I could post a news report that said it wasn’t Adam, but his brother Ryan, who was the shooter. We know that isn’t true. It was also reported that the shooter was a father of one of the kids. That he was buzzed in. Check your sources. I tend to take the word of the people who actually were in the building, who saw the bodies, who saw the shooter and what he carrying.
I was looking for the stories from yesterday, but I didn’t see any that reported that legal 75 million gun owners didn’t shoot anyone.
Did anyone see that story?
NEWTOWN, Conn. â?? The gunman who slaughtered 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school may have snapped because his mother was planning to commit him to a psychiatric facility, according to a lifelong resident of the area who was familiar with the killerâ??s family and several of the victimsâ?? families.
Adam Lanza, 20, targeted Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown after killing his mother early Friday because he believed she loved the school â??more than she loved him,â?? said Joshua Flashman, 25, who grew up not far from where the shooting took place. Flashman, a U.S. Marine, is the son of a pastor at an area church where many of the victims’ families worship.
â??From what I’ve been told, Adam was aware of her petitioning the court for conservatorship and (her) plans to have him committed," Flashman told FoxNews.com. "Adam was apparently very upset about this. He thought she just wanted to send him away. From what I understand, he was really, really angry. I think this could have been it, what set him off.â??
A senior law enforcement official involved in the investigation confirmed that Lanza’s anger at his mother over plans for â??his future mental health treatmentâ?? is being looked at as a possible motive for the deadly shooting.
[pullquote]
Flashman was told Nancy Lanza had begun filing paperwork to get conservatorship over her troubled son, but that could not be confirmed because a court official told FoxNews.com such records are sealed. The move would have been necessary for her to gain the legal right to commit an adult to a hospital or psychiatric facility against his will. A competency hearing had not yet been held.
Adam Lanza attended the Sandy Hook School as a boy, according to Flashman, who said Nancy Lanza had volunteered there for several years. Two law enforcement sources said they believed Nancy Lanza had been volunteering with kindergartners at the school. Most of Lanza’s victims were first graders sources believe Nancy Lanza may have worked with last year.
Flashman said Nancy Lanza was also good friends with the schoolâ??s principal and psychologistâ??both of whom were killed in the shooting rampage.
“Adam Lanza believed she cared more for the children than she did for him, and the reason he probably thought this [was the fact that] she was petitioning for conservatorship and wanted to have him committed,” Flashman said. “I could understand how he might perceive thatâ??that his mom loved him less than she loved the kids, loved the school. But she did love him. But he was a troubled kid and she probably just couldnâ??t take care of him by herself anymore.”
The Washington Post reported that the distraught mother had considered moving with her son to Washington state, where she had found a school she thought could help him. Either way, according to Flashman, Nancy Lanza was at her wit’s end.
A separate neighborhood source also told FoxNews.com that Nancy Lanza had come to the realization she could no longer handle her son alone. She was caring for him full-time, but told friends she needed help. She was planning to have him involuntarily hospitalized, according to the source, who did not know if she had taken formal steps.
SEND TIPS TO NEWSMANAGER@FOXNEWS.COM
Multiple sources told FoxNews.com Adam Lanza suffered from Aspergerâ??s syndrome, a form of autism, and unspecified mental and emotional problems.
Adam Lanza has also been described by those who knew him as highly intelligent, and a spokesman for Western Connecticut State University told The Associated Press he took college classes there when he was 16, earning a 3.26 grade point average and excelling at a computer course.
Alan Diaz, 20, who was friends with Adam Lanza at Newtown High School, said the Lanza he knew was ill-at-ease socially, but not a monster.
“He was a wicked smart kid,” Diaz told FoxNews.com by email. "When I first met him, he wouldn’t even look at you when you tried to talk to him. Over the year I knew him, he became used to me and my other friends, he eventually could have full conversations with us.
“I’ve heard him laugh, he has even comforted me once in a hard time I had,” Diaz said. â??A big part of me wishes I never dropped contact with him after he left high school, felt like I could have done something."
Flashman said nobody will completely understand why Adam did what he did.
â??No one can explain Adam Lanza besides God and Adam Lanza, and I donâ??t even think Adam Lanza could explain Adam Lanza, to be honest with you.â??
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I was looking for the stories from yesterday, but I didn’t see any that reported that legal 75 million gun owners didn’t shoot anyone.
Did anyone see that story?[/quote]
I think one argument is that a good number of legal gun owners, people who can legally purchase guns, have their guns “mysteriously” end up on the inner city streets, for example.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I was looking for the stories from yesterday, but I didn’t see any that reported that legal 75 million gun owners didn’t shoot anyone.
Did anyone see that story?[/quote]
Just owning them and not using them isn’t a good enough argument for me, so I’ll go you one better. Here is an interview with Gary Gleck, Ph.D. on his study of guns used defensively against criminals:
http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm
I am a firm believer that every household in the U.S. should own at least one gun that is designed for combat! Ideally, every law-abiding adult would own one. Our armed citizenry is what makes an invasion on U.S. soil an unthinkable suicide mission, and statistics have shown countless times that good people with guns prevent bad people with guns from killing, raping, robbing, and assaulting others.
Take one of our many inner-city gang shootouts where innocent bystanders get hit by stray bullets while taking cover in their own homes. Now take those innocent bystanders and turn them into sufficently-armed-and-tactically-proficient bystanders who’ve had just about enough. How long would it take for that neighborhood to become safe again?
[quote]zecarlo wrote:
I’ll take the word of the state police officer and the chief medical examiner. At a press conference the examiner said the victims suffered rifle shot wounds. The victims wounds varied from 3 shots up to 11 shots each. When a reporter asked about the rifle being in the car the state police officer interrupted and said that was not true.
I could post a news report that said it wasn’t Adam, but his brother Ryan, who was the shooter. We know that isn’t true. It was also reported that the shooter was a father of one of the kids. That he was buzzed in. Check your sources. I tend to take the word of the people who actually were in the building, who saw the bodies, who saw the shooter and what he carrying. [/quote]
The Chief Medical Examiner? Are you for realz? Have you actually listened to the entire press interview? I’m sorry to doubt his official-ness, but; he claims that all of the wounds were caused by the “long-gun”, but can’t tell you what caliber the wounds are?
You’re gonna have to do better than that if you want to present a credible information source.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
I am a firm believer that every household in the U.S. should own at least one gun that is designed for combat! Ideally, every law-abiding adult would own one. Our armed citizenry is what makes an invasion on U.S. soil an unthinkable suicide mission, and statistics have shown countless times that good people with guns prevent bad people with guns from killing, raping, robbing, and assaulting others.
Take one of our many inner-city gang shootouts where innocent bystanders get hit by stray bullets while taking cover in their own homes. Now take those innocent bystanders and turn them into sufficently-armed-and-tactically-proficient bystanders who’ve had just about enough. How long would it take for that neighborhood to become safe again?[/quote]
It is sickening how the Government works in this country. You would think the above would make sense.
And yet, paying for a sex exchange for a convicted murderer by insisting it is his “constitutional right” is truly a mental illness on the part of the system:
http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2012/12/19/kosilek/w9i6yDzEdbNl1dZLd2NMqI/story.html
And other articles quoted them using the 8th amendment to defend this criminal’s “right to adequate medical treatment.”
Clearly a case of the mentally ill looking out for the mentally ill.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
And I am sorry but if I wanted to write tangible policies to solve the world problems I would not be doing so for free on a bodybuilding forum.
[/quote]
lol, point taken.
Gun control. Beautiful, beautiful gun control:
http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-americans-to-be-disarmed/
“Since the state has all the guns, the idea of government thugs arbitrarily kicking people off their own property is a routine occurrence in China. The kind of massive land grabs and forced relocations that occur almost every day in China is not a situation that has yet been visited on America primarily because Americans have the second amendment with which to protect their private property rights.”
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Gun control. Beautiful, beautiful gun control:
http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-americans-to-be-disarmed/
“Since the state has all the guns, the idea of government thugs arbitrarily kicking people off their own property is a routine occurrence in China. The kind of massive land grabs and forced relocations that occur almost every day in China is not a situation that has yet been visited on America primarily because Americans have the second amendment with which to protect their private property rights.”
[/quote]
Well, that and the Takings Clause says the government here has to pay for property it just takes–which it does do sometimes. Google “Texas Land Grab” and “Trans-Texas Corridor” for an example of a recent big land-grab that was narrowly defeated in Texas, but that almost resulted in the taking of thousands of acres of prime private farms and ranches.
But I agree with the general sentiment that the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason and helps protect liberty.
This is the sickening, saddening reality that befalls an unarmed nation. Not even 17,000 armed peace-keeping troops can protect these people.
Using China and an African country are not legitimate arguments for the 2nd amendment. China has not figured out the rule of law and has no history of classical liberalism. African countries have been pillaged and destroyed through colonialism and neocolonialsim and mercantilism and neo-mercantilism. Both countries thought the state would ensure peace but neglect the fact that peaceful people ensure peace. These countries have a history of authoritarian regimes abusing the people.
Your argument would be better if you were to reference other western nations that have had democratically elected governments abuse their citizenry and threaten their lives. Comparative politics is hard to do and is easier when you compare countries which have socio-cultural, political, economic and ethnic similarities such as Canada to Australia.
Forget comparative politics. The raw fact is that these people are unarmed and therefore defenseless. Period.
Doesn’t matter where, why, how, or by whom. Unarmed people are potential victims, and no amount of protection provided by someone else will solve that problem.
Yes but that means you feel unsafe and vulnerable right now and everyday. If you feel that living in the US then I see merit in your argument. If you feel that the federal government or state government at anytime is going to come and attack you or that your neighbor might as well then I see your point.
But here is my only issue do we believe in Rousseau’s social contract? Do we believe in Hobbe’s and Locke’s argument that in order to leave a state of nature and chaos we must inevitably give up some rights to the state to ensure that we can have a community over anarchy?
Side note*** I see gun violence as an issue of violence in general in America. America has and always had a violent culture no matter who tries to sugarcoat history or gloss over the non-appealing parts. If you want violence to go down cultural changes have to occur.
[quote]jjackkrash wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Gun control. Beautiful, beautiful gun control:
http://www.infowars.com/communist-chinese-government-calls-for-americans-to-be-disarmed/
“Since the state has all the guns, the idea of government thugs arbitrarily kicking people off their own property is a routine occurrence in China. The kind of massive land grabs and forced relocations that occur almost every day in China is not a situation that has yet been visited on America primarily because Americans have the second amendment with which to protect their private property rights.”
[/quote]
Well, that and the Takings Clause says the government here has to pay for property it just takes–which it does do sometimes. Google “Texas Land Grab” and “Trans-Texas Corridor” for an example of a recent big land-grab that was narrowly defeated in Texas, but that almost resulted in the taking of thousands of acres of prime private farms and ranches.
But I agree with the general sentiment that the 2nd Amendment is there for a reason and helps protect liberty.
[/quote]
The 2nd Amendment does not just help protect liberty, it is the key to liberty.
Like it or not, all laws are enforced with a gun to the head. The will of the people is enforced with a million pointing right back. It’s not pleasant, but it is necessary.
[quote]nickj_777 wrote:
Yes but that means you feel unsafe and vulnerable right now and everyday. If you feel that living in the US then I see merit in your argument. If you feel that the federal government or state government at anytime is going to come and attack you or that your neighbor might as well then I see your point.
But here is my only issue do we believe in Rousseau’s social contract? Do we believe in Hobbe’s and Locke’s argument that in order to leave a state of nature and chaos we must inevitably give up some rights to the state to ensure that we can have a community over anarchy?
Side note*** I see gun violence as an issue of violence in general in America. America has and always had a violent culture no matter who tries to sugarcoat history or gloss over the non-appealing parts. If you want violence to go down cultural changes have to occur.[/quote]
I absolutely do not promote lawlessness. On the contrary, being as our laws are imposed in the best interests of our people, and our government is based on the will of our people, then we should be, and are, our own first line of defense against anyone who acts against us. Be that an individual act of spontaneous violence or a war-time mainland invasion.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This is the sickening, saddening reality that befalls an unarmed nation. Not even 17,000 armed peace-keeping troops can protect these people.
http://worldpress.org/Africa/3945.cfm[/quote]
The DRC isn’t an unarmed nation. All the armed citizens just so happen to belong to warring tribes and militias. However, I don’t think most people in that nation necessarily have the resources to purchase many weapons for self-defense.
[quote]b89 wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
This is the sickening, saddening reality that befalls an unarmed nation. Not even 17,000 armed peace-keeping troops can protect these people.
http://worldpress.org/Africa/3945.cfm[/quote]
The DRC isn’t an unarmed nation. All the armed citizens just so happen to belong to warring tribes and militias. However, I don’t think most people in that nation necessarily have the resources to purchase many weapons for self-defense.[/quote]
That is true. It would have been better stated as unarmed people rather than unarmed nation.
Not having the resources to provide for your own defense is a horrible situation.