"Whats the harm?": Conspiracy theorist shoots up police officers. [Archive]

LightinDarkness

6th April 2009, 01:10 AM

I have often heard many people express that there is no harm in letting conspiracy theorists believe in their fantasies because they don't do anything about it.

Clearly, this is not always the case - observe what drove the Pittsburgh cop killer to the edge:

"He was really into politics and really into the First and Second amendment. One thing he feared was he feared the gun ban because he thought that was going to take away peoples' right to defend themselves. He never spoke of going out to murder or to kill," said Edward Perkovic, who described himself as Mr. Poplawski's lifelong best friend.

Mr. Poplawski's view of guns and personal freedom took a turn toward the fringes of American politics. With Mr. Perkovic, he appeared to share a belief that the government was controlled from unseen forces, that troops were being shipped home from the Mideast to police the citizenry here, and that Jews secretly ran the country.

"We recently discovered that 30 states had declared sovereignty," said Mr. Perkovic, who lives in Lawrenceville. "One of his concerns was why were these major events in America not being reported to the public."

Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, a self-described documentarian with roots going back to the extremist militia movement of the early 1990s.

Source: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09095/960750-53.stm

Note that this isn't just some random conspiracy theorist who went down the rabbit hole and then murdered people based on completely different personal/emotional reasons. There is evidence that there is a direct link between this man "going down the rabbit hole" and his murders. It isn't just the media trying to find a story here - his own friends are drawing the link. Indeed, his particular flavor of woo was the "lets start a revolution against the NWO" type that Alex Jones often screams about on his radio show.

I was looking at other news articles and the guy was also apparently stocking up on food and ammo so he could go into hiding whenever the FEMA concentration camps came online.

Whats the harm? Quite a bit of harm, apparently. This is exactly the reason why this sort of woo needs to be shut down. There are people out there not only dumb enough to believe it, but act on it as if it were real.

UNLoVedRebel

6th April 2009, 01:15 AM

Art Bell had the good sense to stay away from CTs after the Murrah Bombing. This asshat, Alex Jones, saw dollar signs.

JoeyDonuts

6th April 2009, 01:20 AM

LightinDarkness

6th April 2009, 01:41 AM

To be absolutely fair, you can't really assign blame for the violent act to belief in CTs any more than you can blame Columbine on playing DOOM excessively. Sure, it was an influencing factor, but there were most likely myriad others. Do we know if he had violent history? What about mental illness? Recent high-stress situations in his personal or professional life? History of drug abuse?

I'm not defending the beliefs, I think they're a crock and most of you who know me here know I'm not defending them.

But if you shut people like Alex Jones down, you're sending a message far more terrifying than any of the B.S. that people like him spew. If you shut them down, you make them right.

I'm not saying use force or government to shut them down, I'm saying use logic and the truth to blow their inane theories out of the water to shut them down.

And unlike Columbine, there is a clear link here. Again, this isn't some random CTer who loved Alex Jones and then killed a cop for some personal completely unrelated reason. This is someone who truly believed and bought into this crap and it would be incorrect to say this was not a major influence. These cops weren't killed because he was trying to escape some sort of crime. These cops werent killed because he knew them or was trying to extract revenge. He set up an ambush for them. Why do that for people you don't know? Because you think your fighting some (imaginary) war against the NWO. Even his own friends claim hes love for CTs had something to do with it.

JoeyDonuts

6th April 2009, 02:01 AM

I'm not saying use force or government to shut them down, I'm saying use logic and the truth to blow their inane theories out of the water to shut them down.

And unlike Columbine, there is a clear link here. Again, this isn't some random CTer who loved Alex Jones and then killed a cop for some personal completely unrelated reason. This is someone who truly believed and bought into this crap and it would be incorrect to say this was not a major influence. These cops weren't killed because he was trying to escape some sort of crime. These cops werent killed because he knew them or was trying to extract revenge. He set up an ambush for them. Why do that for people you don't know? Because you think your fighting some (imaginary) war against the NWO. Even his own friends claim hes love for CTs had something to do with it.

Right. I get that, I really do. But I'm looking at this from the standpoint of trying to hold Alex Jones legally accountable for this, and you'd have to prove that Alex Jones somewhere somehow explicitly called for his followers to use armed violence against law enforcement.

There might be another way to peg him with it...but I'm not that familiar with legal procedures at all. Perhaps our resident Goddess of LegaltainmentTM could be invoked to weigh in on this?

Ohhhh LashL?

LightinDarkness

6th April 2009, 02:53 AM

Your right in that Alex Jones probably can't be held accountable - although I wonder if any of the JREF legal experts could weight in on whether this might fall under the inciting violence category. My understanding is that inciting violence is one of the few exceptions to the 1st amendment, and while we know Alex Jones encourages violence (why not, the enemy is imaginary) he probably knows better than to specifically encourage the murder of police officers. Given the high legal standards usually used in 1st amendment cases, its probably not enough to get him for anything.

JoeyDonuts

6th April 2009, 04:57 AM

(why not, the enemy is imaginary)

Well, in the minds of the people who buy into his garbage, the enemy manifests in the form of uniformed law enforcement and military personnel. I have the gut feeling the bastard's on shaky ground.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him doing some really quick damage control shortly.

Malkuth

6th April 2009, 06:11 AM

What's the bet it turns out this guy was on some kind of anti-depressant drug, or recently came off one, like EVERY OTHER PSYCHO GONE ON A SHOOTING SPREE IN THE LAST 20 ODD YEARS.

A whole lot less to do with the subject matter he was into than his messed up chemical processes, I'd wager.

Grimes

6th April 2009, 06:36 AM

What's the bet it turns out this guy was on some kind of anti-depressant drug, or recently came off one, like EVERY OTHER PSYCHO GONE ON A SHOOTING SPREE IN THE LAST 20 ODD YEARS.

I'm sure I'll regret this, but.... evidence?

MarkyX

6th April 2009, 06:58 AM

To be absolutely fair, you can't really assign blame for the violent act to belief in CTs any more than you can blame Columbine on playing DOOM excessively.

Horrible comparison.

Doom doesn't tell you to go kill kids at school. Hell, unless you modified the game, you never killed a single human being: All you kill is demons from HELL. If anything, this game teaches moral values about protecting the human race!

Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists try their best to dehumanize anyone who works for the government, including cops, so that is okay to inflict harm onto them. Although I doubt this would happen, I would love to see Alex Jones receive some blame for this. He is telling people that murder is OK and that there should be an armed revolution.

Malkuth

6th April 2009, 07:02 AM

At the moment there's exactly as much evidence that anti-depressant drugs were the cause as there is that alex jones was the cause. Precisely zero. I'm just wondering what might be in the news tomorrow, or a few days from now.

Rememebr the kid in germany a couple weeks ago? A friend of mine told me about that on skype, I hadn't heard of it. Before I'd even cthuugle searched to find out anything about that story, I said to my friend "You watch, within a week it will come out that he was either on the anti-depressants or had just come off them, and the german pollies will scream for tighter gun control."

Less than 2 days later both happened. I'm not claiming to be a psychic, just that both these phenomena have become rather mainstream in recent years. Fairly common knowledge where I come from.

LightinDarkness

6th April 2009, 08:15 AM

At the moment there's exactly as much evidence that anti-depressant drugs were the cause as there is that alex jones was the cause. Precisely zero. I'm just wondering what might be in the news tomorrow, or a few days from now.

Blatent denial. I even bolded the obvious in the direct quote and linked directly to it. Theres a ton of evidence, but of course you don't want to see it.

Ohnoes

6th April 2009, 08:20 AM

As I assumed Jones has turned this to his advantage

http://www.infowars.com/lib-blogs-kick-into-frothing-overdrive-in-reaction-to-pittsburgh-shootings/

http://www.infowars.com/media-attempts-to-link-alex-jones-to-pittsburgh-shooter/

This caught my attention...

Obama is indeed a gun-grabber and Americans in support of the Second Amendment have a right to fear his agenda.

Note the key words...Gun-Grabber and Fear. I think you see where I'm going with that. Even though Obama has said on numerous occasions that their are far more important things to worry about other than gun control at the moment. However, that is never mentioned as you can see. They would prefer to make you think they are coming for your guns tomorrow.

Then this...

It should be expected that the government will exploit the recent shootings in order further their propaganda and realize their master plan of an unarmed and helpless populace. It really is sad the liberals are helping them in this effort by offering themselves up as useful idiots.

Instead of taking two seconds and at least acknowledging that it was a sad event (which he may have done on his radio show, but seeing as how I don't listen someone who does can correct me.) They spend two articles using this and spinning it into how they are the victims while three men are dead and three families mourn. He accuses the media of preforming the same spin he turns right around and does himself...Yet he is the VICTIM?

Here is an example of some of the comments made on Infowars...

Sounds like Richard Poplawski fired the first shot heard around the world of the second revolution!

Honour him.

Shot 3 cops? Good for him

So to the Jones fans here...Does that sit well with you? Do these thoughts mirror your own? Jones may not be directly connected, but by allowing these comments on HIS site...Doesn't that make him an accessory?

Also, I decided to try and listen to a few minutes of Jones speaking on the subject, however he spent more time trying to sale me a dvd then addressing the issue at hand.

mark4mark

6th April 2009, 09:36 AM

Egil

6th April 2009, 09:44 AM

The guy was dishonorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps. That tells you something. It also means he could not pass his background check to get his weapons.

defaultdotxbe

6th April 2009, 11:29 AM

The guy was dishonorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps. That tells you something. It also means he could not pass his background check to get his weapons.
does it count as a discharge when you get kicked out of boot camp?

also, according to wikinews he was expelled from high school as well
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/At_least_3_police_officers_killed_in_Pittsburgh_sh ootings?curid=124327

i wonder how long hes been on the conspiracy tip, in cases like this i think tis more likely the CTs simply provided a convenient outlet for preexisting violent tendencies, rather than being the cause of them

dudalb

6th April 2009, 11:33 AM

The guy was dishonorably discharged from the United States Marine Corps. That tells you something. It also means he could not pass his background check to get his weapons.

What were the grounds for his getting the Big Chicken Dinner(BCD) as we used to call a Dishonorable Discharge? (It comes from the old term for A dishonorable discharge a Bad Conduct Discharge;after the term was changes the name remained in popular use among us Grunts).

dudalb

6th April 2009, 11:35 AM

does it count as a discharge when you get kicked out of boot camp?

also, according to wikinews he was expelled from high school as well
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/At_least_3_police_officers_killed_in_Pittsburgh_sh ootings?curid=124327

i wonder how long hes been on the conspiracy tip, in cases like this i think tis more likely the CTs simply provided a convenient outlet for preexisting violent tendencies, rather than being the cause of them

IN most cases, if they drop you during boot camp you get a ELS..Entry Level Seperation, which techinically is not a discharge.

defaultdotxbe

6th April 2009, 11:35 AM

What were the grounds for his getting the Big Chicken Dinner(BCD) as we used to call a Dishonorable Discharge? (It comes from the old term for A dishonorable discharge a Bad Conduct Discharge;after the term was changes the name remained in popular use among us Grunts).
Poplawski's mother said her son enlisted with the U.S. Marine Corps a few years ago but was discharged for assaulting a drill sergeant in basic training.
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html

dudalb

6th April 2009, 11:42 AM

Wow.Just wow.
It's amazing he got as far as boot camp. You have to be crazy to assault an DI,since the DI's first business is to convince boots that they (The DIs) can eat a recruit for breakfast. And the DI's are very,very good at it.
ANd my experience was in the US Army Basic Training. Marine Basic Training is a lot,lot, tougher.

Malkuth

6th April 2009, 11:50 AM

There is evidence that there is a direct link between this man "going down the rabbit hole" and his murders.

Now who is reaching far too far? hmm?

drkitten

6th April 2009, 01:00 PM

What were the grounds for his getting the Big Chicken Dinner(BCD) as we used to call a Dishonorable Discharge? (It comes from the old term for A dishonorable discharge a Bad Conduct Discharge;after the term was changes the name remained in popular use among us Grunts).

Um,... I think you're misremembering. A BCD is different than a DD, and a DD is considerably worse.

For example, a special or a general court-martial can issue a BCD, only a general court-martial can issue a DD (and typically only for acts that would be felonies in civilian life).

dudalb

6th April 2009, 01:49 PM

Um,... I think you're misremembering. A BCD is different than a DD, and a DD is considerably worse.

For example, a special or a general court-martial can issue a BCD, only a general court-martial can issue a DD (and typically only for acts that would be felonies in civilian life).

You are probably correct. But we in the ranks pretty much referred to any undesirable discharge as the BCD. Most of us slept through the Military Law lectures in basic, anyway, if the DI was not looking. The rules you really needed to know you learned through your skin.....

Thunder

6th April 2009, 02:02 PM

Quote:

One thing he feared was he feared the gun ban because he thought that was going to take away peoples' right to defend themselves.

he appeared to share a belief that the government was controlled from unseen forces, that troops were being shipped home from the Mideast to police the citizenry here, and that Jews secretly ran the country.

"We recently discovered that 30 states had declared sovereignty," said Mr. Perkovic, who lives in Lawrenceville. "One of his concerns was why were these major events in America not being reported to the public."

Believing most media were covering up important events, Mr. Poplawski turned to a far-right conspiracy Web site run by Alex Jones, "

ok, so now we have it. A Conspiracy Theorist who was a fan of Alex Jones murdered 3 innocent police officers.

they didn't come to get his guns, but he ambushed them, determined to kill.

No violent truthers huh? No violent conspiracy theorists?

This is the first shot in what I believe may be many more.

The more Prisonplanet and the other sites ratchet up the propaganda and rhetoric, the more vulnerable people who will go over the edge and start their own personal "revolution".

Thunder

6th April 2009, 02:03 PM

At the moment there's exactly as much evidence that anti-depressant drugs were the cause as there is that alex jones was the cause. .

Alex Jones was not the cause. But he WAS an influence. There can be no doubt about that.

I think we can now expect the FBI to be monitoring these sites a great deal more.

I believe in freedom of speech, but not freedom to incite.

NoZed Avenger

6th April 2009, 02:51 PM

I believe in freedom of speech, but -

I am not making a direct answer to this partially-quoted post, because I have not read through everything closely enough.

I will say, however, that the above start of a sentence is one of the ones that I fear the most. The part that comes afterwards may be reasonable and may be right, but my hackles rise when I see the begining, even before I go look to see how the sentence ends.

defaultdotxbe

6th April 2009, 03:02 PM

I am not making a direct answer to this partially-quoted post, because I have not read through everything closely enough.

I will say, however, that the above start of a sentence is one of the ones that I fear the most. The part that comes afterwards may be reasonable and may be right, but my hackles rise when I see the begining, even before I go look to see how the sentence ends.
ironically i would expect parky to have a similar reaction to sentences that begin "im not antisemitic, but..."

Caustic Logic

6th April 2009, 03:19 PM

God, what a mess this story is. Excellent case study, LiD. I think there's little doubt the CT alarmism - more the second word than the first - played a key role here. Others have been motivated to such acts by one or another religion, some paranoid mental contruct, or by random personal demons, unchannelable rage... We ccertainly can't shut down all religions over this, or try to engineer an anger-free world. What to do?

As Mallkuth points out, chemical processes are almost certainly a factor, as in other such cases - a natural imbalance or man-made, gettin the old wires crossed. Can we enforce normal psychology? We do try, at least when potential violence is concerned...

Availability of guns is another issue - how ironic a gun nut who's afraid our guns will be taken away, gives yet another reason our guns should be taken away.

I think Jones et al. should have to bear some scrutiny/heat here - best poetic justice is all his fans just walk away - they'd have to realize his crap is bunk, and only triggers their panic buttons, which is all good and fun until someone gets hurt. Still looking for the secret plan? Fine, go study in a quiet place and actually THINK about it.

BenBurch

6th April 2009, 03:21 PM

Well, you can never say 100% that being exposed to conspiracy fairy tale 'a' caused antisocial act 'b' when you are dealing with abnormal psychology.

By the same token, you ALSO cannot say that intervention 'c' would have prevented antisocial act 'b'.

So its also not certain that shedding light on a particular fairy tale is going to prevent violence; these people often fabricate their own conspiracies even if never exposed to canonical versions.

Because I really do think we are looking at mental illness in these cases, and that the particular details of the theory they were obsessing with did not cause it, though they may have motivated the choice of targets.

JoeyDonuts

6th April 2009, 03:27 PM

Horrible comparison.

Sorry. I haven't been eating well.

Doom doesn't tell you to go kill kids at school. Hell, unless you modified the game, you never killed a single human being: All you kill is demons from HELL. If anything, this game teaches moral values about protecting the human race!

Having slaughtered untold hundreds, maybe even thousands of Cacodaemons, Hell Knights, and Spiderbrains, I agree with you.

Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists try their best to dehumanize anyone who works for the government, including cops, so that is okay to inflict harm onto them. Although I doubt this would happen, I would love to see Alex Jones receive some blame for this. He is telling people that murder is OK and that there should be an armed revolution.

Hey, me too. I can't stand the sonofabitch. I'd love to see a judge rule that he had culpability to some degree for this. Honestly, a lot of what he says comes dangerously close to sedition. I don't think he was the root cause, but it may have been the match that set the whole thing ablaze.

I was speaking more from a law enforcement/legal system perspective. Which I will confess, I'm ignorant of for the most part. Wouldn't you have to tie Alex Jones' rhetoric and incitement to a specific crime? I don't think the RICO statute would work in this case.

Thunder

6th April 2009, 03:35 PM

And now it turns out the killer in Binghampton thought under-cover cops were following him for 30 years, from California to NY. he thinks cops actually visited him in his room while he slept.

paranoia and guns are a horrible combination.

dudalb

6th April 2009, 03:49 PM

Having slaughtered untold hundreds, maybe even thousands of Cacodaemons, Hell Knights, and Spiderbrains, I agree with you.

The Brain Crabs in "Half Life" were my favorite to kill.

Thunder

6th April 2009, 03:55 PM

ironically i would expect parky to have a similar reaction to sentences that begin "im not antisemitic, but..."

Freedom of Speech is not a suicide pact. It does not allow people to incite and inspire people to commit murder.

Sorry to dissapoint you.

TheDaver

6th April 2009, 04:15 PM

This doesn’t exactly count.

Obama infringing Second Amendment rights isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s reality.

Drudgewire

6th April 2009, 04:49 PM

This doesn’t exactly count.

Obama infringing Second Amendment rights isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s reality.

There isn't a more pro-gun member of JREF than yours truly.

That said, I'm pretty sure at the moment we have the exact same rights as a gun owner we had on January 19th.

Thunder

6th April 2009, 04:50 PM

This doesn’t exactly count.

Obama infringing Second Amendment rights isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s reality.

what exactly does Obama want to do that's new?

1337m4n

6th April 2009, 04:58 PM

And the conspiracy nuts STILL defend Jones.

How much is enough? What will it take for conspiracy nuts to finally say "Okay, maybe Jones isn't such a great guy after all"?

Like it or not, folks, Alex Jones is a role model for thousands of nutty sheep who need somebody to tell them what to believe.

He is an extremely poor role model.

http://www.infowars.com/media-attemp...burgh-shooter/
Finally, it should be noted that on numerous occasions Alex Jones has advocated non-violence and advised listeners to avoid confrontation with the police and authorities.

Actions speak louder than words, Mr. Jones. Was it not you who got yourself arrested by disobeying the police when you were doing one of your bullhorning jaunts?

You need to be a better role model for your sheep.

Bob Klase

6th April 2009, 05:00 PM

That said, I'm pretty sure at the moment we have the exact same rights as a gun owner we had on January 19th.

You could have made equivalent statements about torture and several other subjects on April 6, 2001. So I guess we'll just have to wait a few years and see if you still have the same exact rights you had last Jan 19th. (That's not to defend Jones or anybody else. Just doesn't seem like it's really relevant yet).

Drudgewire

6th April 2009, 05:28 PM

You could have made equivalent statements about torture and several other subjects on April 6, 2001. So I guess we'll just have to wait a few years and see if you still have the same exact rights you had last Jan 19th. (That's not to defend Jones or anybody else. Just doesn't seem like it's really relevant yet).

The potential is absolutely there, but as of yet none of our rights have been infringed upon.

I was going to use the term "jumping the gun" but it seemed sorely inappropriate. :o

Egil

6th April 2009, 06:16 PM

Well, the stage is set with roughly 30 states declaring their Constitutional sovereignty. Montana did so with respect to Guns.

We saw the Gun Control crowd rear its ugly head in with AWBII and H.R. 45. Add to it Obama's National Civilian Security Force with a name long enough to make any member of the NKVD proud and well you get the picture.

Cl1mh4224rd

6th April 2009, 06:34 PM

INRM

6th April 2009, 08:20 PM

I just hope that this nutjob's act won't be used as an excuse to treat all people who question the government as if they're terrorists

INRM

Thunder

6th April 2009, 08:43 PM

I just hope that this nutjob's act won't be used as an excuse to treat all people who question the government as if they're terrorists

INRM

I seriously question that. I think some truthers and other conspiracy theorists are begging for this to lead to a "crackdown" on dissent.

And even if it doesn't happen, which it won't, nuts like Alex Jones and Luke Rudekowski will claim that "the crackdown has begun!!! the camps are opening!!" and more innocent cops will get shot down.

some of these people are desperate for a "revolution" and they will do ANYTHING to bring it about, even lie.

mark4mark

6th April 2009, 09:14 PM

I just hope that this nutjob's act won't be used as an excuse to treat all people who question the government as if they're terrorists

INRM

I'd say events such as this one pose more of a threat to the second amendment than the first. Had this psycho been on the radar (not necessarily treated like a "terrorist") three public servants would still be breathing. But in a free society with unimpeded rivers of information within drinkable reach, what options have we that won't fly in the face of our collective values and beliefs?

Caustic Logic

7th April 2009, 03:13 AM

Well, the stage is set with roughly 30 states declaring their Constitutional sovereignty. Montana did so with respect to Guns.

I thot that was made up CT junk? What then, limited sovereignty on issues, like guns?

We saw the Gun Control crowd rear its ugly head in with AWBII and H.R. 45. Add to it Obama's National Civilian Security Force with a name long enough to make any member of the NKVD proud and well you get the picture.

The picture is a bit woo, it seems to me. ;) But then again, if it ever did "happen here," it would sneak up like that... Hey Egil, the cops are following you man, you gotta use it or lose it... kidding, please, remain calm.

Why the hell is everyone so intent on keeping guns anyway? I've never had one and still haven't died or been especially repressed yet. I did know two kids shot dead on accident by guns laying around. I can see the freedom side, of course, but the other side too. More so after this incident. And that NY one. Man, they're coming thick again, seems to happen whenever Dems get in power...

Drudgewire

7th April 2009, 05:56 AM

Why the hell is everyone so intent on keeping guns anyway?

Because you never know when you're going to run across someone crazy like this guy.

LightinDarkness

7th April 2009, 06:19 AM

Well, the stage is set with roughly 30 states declaring their Constitutional sovereignty. Montana did so with respect to Guns.

CT Myth. No one has declared sovereignty from the federal government. What the CTs have done is taken normal and routine declarations in laws that states have made about their natural role in intergovernmental relations and acted as if a new revolution were brewing.

We saw the Gun Control crowd rear its ugly head in with AWBII and H.R. 45. Add to it Obama's National Civilian Security Force with a name long enough to make any member of the NKVD proud and well you get the picture.

And another CT myth. There is no National Civilian Security Force. CT Fantasy. While Obama may restrict the sale of certain types of guns, the second Amendment isnt going away.

Do you believe everything Alex Jones tells you?

Egil

7th April 2009, 06:26 AM

I thot that was made up CT junk? What then, limited sovereignty on issues, like guns?

I bet you'd be surprised if if Vermon has a vote on secession every ten years?

About 30 states have passed resolutions. Montana Sovereignty Protection Act (http://www.un-freezone.org/montana.html). Montana's act requires Montana to have a legal showdown with the Federal Government in court.

New Hampshire's HCR-6 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html) A similar resolution. This one states that Federal actions that exceed the enumerated powers are null and void by virtue of the Constitution. Moreover, that exceeding its authority effectively disolves the Federal Government.

That any Act by the Congress of the United States, Executive Order of the President of the United States of America or Judicial Order by the Judicatories of the United States of America which assumes a power not delegated to the government of United States of America by the Constitution for the United States of America and which serves to diminish the liberty of the any of the several States or their citizens shall constitute a nullification of the Constitution for the United States of America by the government of the United States of America. Acts which would cause such a nullification include, but are not limited to:

I. Establishing martial law or a state of emergency within one of the States comprising the United States of America without the consent of the legislature of that State.

II. Requiring involuntary servitude, or governmental service other than a draft during a declared war, or pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

III. Requiring involuntary servitude or governmental service of persons under the age of 18 other than pursuant to, or as an alternative to, incarceration after due process of law.

IV. Surrendering any power delegated or not delegated to any corporation or foreign government.

V. Any act regarding religion; further limitations on freedom of political speech; or further limitations on freedom of the press.

VI. Further infringements on the right to keep and bear arms including prohibitions of type or quantity of arms or ammunition; and

That should any such act of Congress become law or Executive Order or Judicial Order be put into force, all powers previously delegated to the United States of America by the Constitution for the United States shall revert to the several States individually. Any future government of the United States of America shall require ratification of three quarters of the States seeking to form a government of the United States of America and shall not be binding upon any State not seeking to form such a government; and

That copies of this resolution be transmitted by the house clerk to the President of the United States, each member of the United States Congress, and the presiding officers of each State’s legislature.

The picture is a bit woo, it seems to me. ;) But then again, if it ever did "happen here," it would sneak up like that... Hey Egil, the cops are following you man, you gotta use it or lose it... kidding, please, remain calm.

H.R. 45 or Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 was probably the worse gun control measure I've seen bandied about. It'd require fingerprinting, obtaining a license, a psych evaluation, it could be construed to require storage of arms in a safe, regulation such as reporting a change of address within 60 days and other such BS to the point it is a chore to excercise your constitutional Right.

If Liberals wanna take my guns, how about they come right out and try to pass a Constitutional amendment repealling the 2nd Amendment.

Why the hell is everyone so intent on keeping guns anyway? I've never had one and still haven't died or been especially repressed yet. I did know two kids shot dead on accident by guns laying around. I can see the freedom side, of course, but the other side too. More so after this incident. And that NY one. Man, they're coming thick again, seems to happen whenever Dems get in power...

It has to do with Ideology. People like me dislike government by default. I am pretty much a classical liberal in that I subscribe to the Theory that people are endowed with Rights and are by default, Free. People like me also accept that Government cannot restrain itself, that it is naturally destructive to Liberty.

And people like me read the Founding Fathers. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson saw nothing wrong with an armed Rebellion every 20 years? Sam Adams called the blood of patriots and tyrants the natural manure of the Tree of Liberty.

LightinDarkness

7th April 2009, 06:36 AM

I bet you'd be surprised if if Vermon has a vote on secession every ten years?

About 30 states have passed resolutions. Montana Sovereignty Protection Act (http://www.un-freezone.org/montana.html). Montana's act requires Montana to have a legal showdown with the Federal Government in court.

New Hampshire's HCR-6 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html) A similar resolution. This one states that Federal actions that exceed the enumerated powers are null and void by virtue of the Constitution. Moreover, that exceeding its authority effectively disolves the Federal Government.

False and false. CTers don't even bother to read anything anymore, they just so want to believe in this that they can't handle that its not what they think it is. The few that are actually what the CTs say they are years old and have never been seriously considered by any state legislature.

States have every few years clarified their roles in intergovernmental relations. None calls for dissolving the federal government, none calls for any "legal showdown" in court. Its CT fantasy.

H.R. 45 or Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 was probably the worse gun control measure I've seen bandied about. It'd require fingerprinting, obtaining a license, a psych evaluation, it could be construed to require storage of arms in a safe, regulation such as reporting a change of address within 60 days and other such BS to the point it is a chore to excercise your constitutional Right.

Needless CT hysteria - the bill never had a chance. Just like how someone introduces draft legislation every session aid fails 100% of the time, they do it with this sort of gun control.

If Liberals wanna take my guns, how about they come right out and try to pass a Constitutional amendment repealling the 2nd Amendment.

Shhh. I'll tell you a secret. There is at least one member of congress who does that every session of Congress too. Also goes no where.

It has to do with Ideology. People like me dislike government by default. I am pretty much a classical liberal in that I subscribe to the Theory that people are endowed with Rights and are by default, Free. People like me also accept that Government cannot restrain itself, that it is naturally destructive to Liberty.

As a libertarian, this is insulting - you are so busy concentrating on all of these pointless political circuses that aren't going anywhere instead of concentrating on the real - but much less sexy - growth of government.

And people like me read the Founding Fathers. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson saw nothing wrong with an armed Rebellion every 20 years? Sam Adams called the blood of patriots and tyrants the natural manure of the Tree of Liberty.

The Founding Fathers also widely advocated for Slavery, do you support that too? The Founding Fathers never wrote what they did expecting people to treat their every word as if it were holy scripture.

Holler Hoojer

7th April 2009, 06:45 AM

I bet you'd be surprised if if Vermon has a vote on secession every ten years?

About 30 states have passed resolutions. Montana Sovereignty Protection Act (http://www.un-freezone.org/montana.html). Montana's act requires Montana to have a legal showdown with the Federal Government in court.

New Hampshire's HCR-6 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html) A similar resolution. This one states that Federal actions that exceed the enumerated powers are null and void by virtue of the Constitution. Moreover, that exceeding its authority effectively disolves the Federal Government.

H.R. 45 or Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 was probably the worse gun control measure I've seen bandied about. It'd require fingerprinting, obtaining a license, a psych evaluation, it could be construed to require storage of arms in a safe, regulation such as reporting a change of address within 60 days and other such BS to the point it is a chore to excercise your constitutional Right.

If Liberals wanna take my guns, how about they come right out and try to pass a Constitutional amendment repealling the 2nd Amendment.

It has to do with Ideology. People like me dislike government by default. I am pretty much a classical liberal in that I subscribe to the Theory that people are endowed with Rights and are by default, Free. People like me also accept that Government cannot restrain itself, that it is naturally destructive to Liberty.

And people like me read the Founding Fathers. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson saw nothing wrong with an armed Rebellion every 20 years? Sam Adams called the blood of patriots and tyrants the natural manure of the Tree of Liberty.

Egil,
Be cautious of interpreting Mr. Jefferson. He wrote volumes and volumes and volumes and wound up being almost like Nostradamus - you can find quotes to support almost anything imaginable. I can recall 'Hoos finding opposing quotes to bolster their arguments as to whether cheerleaders should or should not wear matching uniforms. In everyday action, whether as governor of Virginia or as an Albemarle County Court judge, he was not a flaming revolutionary.

Drudgewire

7th April 2009, 07:01 AM

Egil,
Be cautious of interpreting Mr. Jefferson. He wrote volumes and volumes and volumes and wound up being almost like Nostradamus - you can find quotes to support almost anything imaginable. I can recall 'Hoos finding opposing quotes to bolster their arguments as to whether cheerleaders should or should not wear matching uniforms. In everyday action, whether as governor of Virginia or as an Albemarle County Court judge, he was not a flaming revolutionary.

My favorite quote from that oft-referenced Jefferson letter has nothing to with revolutions or firearms, but is simply the closer:

We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform.

Egil

7th April 2009, 08:05 AM

False and false. CTers don't even bother to read anything anymore, they just so want to believe in this that they can't handle that its not what they think it is. The few that are actually what the CTs say they are years old and have never been seriously considered by any state legislature.

States have every few years clarified their roles in intergovernmental relations. None calls for dissolving the federal government, none calls for any "legal showdown" in court. Its CT fantasy.

So, um, all these Resolutions don't exist? I guess the New Hampshire one doesn't declare the Federal Government legally void if it over-steps the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Have you read the Montana Resolution? It requires the State AG to defend any Montana resident being indicted by the Federal Government on gun charges if the Resident is protected by the Resolution. How is that not a Legal Showdown between a State and the Federal Government?

It doesn't look like a clarification from where I am standing but a cease and desist order from the States to an agency that is a creation of the States.

Needless CT hysteria - the bill never had a chance. Just like how someone introduces draft legislation every session aid fails 100% of the time, they do it with this sort of gun control.

It doesn't matter if it had negative a thousand percent chance. It shows intent of members of the party. Look at the badly named Freedom of Choice Act, Employee Free Choice Act and the Global Poverty Tax Act that are in committee.

Shhh. I'll tell you a secret. There is at least one member of congress who does that every session of Congress too. Also goes no where.

I don't want one liberal doing it. I want the Liberals on national TV to be honest about the issue and state unequivocably they think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. For them to make a concerted effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

As a libertarian, this is insulting - you are so busy concentrating on all of these pointless political circuses that aren't going anywhere instead of concentrating on the real - but much less sexy - growth of government.

:rolleyes:

I hit on Civil Liberties, therefore I remain ignorant of the real growth of government which is in regulation of financial industry, the massive indebtitude of future generations and enslavement of people to the Government teat?

The Founding Fathers also widely advocated for Slavery, do you support that too? The Founding Fathers never wrote what they did expecting people to treat their every word as if it were holy scripture.

The Founding Fathers never advocated for Slavery. That is a myth.

And who says their words are holy scripture? Who says they are meaningless? The Intent of the Framers was weighed by the Supreme Court in the Heller Decision. That is where their words are important. Without intent, they are merely words.

Does it mean we should remain loyal to their idea of government for eternity? No.

defaultdotxbe

7th April 2009, 08:25 AM

So, um, all these Resolutions don't exist? I guess the New Hampshire one doesn't declare the Federal Government legally void if it over-steps the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Have you read the Montana Resolution? It requires the State AG to defend any Montana resident being indicted by the Federal Government on gun charges if the Resident is protected by the Resolution. How is that not a Legal Showdown between a State and the Federal Government?

It doesn't look like a clarification from where I am standing but a cease and desist order from the States to an agency that is a creation of the States.
did you read some of the resolutions? one passed last year was an almost verbatim copy of one passed (by a different state) in 1996, and the others weren't very different, its a form letter, nothing more nothing less

SmartyPants

7th April 2009, 08:55 AM

I don't want one liberal doing it. I want the Liberals on national TV to be honest about the issue and state unequivocably they think the 2nd Amendment should be repealed. For them to make a concerted effort to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

I could make Obama look like a moderate Republican on a lot of issues, and I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Drudgewire

7th April 2009, 09:21 AM

I could make Obama look like a moderate Republican on a lot of issues, and I don't want the 2nd Amendment repealed.

Yeah, two of my three shooting buddies are liberals.

Horatius

7th April 2009, 09:24 AM

New Hampshire's HCR-6 (http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2009/HCR0006.html) A similar resolution. This one states that Federal actions that exceed the enumerated powers are null and void by virtue of the Constitution. Moreover, that exceeding its authority effectively disolves the Federal Government.

http://www.answers.com/topic/concurrent-resolution

Concurrent Resolution: n. A resolution adopted by both houses of a bicameral legislature that does not have the force of law and does not require the signature of the chief executive.

About 30 states have passed resolutions. Montana Sovereignty Protection Act (http://www.un-freezone.org/montana.html). Montana's act requires Montana to have a legal showdown with the Federal Government in court.

mEJL2Uuv-oQ

drkitten

7th April 2009, 10:17 AM

So, um, all these Resolutions don't exist? I guess the New Hampshire one doesn't declare the Federal Government legally void if it over-steps the 9th and 10th Amendments.

"Resolutions" have no legal effect. And "bills" (such as the Montana Resolution you linked to) haven't even been approved by the legislature, so they're totally meaningless. Any congressman can introduce anything he likes -- this bill will get quietly ignored and die.

Have you read the Montana Resolution?

Yes, I have. Several versions of it, in fact.

It requires the State AG to defend any Montana resident being indicted by the Federal Government on gun charges if the Resident is protected by the Resolution. [

No, it doesn't.

Alareth

7th April 2009, 01:17 PM

It's not just Jones, we're going to give Glenn Beck some of the blame too

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-07/what-a-killer-was-watching

Drudgewire

7th April 2009, 02:20 PM

It's not just Jones, we're going to give Glenn Beck some of the blame too

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-04-07/what-a-killer-was-watching

It sounds like he was disappointed in Glenn, saying "he backed out."

Of course, I have to think both Jones and Beck take a backseat to the fact HE WAS POSTING ON STORMFRONT for pete's sake. :boggled:

LightinDarkness

7th April 2009, 02:41 PM

So, um, all these Resolutions don't exist? I guess the New Hampshire one doesn't declare the Federal Government legally void if it over-steps the 9th and 10th Amendments.

You've been debunked on this and there isn't anything more to say about it but just to reinforce this for you: you should really learn about the legislative process.

Anyone can propose whatever legislation they want, and its incredibly easy to get elected in most state legislatures. Thus, countless thousands of wacky/insane/nutty conspiracy theories get proposed yearly. None of them pass. Just as these have not. They are all years old.

The Founding Fathers never advocated for Slavery. That is a myth.

You are in serious denial of reality. Most of the founding fathers HAD SLAVES and had no problem with it.

And who says their words are holy scripture? Who says they are meaningless? The Intent of the Framers was weighed by the Supreme Court in the Heller Decision. That is where their words are important. Without intent, they are merely words.

No they were not.

ConspiracyKiller

7th April 2009, 02:52 PM

I have been doing a lot of research on this case in regards to Alex Jones and I thought the best place to get dirt on Alex would be from left wing sites that are openly trying to shut down conservative sites.

You know sites were posters say:

"I hope and non-pray that the current DoJ gets *********** serious about these well-armed right-wing militia/UN invasion nutjobs who have slithered out from the anti-Clinton 90s to spew and kill again."

"They were driven by pro-military, gun loving, right wing white racist, zionist conspiracy paranoids who look to GW Bush, O'Reilly, Beck, et al, as heroes.

If the government had just rounded up all the militant white wingnuts after Oklahoma City, and then invaded Texas with a "shock and awe" campaign, killing, imprisoning, and torturing a few hundred thousand people there, we might have avoided this horrible event. But no, these right wing bleeding heart conservatives want to protect the "rights" of these nuts to kill whoever they want. Thank goodness we have a REAL American as president now, who will protect us against these terrorists."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/6/717115/-Poplawski-Linked-to-Stormfront-and-Glenn-Beck-*UPDATED*#c336

But to my surprise I found posts and blogs on the left wing sites that defended Alex Jones! They said;

"I have reason to doubt the information reported by the ADL with respect to Alex Jones and Infowars or PrisonPlanet. In fact, evidence points to the contrary; that Alex Jones has spoken strongly against hate speech similar to that spoken by Richard Poplawski."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/4/6/717115/-Poplawski-Linked-to-Stormfront-and-Glenn-Beck

And after looking into the comments of places like Raw Story, Daily Kos, Huffington post and etc, I have been surprised to find posters arguing in defense of Alex Jones.

Instead of going after Alex Jones these people are suggesting they have found enough evidence to establish culpability for civil suits against Stormfront & Glenn Beck.

They are also suggesting they may have enough to go after Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Don Black, and Greenberg based on a several cases simular to the Poplawski case do to the fact that the other killers like Poplawski, David Adkisson, James G. Cummings, Raymond Zareck, and etc, owned books writen by, and were known to be big fans of Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Don Black, and Greenberg.

Their even saying that the Scientist who sent the anthrax letters was a big fan of Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Hannity and that the FBI supports that conclusion.

But after reading all the comments it appears to me that people are just using this horibile tragity to attack those that do not support their agenda. (Despite the fact that they were defending Alex Jones)

Do you think that this terrible tragedy is simply being used as a tool to attack others and that this guy was simply a nut no matter his race, religion, political affiliation, or where he is from?

Or does something need to be done as the left wing sites suggest about Stormfront, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Hannity, Don Black, Greenberg etc? And eventhough they are now defending him Alex Jones?

Thunder

7th April 2009, 03:00 PM

And people like me read the Founding Fathers. Do you know that Thomas Jefferson saw nothing wrong with an armed Rebellion every 20 years? Sam Adams called the blood of patriots and tyrants the natural manure of the Tree of Liberty.

well, so start it already. what are u waiting for?

these so-called "Patriots" are just cowards. thats why the only ones who ever do anything are mentally ill. all talk and no action.

i expect another revolution in 2056.

Bobert

7th April 2009, 03:13 PM

paranoia and guns are a horrible combination.
But for Alex Jones he sees dollar signs!
Scumbag

Rogue1stclass

7th April 2009, 04:24 PM

dudalb

7th April 2009, 04:31 PM

They tried to start a revolution in Oklahoma City. Seeing video of firemen pulling office workers and children out of rubble doesn't really set off that rebellious spirit, it seems.

The irony to this story is that gun control is pretty much dead as a national political issue. Stirring up the gun lobby again isn't going help anyone, especially not the Democrats.

I 100% agree. The Democrats, outside a few Zealots in congress, have decided that Gun Control is Toxic Waste at the ballot box. The above named Zealots introduce Gun Control legislation every year, and ever year it is quietly strangled in commitee and never heard of again.

MarkyX

7th April 2009, 05:03 PM

"I have reason to doubt the information reported by the ADL with respect to Alex Jones and Infowars or PrisonPlanet. In fact, evidence points to the contrary; that Alex Jones has spoken strongly against hate speech similar to that spoken by Richard Poplawski."

As long as you are a christian and not a Mexican, Alex Jones plays nice.

Thunder

7th April 2009, 06:55 PM

I love how all the truthers and "patriots" are trying to either distant themselves for this guy, claim he was a Mossad agent, or claim "Alex never said that".

When you preach fear, paranoia, and lies...eventually it comes back to haunt you.

Egil

8th April 2009, 04:24 PM

You've been debunked on this and there isn't anything more to say about it but just to reinforce this for you: you should really learn about the legislative process.

So the Hew Hampshire bill doesn't exist?

Anyone can propose whatever legislation they want, and its incredibly easy to get elected in most state legislatures. Thus, countless thousands of wacky/insane/nutty conspiracy theories get proposed yearly. None of them pass. Just as these have not. They are all years old.

The New Hampshire Bill, the Montana bill et al, are from this legislative session. Not years old.

You are in serious denial of reality. Most of the founding fathers HAD SLAVES and had no problem with it.

And you are buying into the myth of the white evil (oxymoron?) slave-owning racist Founding Fathers.

Some of the Founding Fathers went on to introduce anti-slavery legislation (such as Samuel Adams who proposed the legislation that outlawed Slavery in Massachussetts and Anti-Slavery Legislation was enacted at the Constitutional Convention), some went to free all the slaves they owned (like George Washington), some went on to establish Anti-Slavery Organizations (Franklin and Rush to name a few), others abhored the institution and wished to see it end (Jefferson, Lee, Adams, Washington).

Drudgewire

8th April 2009, 04:37 PM

Whenever I see New Hampshire mentioned I feel the need to thank them for their awesome non-resident permit jacking up the states I can legally carry firearms in from 13 to over 30.

So "yay New Hampshire." http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/toot.gif

Caustic Logic

8th April 2009, 04:43 PM

And you are buying into the myth of the white evil (oxymoron?) slave-owning racist Founding Fathers.

Did not a large portion of these guys own slaves? Does that not make them at least a bit racist? What word besides white best describes the FF's skin color? Why are you combining all these true points with evil and collectively calling it a myth, to make what kind of point?

Pardon me, but are you for real?

T.A.M.

8th April 2009, 04:59 PM

I notice a glaring absence of comment from our many resident CTists and in particular, truthers.

TAM:)

Malkuth

8th April 2009, 06:49 PM

Poplawski Smear Debunked: Cop Killer Held Opposing Views To Infowars
http://truthjunkie.wordpress.com/2009/04/07/poplawski-smear-debunked-cop-killer-held-opposing-views-to-infowars/

ADL claims Pittsburgh shooter influenced by Alex Jones conspiracy websites, yet links prove vacuous.

A vicious smear attack on Alex Jones and his websites launched by the ADL in the aftermath of the Pittsburgh police shootings which attempted to classify Infowars as an outlet for “hate speech” has been discredited after the ADL’s own website admitted that Richard Poplawski held views that opposed those of the Texas radio talk show host.

..snip..

This is not the first time that the ADL has attempted to classify Alex Jones and his websites as “hate” material. Several years ago they attempted a similar stunt and were later forced to back down and retract their statements.

...snip...

It is also noteworthy that clear evidence points to the ADL having had a significant influence in the writing of the controversial MIAC report, which equated Ron Paul supporters, libertarians and people who display political bumper stickers with domestic terrorists and hate groups. The report later had to be completely withdrawn.

Missouri MIAC Documents Scandal Leads to Advisory on SPLC & ADL
http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=6823

Since the SPLC was listed as a source in the MIAC Missouri Documents, ALIPAC sent a letter of inquiry to the Missouri Governor Jay Nixon on March 20, 2009 asking for more specific sourcing information.

...snip...

the attempt of these documents to cast suspicion of violent and life threatening behavior on millions of Americans who are concerned about these issues is consistent with the regularly released political materials of both the SPLC and ADL.

LightinDarkness

8th April 2009, 06:54 PM

Poplawski Smear Debunked: Cop Killer Held Opposing Views To Infowars

My god, are you even trying? A truther blog is not a source for debunking....especially when it doesn't debunk at all? At no time does it provide any evidence that this nuts faithful adherence to Alex Jones style CT and hatred played no role in his murders. Could you get your information from anymore of a woo source?

Alex Jones makes a living off of hate mongering and fear mongering - if he went one day without urging people on with sheer hatred and scaring people he wouldn't have a show. We have seen what this results in - when your dealing with people who are already disconnected with reality (CTers), if you encourage them enough to fight a revolution against an enemy that doesn't exist they will eventually create an enemy. Unfortunately, this time it was poor unsuspecting cops responding to an emergency call.

Just because you WANT it not to be true doesn't mean it is. This woo killed in part because he was influenced by the woo you believe in. Truth hurts. That truthers have a constant persecution complex is irrelevant - they run around screaming "oh woe is us, so persecuted by the MSM" while ordering each other to start violent revolutions.

Drudgewire

8th April 2009, 06:59 PM

Liberal blogs and websites have grossly inflated the shootings out of context to claim that the tragic events were not as a result of a domestic dispute gone horribly awry, but as some kind of retribution launched deliberately by Poplawski borne out of his fierce support for the second amendment and interest in conspiracy websites. They have employed classic guilt-by-association tactics to attack gun rights activists in an attempt to discredit the very real agenda on behalf of the Obama administration to curtail the second amendment.

Forget the snarky blog entries at Little Green Footballs and Daily Kos — the attack against Alex Jones is now a main course diet for the Anti-Defamation League.

LGF is a liberal blog? Did I miss a memo? :boggled:

Thunder

8th April 2009, 07:00 PM

Poplawski Smear Debunked: Cop Killer Held Opposing Views To Infowars

Does Poplawski believe that Obama was gonna take his guns? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that the NWO is opening FEMA camps? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that Zionists control the USA? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that many states recently declare "soveirignity"? yes

so does Infowars.

...the only thing that Infowars and Poplawski do not agree with, is the overt white supremacist views. but the political and social views are IDENTICAL.

debunked? I dont THINK so!!!!

LightinDarkness

8th April 2009, 07:03 PM

So the Hew Hampshire bill doesn't exist?

Did you bother to read? Hundreds of insane state level bills get proposed every single year. None of them ever get passed. Just because some woo exists who proposed the bill doesn't mean anything. I could just as easily go to New Hampshire and with about $50,000 get elected as a state representative and propose bills to rename the state to Alex Joneshire.

The New Hampshire Bill, the Montana bill et al, are from this legislative session. Not years old.

Wrong, over half of them are at least 2 years old.

And you are buying into the myth of the white evil (oxymoron?) slave-owning racist Founding Fathers.

I am sorry that you do not want to realize myths - but the fact is that the founding fathers were not Gods and would be insulted people like you abuse and take their words out of context in pursuit of your myths. The facts: nearly all of them owned slaves and nearly all of them advocated for it. What does this prove? That the founding fathers were not some fount of moral righteousness and that their every word cannot be used to tell us what we should do.

Some of the Founding Fathers went on to introduce anti-slavery legislation (such as Samuel Adams who proposed the legislation that outlawed Slavery in Massachussetts and Anti-Slavery Legislation was enacted at the Constitutional Convention), some went to free all the slaves they owned (like George Washington), some went on to establish Anti-Slavery Organizations (Franklin and Rush to name a few), others abhored the institution and wished to see it end (Jefferson, Lee, Adams, Washington).

And you yet again completely avoided the facts. Washington publicly opposed slavery but still kept slaves. In fact, he specifically redid his will to make sure that his estate would own slaves until after his WIFE died.

You have tried to turn the "Founding Fathers" into some Deity like group whose words are somehow better than anyone elses or whose ideas must be followed above all else. But as slavery shows, they often were wrong. And they knew that. They would be applauded at how people like you abuse them.

1337m4n

8th April 2009, 07:07 PM

Does Poplawski believe that Obama was gonna take his guns? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that the NWO is opening FEMA camps? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that Zionists control the USA? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that many states recently declare "soveirignity"? yes

so does Infowars.

...the only thing that Infowars and Poplawski do not agree with, is the overt white supremacist views. but the political and social views are IDENTICAL.

debunked? I dont THINK so!!!!

Malkuth fails yet again in his ongoing quest to prove that he is not a conspiracy nut by constantly defending conspiracy nuts.

http://www.readthesmiths.com/articles/Images/Humor/Fail/1FAIL.jpg

Malkuth

8th April 2009, 07:33 PM

No, I really didn't expect you to make any type of attempt at refuting the information with contradictory facts.

I tried to, but just couldn't bring myself to believe that woo.

Thunder

8th April 2009, 07:34 PM

The so-called Infowars "debunk"...has been debunked. And it was rather easy.

This guy and Infowars share MANY common beliefs. This is a fact.

Wow, has JREF ever debunked a debunk before??

Malkuth

8th April 2009, 07:58 PM

You've made assertions and some smart butt comments, but you haven't proved any definite evidentiary link between the action and the supposed cause, only correlation. You haven't shown anything except assertion to disprove the link between the ADL and the writing of the MIAC document.

Thunder

8th April 2009, 08:01 PM

Malkuth

8th April 2009, 08:29 PM

Opinion and assertion. No soup for you.

Thunder

8th April 2009, 08:45 PM

LightinDarkness

8th April 2009, 08:50 PM

It is not my opinion that they share views. It is a fact.

Now, sharing views does not mean culpability. Ive never argued that.

But this racist cop-killer was clearly influenced, not ordered, but influenced, by Infowars.

Exactly - all evidence/data show that this guy was indeed clearly influenced by the Alex Jones hate mongering. It is impossible to ever know what causes someone to murder, but it is extraordinarily likely, given the circumstances and the facts of the case, that the fear and hate mongering by AJ and CTers in general influenced this person and that has a definitive connection to his crimes.

But of course we know the person your responding to is, as its already been pointed out, more interested in acting like hes not a woo CTer while defending everything they do than the facts :)

MarkyX

8th April 2009, 09:49 PM

Poplawski Smear Debunked: Cop Killer Held Opposing Views To Infowars

Funny stuff. Love the part where they said comments aren't moderated heavily. I was banned from there, and it had nothing to do with 9/11: I was merely pointing out one of the articles that their photo was misleading.

Another argument was a strawman. Basically the post claims if you don't make comment posts on the site, you aren't a visitor. This makes no sense, as anyone who has dealt with any sort of online community will tell you the vast majority of online visitors do not frequent message boards. This isn't a sign of anything.

Infoexcavator

9th April 2009, 03:42 AM

Does Poplawski believe that Zionists control the USA? yes.

so does Infowars.

This one is not actually true. Alex believes that groups like the Bilderbergers control the world. Bilderberg of course could include some Zionists, but Alex has implied that he will not talk about that because it would be an easy weapon against him. Alex is routinely attacked by the more fanatical anti-semite conspiracy people because of his reluctance to talk about jews.

...and it seems pretty clear that the guy believed everything he read on Infowars and it might have had something to do with what he did, I listen to Alex a lot because I find him entertaining and I could see myself going nuts if I believed it.

MarkyX

9th April 2009, 07:42 AM

This one is not actually true. Alex believes that groups like the Bilderbergers control the world. Bilderberg of course could include some Zionists, but Alex has implied that he will not talk about that because it would be an easy weapon against him. Alex is routinely attacked by the more fanatical anti-semite conspiracy people because of his reluctance to talk about jews.

Funny that despite this, he still allows plenty of anti-semite groups to advertise on his site. He even interviews them.

Drudgewire

9th April 2009, 07:48 AM

Alex has implied that he will not talk about that because it would be an easy weapon against him.

"I won't say the Jews did it because the Jews will destroy me if I do" isn't exactly a proclamation of not being anti-Semitic. :p

T.A.M.

9th April 2009, 09:12 AM

"I won't say the Jews did it because the Jews will destroy me if I do" isn't exactly a proclamation of not being anti-Semitic. :p

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Kind of like a KKK mask. many of them are believers, but the masks help prevent the public (who would nail them for it) from knowing.

TAM:)

dudalb

9th April 2009, 11:02 AM

Does Poplawski believe that Obama was gonna take his guns? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that the NWO is opening FEMA camps? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that Zionists control the USA? yes.

so does Infowars.

Does Poplawski believe that many states recently declare "soveirignity"? yes

so does Infowars.

...the only thing that Infowars and Poplawski do not agree with, is the overt white supremacist views. but the political and social views are IDENTICAL.

debunked? I dont THINK so!!!!

Malkuth has been:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_18840498353a693126.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15090)

SmartyPants

9th April 2009, 12:38 PM

That's a funny picture.

Anyway, Malkuth might be interested in this (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09097/961072-53.stm). It basically backs up parky's assertions

This next one (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09098/961304-53.stm) is for everyone to know what a hugemongous and cold-hearted jerk he really is.

T.A.M.

9th April 2009, 02:01 PM

I always wondered what the exact spelling for hugemongous was...lol

humongous! is correct, as it does not get a red line...sorry, It was just so funny...

huge-mongous.

TAM:D

SmartyPants

9th April 2009, 04:47 PM

It is. Check the urban dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hugemongous) for a "accurate" definition. It certainly applies to this toad.

In other news, I just got back from work, and I've never seen so many police or police cars in one area in my entire life. There were 6 lanes (if you count the two parallel streets) of hardly anything but cruisers for what must have been a good mile or so; lots of people out and it was eerily quiet. Perhaps acting out on your psychopathic beliefs is not the best way to gather people to your cause.

shawmutt

9th April 2009, 05:18 PM

T.A.M.

9th April 2009, 05:42 PM

Holler Hoojer

9th April 2009, 05:54 PM

KellyG

9th April 2009, 05:58 PM

I'm not so worried about Obama "taking my guns" as about the Democratic run Senate and House, and possibly new Justices brought into the Supreme Court. There's certainly not a shortage of anti-gun nuts lobbying their version of the US around.

Every time I see a story like this, I just have to shake my head at all the anti-gun rhetoric that gets thrown around. Like I said in the other thread about this, if the dude didn't have guns he'd find another way.

There's no evidence that anyone is going to take anyone's gun's away. I think we should be more concerned with the pro-gun lobby.

Right....
Yeah that dude is just as likely to have strapped a bomb to his chest in the heat of the moment or knifed the 3 policemen to death.

I don't think we're ever going to agree on the gun issue.

shawmutt

9th April 2009, 08:01 PM

I think the right to own a single shot firearm is perfectly fine. However, the right to own a gun that can splay off 10 or 12 shots in a few seconds, makes it much easier to go on a killing spree and kill quite a bit before anyone can subdue you is another thing...much harder to do with a knife, or even a gun that requires reloading after a single shot...would you not agree??

TAM:)

The majority of homicides, and I mean the vast majority to the tune of 95% of all homicides, are one victim, one perp. (cite: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm). Multiple homicides (four or more) by one perp, your "killing spree", consists of 0.1% of homicides. In contrast, there are 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year in the US by legally carrying firearm owners (cite: http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt).

By outlawing certain types of firearms because you and others are convinced they are more "evil" than other types, you are simply disarming the law-abiding citizen and removing his means of self-defense, not the criminal who really only needs a single-shot weapon to do crime with ;)

eta:There's no evidence that anyone is going to take anyone's gun's away. I think we should be more concerned with the pro-gun lobby.

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4509

etaa:Right....
Yeah that dude is just as likely to have strapped a bomb to his chest in the heat of the moment or knifed the 3 policemen to death

I hear knives are becoming a big problem in the UK, I wonder when they're going to try and ban them as well as firearms?

INRM

9th April 2009, 08:39 PM

mark4mark,

I'd say events such as this one pose more of a threat to the second amendment than the first. Had this psycho been on the radar (not necessarily treated like a "terrorist") three public servants would still be breathing. But in a free society with unimpeded rivers of information within drinkable reach, what options have we that won't fly in the face of our collective values and beliefs?

I'd say the fourth amendment would be the one to worry about.

It would eventually fly in the face of privacy and probable cause if the government was allowed to engage in rampant surveillance and aggregate every piece of information known on us to determine what we all may or will do some time down the road.

It would end up like Minority Report, with a Department of Pre-Crime, and people arrested for crimes they were "going" to commit. Privacy would cease to exist.

INRM

T.A.M.

9th April 2009, 11:22 PM

The majority of homicides, and I mean the vast majority to the tune of 95% of all homicides, are one victim, one perp. (cite: http://www.ojp.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm). Multiple homicides (four or more) by one perp, your "killing spree", consists of 0.1% of homicides. In contrast, there are 800,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year in the US by legally carrying firearm owners (cite: http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt).

By outlawing certain types of firearms because you and others are convinced they are more "evil" than other types, you are simply disarming the law-abiding citizen and removing his means of self-defense, not the criminal who really only needs a single-shot weapon to do crime with ;)

eta:

http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4509

etaa:

I hear knives are becoming a big problem in the UK, I wonder when they're going to try and ban them as well as firearms?

I do not doubt your statistics. Do you feel citizens need handguns that fire off 10 plus rounds in a few seconds in order to defend themselve?

I wish there was a simultaneous ban on these type of firearms, while at the same time, perhaps the creation (if it does not exist) of a handheld gun that allowed only 1-2 shots before having to reload.

I don't have a problem with US citizens defending themselves, I just have a problem with the easy provision of means for mass rapid killing.

TAM:)

shawmutt

10th April 2009, 04:44 AM

Do you feel citizens need handguns that fire off 10 plus rounds in a few seconds in order to defend themselve?

I feel that arbitrary limits on magazine size are silly and fruitless, and not based on rational thought but based on appeal to emotion. I've heard the same argument posited in many different ways, from the need for "black (military looking) guns" to the need for larger caliber handguns. Do you really think arbitrary limits on magazine sizes and/or ammo capacity will really make that much of a difference in crime rates?

If you haven't watched this video before (I've linked it before here), take six minutes to watch it (sorry for the lack of sound):

sfKADcfE90U

What do you think?

Drudgewire

10th April 2009, 05:54 AM

I wish there was a simultaneous ban on these type of firearms, while at the same time, perhaps the creation (if it does not exist) of a handheld gun that allowed only 1-2 shots before having to reload.

Assuming there's only one person in your house when you need one, the general rule when using lethal force for self-defense is three to center mass. When mortally wounded a person can still travel 20 feet in 1.6 seconds.

You shoot until there's no longer a threat, and even trained police will tell you in the moment of panic you're very likely to miss your target on the first shot... making a "one to two shot gun" just about the most terrible idea I've ever heard.

T.A.M.

10th April 2009, 06:24 AM

I dunno, I mean I guess you grow up in a different country, with different rules, different means.

I have just never seen me shooting anyone, not even someone who breaks into my house. That is not to say that I do not have a heavy aluminum bat in my closet, and would hesitate to beat the bejesus out of who ever came in uninvited, but to kill a man for breaking in...well to me it just seems extreme.

Like I said, grow up in a different world...most criminal here in Canada, don't carry handguns etc... (although that may be different in extremely urban areas).

TAM:)

T.A.M.

10th April 2009, 06:25 AM

I feel that arbitrary limits on magazine size are silly and fruitless, and not based on rational thought but based on appeal to emotion. I've heard the same argument posited in many different ways, from the need for "black (military looking) guns" to the need for larger caliber handguns. Do you really think arbitrary limits on magazine sizes and/or ammo capacity will really make that much of a difference in crime rates?

If you haven't watched this video before (I've linked it before here), take six minutes to watch it (sorry for the lack of sound):

sfKADcfE90U

What do you think?

Killing a man, to me, is never "rational", and almost always emotional, to some degree.

TAM:)

Drudgewire

10th April 2009, 06:30 AM

Like I said, grow up in a different world...most criminal here in Canada, don't carry handguns etc... (although that may be different in extremely urban areas).

And that's really the whole crux of the argument. Down here it's a way of life, and there's really no way to change the system without giving a major advantage to those who don't care about the law at the expense of those who do.

I say it in every gun control thread. Create a machine that can eliminate every gun from the planet I'll volunteer to push the button. Since that's pretty much impossible though, my next best option is an even playing field which is why I'm rarely more than arm's length from a firearm.

shawmutt

10th April 2009, 06:33 AM

Killing a man, to me, is never "rational", and almost always emotional, to some degree.

TAM:)

I wasn't talking about killing, I was talking about size limits to magazines and other silly gun laws based on appeal to emotion.

Drudgewire

10th April 2009, 08:47 AM

That is not to say that I do not have a heavy aluminum bat in my closet, and would hesitate to beat the bejesus out of who ever came in uninvited, but to kill a man for breaking in...well to me it just seems extreme.

Without letting this thread spin wildly off-topic, most of the gun owners on this forum understand and respect the difference between using lethal force on someone breaking in for a TV and someone who represents an immediate threat to them and their family. :)

shawmutt

10th April 2009, 08:55 AM

Without letting this thread spin wildly off-topic, most of the gun owners on this forum understand and respect the difference between using lethal force on someone breaking in for a TV and someone who represents an immediate threat to them and their family. :)

I don't know man, I just got a 1080p hi def lcd set...I think I may love it more than my wife :duck:

Drudgewire

10th April 2009, 08:57 AM

I don't know man, I just got a 1080p hi def lcd set...I think I may love it more than my wife :duck:

Dear T.A.M.:

Never mind. http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/redface.gif

Drudge

MarkyX

10th April 2009, 09:57 AM

TheDaver

10th April 2009, 02:35 PM

That is not to say that I do not have a heavy aluminum bat in my closet, and would hesitate to beat the bejesus out of who ever came in uninvited, but to kill a man for breaking in...well to me it just seems extreme.
I think your choice of words “coming in uninvited”, although I’m sure you were trying to be funny about it, reflects the defect in your way of thinking pretty well.

TheDaver

10th April 2009, 02:44 PM

Without letting this thread spin wildly off-topic, most of the gun owners on this forum understand and respect the difference between using lethal force on someone breaking in for a TV and someone who represents an immediate threat to them and their family. :)
This is true.

But that isn’t to say that the gun isn’t the right tool for both.

Yes, guns kill, but they also deter.

T.A.M.

10th April 2009, 03:45 PM

I think your choice of words “coming in uninvited”, although I’m sure you were trying to be funny about it, reflects the defect in your way of thinking pretty well.

please elaborate on the "defect" in my thinking?

TAM:)

Cl1mh4224rd

28th June 2011, 06:37 PM

Just to update everyone: Richard Poplawski Sentenced To Death For Police Murders (http://www.wtae.com/news/28380368/detail.html).

PGH

29th June 2011, 06:13 AM

And it's the news everyone was hoping for. Whatever his beliefs were his actions were murdering 3 city cops. He's going to die and every stupid idea that ever went through his psychopath head will die with him.

sadhatter

29th June 2011, 09:11 AM

Horrible comparison.

Doom doesn't tell you to go kill kids at school. Hell, unless you modified the game, you never killed a single human being: All you kill is demons from HELL. If anything, this game teaches moral values about protecting the human race!

Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists try their best to dehumanize anyone who works for the government, including cops, so that is okay to inflict harm onto them. Although I doubt this would happen, I would love to see Alex Jones receive some blame for this. He is telling people that murder is OK and that there should be an armed revolution.

I know this is an ancient post in a zombie thread, but.....

Technically, unless you have read the books ( which are obscure as hell, though awesome, even though all other works by the authors sucked. ) you wouldn't know that one of the enemies isn't human ( bloke with the chaingun, actually a clone. But never mentioned in the game itself.).

Your point stands, of course, but doom minutia is one of my strong suits.