Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Mass shooting at Texas A&M

Posted 9 years ago on Aug. 13, 2012, 4:08 p.m. EST by jbgramps (159)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Six shot. One Constable dead serving an eviction notice. One block from the Texas A&M campus. Shooter wounded and in coustdy. Shooter not yet identified.



Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by Cwalsh1017 (2) from Muncie, IN 9 years ago

Just another attempt by the establishment to make people hate guns so they can take them away from us. But as a great patriot once said. "They can have my gun once they pry it from my cold, dead fingers" Guns are not the problem. The people that have bad intentions with them are. So do not let the government take our guns, its the only thing stopping them from totally enslaving this nation. Our ability to fight back.

[-] 1 points by cJessgo (729) from Port Jervis, PA 9 years ago

Charle was right but do you mean parrot not patriot?

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 9 years ago

I agree. They can't have my legal guns. Why don't they go after the criminals rather than people who want to protect themselves.

[-] -1 points by kaiserw (211) 9 years ago

“Pour rester libre, un peuple libre a besoin de canons.”

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 9 years ago

The title is deliberately misleading.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 9 years ago

Hmmm, so how many people have to get shot before it constitutes a mass shooting?

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 9 years ago

I mean the fact that it says AT Texas A&M rather than near, leading a person to believe you're talking about another school shooting.

"One constable dead serving an eviction notice" implies this shooting was over an eviction, not another mass school shooting. I'm not trying to diminish the tragedy, though, but it's misleading.

It reminds me of the incident in San Diego or Oakland last year when the headlines screamed "Shooting at OWS encampment" when, in fact, the shooting was down the street, totally unrelated to OWS.

[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 9 years ago

OK, what you say is probably true. But not intentionally misleading..

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 9 years ago

It depends on the motive of the person wording it. If they're your words, I can see how it could've been unintentional. If you copied it from a headline, I'd be a bit more skeptical.


[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 9 years ago

There's a mass shooting in Chicago and DC every night, and cops kill hundreds of people a year. You're 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than terrorism: http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/youre-eight-times-more-likely-to-be-killed-by-a-police-officer-than-a-terrorist/#.UCaKoi_LjXw.blogger

Stop falling for the media noise. Stop listening to the party "news". It's mostly narratives, cherry picked facts to distract you from reality. Any story that matters is spiked (omitted) like Chris Hedges piece (AWESOME), or spun - Bill Black criticizing goldman Sachs on MSNBC: http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/2012/08/bill-black-educates-media-on-nature-of.html by the apologist schills.

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 9 years ago

Who is Chris Hedges and where is the link?

[-] 2 points by kaiserw (211) 9 years ago

Christopher Lynn Hedges (born September 18, 1956) is an American Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and war correspondent specializing in American and Middle Eastern politics and societies.[1] His most recent book, written with the cartoonist Joe Sacco, is Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt (2012). The book shows the consequences of unregulated capitalism by reporting from "sacrifice zones", the poorest pockets of the United States such as Camden New Jersey and the the coal fields of southern West Virginia "that have been offered up for exploitation in the name of profit".

Hedges is also known as the best-selling author of several books including War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning (2002)—a finalist for the National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction—I Don't Believe in Atheists (2008) and Death of the Liberal Class (2010).

Chris Hedges is currently a senior fellow at The Nation Institute in New York City.[2] He spent nearly two decades as a foreign correspondent in Central America, the Middle East, Africa and the Balkans. He has reported from more than fifty countries, and has worked for The Christian Science Monitor, National Public Radio, The Dallas Morning News, and The New York Times,[1] where he was a foreign correspondent for fifteen years (1990–2005).

In 2002, Hedges was part of the team of reporters at The New York Times awarded the Pulitzer Prize for the paper's coverage of global terrorism. He also received in 2002 the Amnesty International Global Award for Human Rights Journalism. He has taught at Columbia University, New York University, Princeton University[1] and The University of Toronto. He writes a weekly column on Mondays for Truthdig and authored what The New York Times described as "a call to arms" for the first issue of The Occupied Wall Street Journal, the newspaper giving voice to the Occupy Wall Street protests in Zuccotti Park, New York City.

Chris Hedges and others take on the NDAA: http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2012/08/10/ndaa-the-most-important-lawsuit-in-american-history-that-no-one-is-talking-about/

Despite a mainstream media blackout on the topic, the alternative media is abuzz with this week’s hearing on the constitutionality of the clearly unconstitutional NDAA. In case you don’t remember, section 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law on December 31 of last year, allows the government to lock up U.S. citizens indefinitely without a trial. At the time of signing, Obama penned a pathetic letter to many of his outraged supporters where he basically said he signed it but he won’t use it. Thanks pal!

In any event, the Administration is showing its true colors by appealing an injunction that judge Katherine Forrest issued against it in May. The injunction was in response to the lawsuit filed by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Chris Hedges and others. While the NDAA clearly vaporizes the 5th and 6th Amendments of the Constitution, I believe the real target is the 1st Amendment. By having a law on the books that allows the government to arbitrarily lock anyone up and throw away the key, the government is actually trying to instill enough fear in people that they self-censor speech and become too afraid to criticize the criminal elite political and economic oligarchy.

Tangerine Bolen is one the lead plaintiffs in the suit against the government and she penned a powerful piece for the UK’s Guardian. Here are some key quotes:

I am one of the lead plaintiffs in the civil lawsuit against the National Defense Authorization Act, which gives the president the power to hold any US citizen anywhere for as long as he wants, without charge or trial.

In a May hearing, Judge Katherine Forrest issued an injunction against it; this week, in a final hearing in New York City, US government lawyers asserted even more extreme powers – the right to disregard entirely the judge and the law. On Monday 6 August, Obama’s lawyers filed an appeal to the injunction – a profoundly important development that, as of this writing, has been scarcely reported.

Judge Forrest had ruled for a temporary injunction against an unconstitutional provision in this law, after government attorneys refused to provide assurances to the court that plaintiffs and others would not be indefinitely detained for engaging in first amendment activities. At that time, twice the government has refused to define what it means to be an “associated force”, and it claimed the right to refrain from offering any clear definition of this term, or clear boundaries of power under this law.

This past week’s hearing was even more terrifying. Government attorneys again, in this hearing, presented no evidence to support their position and brought forth no witnesses. Most incredibly, Obama’s attorneys refused to assure the court, when questioned, that the NDAA’s section 1021 – the provision that permits reporters and others who have not committed crimes to be detained without trial – has not been applied by the US government anywhere in the world after Judge Forrest’s injunction.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 9 years ago

Govt again presented no evidence and no witnesses" Isn't that a good thing? Doesn't that make it easy for the judge to find against the govt defendants?

Y'know the Admin didn't write the law, Republicans did. The administration has committed to no indef detentions and there is no evidence they have. Only Bushs leftovers remain. The Admin is against this law but is bound to defend it by law.

The fact that they are putting up no witnesses and no evidence is a clear sign they are seeking the judge to find against them. Why else would they continue to mount such a weak case.

[-] 1 points by kaiserw (211) 9 years ago

It was bipartisan fool! Everything tyrannical always is!!!! Go look at the vote record, almost everybody voted FOR it!!!! Obama asked to KEEP the power, and remove the restrictions in the provisions to capture, arrest and kill Americans:

Here it is admitted on the House floor by (D) Sen Carl Levin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_ysdsxF3eo

Wake up! Your life may depend on it one day.

[-] 1 points by repubsRtheprob (1209) 9 years ago

Dems attempted to repeal it! Republicans defeated them! Pres Obama has not indef detained any new cases. Only republican Bush did that. Pres Obama has offered no witnesses, no evidence, in this case. These are the facts. The bipartisanship you cite is regarding the vote on the entire military budget. misleading to say the least. Why didn't he offer witnesses or evidence? Wake up!!! OOOOO!! your asleep. Wake up!! LOL

[-] 1 points by DebtNEUTRALITYpetition (647) 9 years ago

Harry's Law covered this court case on their television show. Harry's Law was the highest rated show for NBC this past season but was canceled. The final two episodes dealt with unlawful detainment by the government, and the prior episode included a plea by Harry to a judge to forget the law if the law is not doing right by the people of the country.

These are powerful messages and concepts, and it took a number cruncher at NBC to cancel the show even though it was rated number one among all NBC shows.


[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 9 years ago

Yeah, some Americans are stupid. Not a big revolation. But unfortunately stupidity is subjective.

Case in point. You probably think I'm a dumb ass red neck gun nut who's just waiting for the chance to shoot someone. I, on the other hand. view myself as a honest, law adiding and responsible member of society. Never been arested, always vote and love my wife, kids and grandkids. But that doesn't matter to you. All you see if someone who owns guns. Who's being stupid in this situation.


[-] 1 points by jbgramps (159) 9 years ago

Geting overly defensive in my old age. My apology. Damn anti-guns getting my on nerves I guess.