Donald Trump running for president

[Jiigzz]

You're making up false stats like you say Ax1 does. There's stats that show banning 30 round magazines didn't lower gun crime.

I'm not 'making up facts' LOL you're the one saying less rounds won't do less harm. Logic dictate it could do that. I'm simply making an assumption that we can't really can't validate, unless you can point me in the direction of these studies

 

[thebigt]

Nothing like Clinton colluding with Putin to get payed kickbacks to Clinton crime foundation for approving Uranium One deal

look at the names of fbi agents that knew about the corruption but didn't report it---see any familiar names?

 

[youngandfree]

I'm not 'making up facts' LOL you're the one saying less rounds won't do less harm. Logic dictate it could do that. I'm simply making an assumption that we can't really can't validate, unless you can point me in the direction of these studies

You're assuming less rounds WILL MEAN LESS HARM.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Jiigzz]

You're assuming less rounds WILL MEAN LESS HARM.

Invalid Link Removed

Whereas you're assuming it wouldn't.

Also, that is an opinion piece not research

 

[youngandfree]

Whereas you're assuming it wouldn't.

Also, that is an opinion piece not research

It references the study, keep digging

 

[Jiigzz]

It references the study, keep digging

I can't find it, but did see they wrote this:

"It's true that these rifles are often sold with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines that increase their lethality, enabling a shooter to fire more than a dozen rounds quickly. (Such magazines are illegal to sell in California.) But again, these firearms are not unique in this. About half the handguns in the U.S. also have detachable high-capacity magazines".

Not quite backing you up there is it?

Edit: they mention it, but don't cite it.

So, even though a lot of handguns are used in mass shootings, a lot of them can hold high capacity magazines. So why not just restrict high capacity magazines?

 

[thebigt]

:burger:

had to drive to indy today and stopped at carver's, man those butter burgers are fantastic!!!

 

[Jiigzz]

In 2011, a shooting in Tucson, Arizona, was stopped when the gunman stopped firing in order to change magazines. The "high-capacity" magazine on his Glock pistol allowed him to fire 31 rounds before pausing. The Glock company website said that a standard magazine for its 9 mm semiautomatic pistol was between 13 and 17 rounds.[4]

In the 2012 Aurora shooting, a 100-round drum magazine used by the shooter jammed. According to one senior FBI agent, "If his firing mechanism had not seized, he could have wiped out the entire audience in a few minutes."[5] Although they delivering a large number of rounds, drum magazines are known to be unreliable, and heavy enough to significantly reduce accuracy. [6]

The debate regarding magazine capacity intensified in the U.S. after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where an AR-15 style rifle with 30-round magazines were used by the shooter. In January 2013, President Barack Obama included a ban on gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds in a list of gun-control laws he asked Congress to act on, but no legislation was successfully passed.[7]

The gunman in the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting used a 30-round magazine for his Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle.[8] That was one of 17 high-profile mass shootings which involved the use of "high-capacity" magazines that were cited by the Los Angeles City Council when it passes a ban on possession of such magazines in 2015.[9] Other local incidents cited by supporters of the ban include the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting and the 2013 Santa Monica College shooting.[10] Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik used 30-round magazines illegal in California during the 2015 San Bernardino attack. Four such magazines were in their possession.[11] Following the attack, there were calls for banning possession of "high-capacity" magazines in California.[12][13]

 

[muscleupcrohn]

In 2011, a shooting in Tucson, Arizona, was stopped when the gunman stopped firing in order to change magazines. The "high-capacity" magazine on his Glock pistol allowed him to fire 31 rounds before pausing. The Glock company website said that a standard magazine for its 9 mm semiautomatic pistol was between 13 and 17 rounds.[4]

In the 2012 Aurora shooting, a 100-round drum magazine used by the shooter jammed. According to one senior FBI agent, "If his firing mechanism had not seized, he could have wiped out the entire audience in a few minutes."[5] Although they delivering a large number of rounds, drum magazines are known to be unreliable, and heavy enough to significantly reduce accuracy. [6]

The debate regarding magazine capacity intensified in the U.S. after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where an AR-15 style rifle with 30-round magazines were used by the shooter. In January 2013, President Barack Obama included a ban on gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds in a list of gun-control laws he asked Congress to act on, but no legislation was successfully passed.[7]

The gunman in the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting used a 30-round magazine for his Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle.[8] That was one of 17 high-profile mass shootings which involved the use of "high-capacity" magazines that were cited by the Los Angeles City Council when it passes a ban on possession of such magazines in 2015.[9] Other local incidents cited by supporters of the ban include the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting and the 2013 Santa Monica College shooting.[10] Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik used 30-round magazines illegal in California during the 2015 San Bernardino attack. Four such magazines were in their possession.[11] Following the attack, there were calls for banning possession of "high-capacity" magazines in California.[12][13]

I’d be fine “compromising” on a 30 round magazine limit. 10 would just cause a lot of problems with the millions of legal 10-17 round handgun magazines, and the 20-30 round rifle magazines already on the market. There are probably more than several million of these, probably many more than that, in circulation already. That means everyone with a double-stack handgun, AR, etc would have to turn in all of their magazines and buy new ones. Your article supported my previous claims, that big drum mags are unreliable and negatively impact accuracy. I don’t see any need for >30 round magazines for handguns at all, and no practical use for >30 rounds for rifles among civilians for defensive purposes.

 

[youngandfree]

I can't find it, but did see they wrote this:

"It's true that these rifles are often sold with detachable high-capacity ammunition magazines that increase their lethality, enabling a shooter to fire more than a dozen rounds quickly. (Such magazines are illegal to sell in California.) But again, these firearms are not unique in this. About half the handguns in the U.S. also have detachable high-capacity magazines".

Not quite backing you up there is it?

Edit: they mention it, but don't cite it.

So, even though a lot of handguns are used in mass shootings, a lot of them can hold high capacity magazines. So why not just restrict high capacity magazines?

You didn't quote the part saying the laws have been largely "ineffectual".

The laws, however, are largely ineffectual. Because these guns are really just ordinary rifles, it is hard for legislators to effectively regulate them without banning half the handguns in the country (those that are semiautomatic and/or have detachable magazines) and many hunting rifles as well.

Or this part:
Little wonder then that a 2004 study commissioned by the Department of Justice found that the federal ban didn't lead to any decrease in gun crime or gun deaths. For starters, rifles, assault or otherwise, are rarely used in gun crime. Notwithstanding the two rifles used in San Bernardino (and a few other memorable mass killings), rifles account for only about 3% of criminal gun deaths. Gun crime in the United States, including most mass shootings, is overwhelmingly handgun crime.

 

[youngandfree]

In 2011, a shooting in Tucson, Arizona, was stopped when the gunman stopped firing in order to change magazines. The "high-capacity" magazine on his Glock pistol allowed him to fire 31 rounds before pausing. The Glock company website said that a standard magazine for its 9 mm semiautomatic pistol was between 13 and 17 rounds.[4]

In the 2012 Aurora shooting, a 100-round drum magazine used by the shooter jammed. According to one senior FBI agent, "If his firing mechanism had not seized, he could have wiped out the entire audience in a few minutes."[5] Although they delivering a large number of rounds, drum magazines are known to be unreliable, and heavy enough to significantly reduce accuracy. [6]

The debate regarding magazine capacity intensified in the U.S. after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting where an AR-15 style rifle with 30-round magazines were used by the shooter. In January 2013, President Barack Obama included a ban on gun magazines with capacities of more than 10 rounds in a list of gun-control laws he asked Congress to act on, but no legislation was successfully passed.[7]

The gunman in the 2013 Los Angeles International Airport shooting used a 30-round magazine for his Smith & Wesson M&P-15 rifle.[8] That was one of 17 high-profile mass shootings which involved the use of "high-capacity" magazines that were cited by the Los Angeles City Council when it passes a ban on possession of such magazines in 2015.[9] Other local incidents cited by supporters of the ban include the Los Angeles Jewish Community Center shooting and the 2013 Santa Monica College shooting.[10] Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik used 30-round magazines illegal in California during the 2015 San Bernardino attack. Four such magazines were in their possession.[11] Following the attack, there were calls for banning possession of "high-capacity" magazines in California.[12][13]

The 4 30 round magazines in the San Bernardino muslim attack weren't the only thing illegal about the guns they used. But somehow the strict assault weapons ban in Cali didn't prevent it.

 

[ax1]

Im still trying figure out different ball scenarios, things can get complicated. No science, no facts...just theory and lots of danger.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

 

[ax1]

The 4 30 round magazines in the San Bernardino muslim attack weren't the only thing illegal about the guns they used. But somehow the strict assault weapons ban in Cali didn't prevent it.

Didnt he have a police officers gun and didnt the white house call a stand down order on the FBI when they were investigating them?

And people wanna use that as an excuse for gun control???

 

[CJNator]

Well those are a couple of reasons of many that may or may not kids get on meds.

My nephew’s school wanted him on meds because he kept doing things...and his parents are together.

Yes I said he “kept doing things.” They prefer subvertant zombies I guess.

I’ve met kids without fathers who happen to be incredible people so I kinda disagree with you. It’s a case by case basis.

Well I was going to go into this but this is another subject I’ll need to look into since I haven’t done too much research recently.

 

[Jiigzz]

You didn't quote the part saying the laws have been largely "ineffectual".

The laws, however, are largely ineffectual. Because these guns are really just ordinary rifles, it is hard for legislators to effectively regulate them without banning half the handguns in the country (those that are semiautomatic and/or have detachable magazines) and many hunting rifles as well.

Or this part:
Little wonder then that a 2004 study commissioned by the Department of Justice found that the federal ban didn't lead to any decrease in gun crime or gun deaths. For starters, rifles, assault or otherwise, are rarely used in gun crime. Notwithstanding the two rifles used in San Bernardino (and a few other memorable mass killings), rifles account for only about 3% of criminal gun deaths. Gun crime in the United States, including most mass shootings, is overwhelmingly handgun crime.

Cmon man, read it carefully.

The ban was on rifles and assault weapons (whatever that is) but did not extend to high capacity mags for handguns. Read that again. They banned guns that are rarely used in crime, but didn't limit high cap mags when they are used in crime

 

[youngandfree]

Cmon man, read it carefully.

The ban was on rifles and assault weapons (whatever that is) but did not extend to high capacity mags for handguns. Read that again. They banned guns that are rarely used in crime, but didn't limit high cap mags when they are used in crime

You're ignorance on the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban can be overlooked, but it also banned any magazine over 10 rounds, handgun or rifle.
Invalid Link Removed

 

[Aleksandar37]

You're ignorance on the 1993 Assault Weapons Ban can be overlooked, but it also banned any magazine over 10 rounds, handgun or rifle.
Invalid Link Removed

And now we have a straw man. You specifically referred to the magazine ban and Jiigzz specifically asked you about that. Now you can't find stats to back up your claim even though you said they exist and mocked him for not seeing them in that opinion piece and now you're falling back on a vague, general assault weapon ban.

 

[youngandfree]

And now we have a straw man. You specifically referred to the magazine ban and Jiigzz specifically asked you about that. Now you can't find stats to back up your claim even though you said they exist and mocked him for not seeing them in that opinion piece and now you're falling back on a vague, general assault weapon ban.

I posted a link showing the AWB included all high capacity magazines, not just assault weapons, so I don't know how that's a strawman argument. You should have read the link also.

 

[Aleksandar37]

I posted a link showing the AWB included all high capacity magazines, not just assault weapons, so I don't know how that's a strawman argument. You should have read the link also.

I read both links. If YOU read the first link you posted, you'll clearly see that their main argument for having the opinion that they have is "But again, these firearms are not unique in this. About half the handguns in the U.S. also have detachable high-capacity magazines." Their opinion is that the high-capacity magazines are dangerous, not just what the gun looks like. If you're now moving to the wikipedia link you also posted and forgetting the article you posted, you still haven't posted the stats you claim exist.

 

[youngandfree]

I read both links. If YOU read the first link you posted, you'll clearly see that their main argument for having the opinion that they have is "But again, these firearms are not unique in this. About half the handguns in the U.S. also have detachable high-capacity magazines." Their opinion is that the high-capacity magazines are dangerous, not just what the gun looks like. If you're now moving to the wikipedia link you also posted and forgetting the article you posted, you still haven't posted the stats you claim exist.

I clearly posted a lefty LA Times article that says the AWB didn't do anything and referenced a justice department study they cited. Then I posted the Wiki on the AWB because Jigzz claimed erroneously that the AWB didn't have anything to do with handgun magazines, so I merely pointed him in the right direction, indicating it did indeed include high cap handgun magazines also. I'm not changing sides on anything. Don't assume my position changed.

 

[youngandfree]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Aleksandar37]

I clearly posted a lefty LA Times article that says the AWB didn't do anything and referenced a justice department study they cited. Then I posted the Wiki on the AWB because Jigzz claimed erroneously that the AWB didn't have anything to do with handgun magazines, so I merely pointed him in the right direction, indicating it did indeed include high cap handgun magazines also. I'm not changing sides on anything. Don't assume my position changed.

Who said you were changing sides? Do you not understand what a straw man fallacy is?

You said you have stats specifically for the effect of banning high capacity magazines and he said he didn't doubt you, but asked to please see it. Do you not have the stats?

 

[Aleksandar37]

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

Please see the section titled "Effectiveness of the ban"

Also, this part "Manufacturers took advantage of this loophole in the months leading up to the ban by boosting production of the magazines. As a result, they continued to be readily available — and legal — nationwide even during the time the 1994 Act was in effect, except where specifically banned by state or local law. Additionally, because most magazines do not have any identifying marks to indicate when they were manufactured, it was difficult to distinguish those made before or after the ban"

 

[thebigt]

Im still trying figure out different ball scenarios, things can get complicated. No science, no facts...just theory and lots of danger.

Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

who's got the biggest balls of em all......whole lotta rosie is ready to shake them all night long....

 

[youngandfree]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[youngandfree]

Invalid Link Removed

Please see the section titled "Effectiveness of the ban"

Also, this part "Manufacturers took advantage of this loophole in the months leading up to the ban by boosting production of the magazines. As a result, they continued to be readily available — and legal — nationwide even during the time the 1994 Act was in effect, except where specifically banned by state or local law. Additionally, because most magazines do not have any identifying marks to indicate when they were manufactured, it was difficult to distinguish those made before or after the ban"

"Despite these limitations, evidence indicates that the federal ban worked to reduce the use of large capacity magazines in crime. A Washington Post study analyzed data kept by the Virginia State Police and found a clear decline in the percentage of crime guns that were equipped with large capacity ammunition magazines after the federal ban was enacted.17 The percentage reached a low of 10% in 2004 and then steadily climbed after Congress allowed the ban to expire; by 2010, the percentage was close to 22%.18"

This doesn't say it reduced gun crime, it says the percentage of guns used with high cap mags went down. Doesn't indicate any reduction in actual total gun crime.

 

[Aleksandar37]

You're making up false stats like you say Ax1 does. There's stats that show banning 30 round magazines didn't lower gun crime.

These are your words. You keep posting references to much more general stats (i.e. overall assualt weapons vs just the effect of the magazines). Where are these stats that you claimed exist?

 

[Aleksandar37]

Invalid Link Removed

Here. This is right out of the study you're standing behind.

"The findings of the previous chapters suggest that it is premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Although criminal use of AWs has declined since the ban, this reduction was offset through at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs. As argued previously, the LCM ban has greater potential for reducing gun deaths and injuries than does the AW
ban. Guns with LCMs – of which AWs are only a subset – were used in up to 25% of gun crimes before the ban, whereas AWs were used in no more than 8% (Chapter 3). Furthermore, an LCM is arguably the most important feature of an AW. Hence, use of guns with LCMs is probably more consequential than use of guns with other militarystyle features, such as flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, threaded barrels for attaching a silencers, and so on."

 

[youngandfree]

Here. This is right out of the study you're standing behind.

"The findings of the previous chapters suggest that it is premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun violence. Although criminal use of AWs has declined since the ban, this reduction was offset through at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs. As argued previously, the LCM ban has greater potential for reducing gun deaths and injuries than does the AW
ban. Guns with LCMs – of which AWs are only a subset – were used in up to 25% of gun crimes before the ban, whereas AWs were used in no more than 8% (Chapter 3). Furthermore, an LCM is arguably the most important feature of an AW. Hence, use of guns with LCMs is probably more consequential than use of guns with other militarystyle features, such as flash hiders, folding rifle stocks, threaded barrels for attaching a silencers, and so on."

so it's premature to make a definitive assessment, but we're going to make an assumption anyway. Having greater potential to do something in the future is different than a definitive claim that it actually reduced gun crime.

 

[youngandfree]

Invalid Link Removed

Here's another article.

The author of the studies cited says there's no evidence it reduced crime, but makes an assumption that the magazine MAY reduce crime some, albeit a barely measurable amount.

"Koper, Jan 14: In general we found, really, very, very little evidence, almost none, that gun violence was becoming any less lethal or any less injurious during this time frame. So on balance, we concluded that the ban had not had a discernible impact on gun crime during the years it was in effect.

But Koper went on to say that an assault weapons ban “could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings” if allowed to remain in place for a longer time frame.
Koper, Jan. 14: The grandfathering provisions in the law meant that the effects of the law would occur only very gradually over time. It seems that those effects were still unfolding when the ban was lifted, and indeed they may not have been fully realized for several more years into the future even if the ban had been extended in 2004.

The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings"

 

[Aleksandar37]

so it's premature to make a definitive assessment, but we're going to make an assumption anyway. Having greater potential to do something in the future is different than a definitive claim that it actually reduced gun crime.

Is there more than one person that uses your account? You posted "proof." I posted why your "proof" doesn't support what you've been saying. You attack the "proof" that you posted.

 

[youngandfree]

Is there more than one person that uses your account? You posted "proof." I posted why your "proof" doesn't support what you've been saying. You attack the "proof" that you posted.

I refuted your reasoning. My proof says it's premature to make a definitive assessment. You cherry pick and highlight an assumption the author made claiming that it disproves my point.

 

[Aleksandar37]

I refuted your reasoning. My proof says it's premature to make a definitive assessment. You cherry pick and highlight an assumption the author made claiming that it disproves my point.

Your statement is that "There's stats that show banning 30 round magazines didn't lower gun crime." You posted that study to back up your claim. I'm the one that actually read it and posted relevant sections which includes that part you're trying to pass off as your own. I'm not proving or disproving anything, but showing that the study you cited doesn't actually support your claim whether you want to focus on their belief that banning large capacity magazines has potential for lowering gun deaths or that it's still premature to see if there was an effect (choose either one you ****ing want, neither supports your claim).

So still waiting for you to post these stats you said exist. Not opinion pieces that don't cite a single study or outside reference or wikipedia. Actual stats from an actual study.

 

[thebigt]

geez, how many times do you want to beat a dead horse?


this topic is sooooo over cooked it smells like week old burnt toast....

 

[Aleksandar37]

geez, how many times do you want to beat a dead horse?


this topic is sooooo over cooked it smells like week old burnt toast....

If somebody makes a claim that stats exist to the point that they're going to talk down to others and accuse them of being ignorant, I will ask for proof until it's crystal clear that they were lying from the start. All sides of the gun issue need to stop making crap up to support their side, which is more than just two.

 

[thebigt]

I know a guy who knows a guy who once read a study-he must be a expert......

 

[Aleksandar37]

geez, how many times do you want to beat a dead horse?


this topic is sooooo over cooked it smells like week old burnt toast....

Also, didn't you post about Hillary today that's figuratively and literally

 

[youngandfree]

If somebody makes a claim that stats exist to the point that they're going to talk down to others and accuse them of being ignorant, I will ask for proof until it's crystal clear that they were lying from the start. All sides of the gun issue need to stop making crap up to support their side, which is more than just two.

His ignorance was his claim that the AWB didn't have anything to do with handguns, which is how this track got started. His ignorance comes from him being in New Zealand, so that's why I said I'd overlook it.

It's so easy to get you worked up.

 

[Aleksandar37]

His ignorance was his claim that the AWB didn't have anything to do with handguns, which is how this track got started. His ignorance comes from him being in New Zealand, so that's why I said I'd overlook it.

It's so easy to get you worked up.

It's funny to watch the angles you try to avoid admitting you're a fraud. I'm not at all worked up. I simply believe liars should be outed for the liars they are.

 

[youngandfree]

It's funny to watch the angles you try to avoid admitting you're a fraud. I'm not at all worked up. I simply believe liars should be outed for the liars they are.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[ax1]

geez, how many times do you want to beat a dead horse?


this topic is sooooo over cooked it smells like week old burnt toast....

Yeah Im tired of the gun thing, balls are more interesting. Everybody here is well intended with good motives so what difference does it make!

What I wanna know is where is Jesus!

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Aleksandar37]

Yeah Im tired of the gun thing, balls are more interesting. Everybody here is well intended with good motives so what difference does it make!

What I wanna know is where is Jesus!

Invalid Link Removed

Invalid Link Removed

He's on the Ellen Degeneres show. It's not that odd for somebody to either get stressed out and stage fright about doing a bunch of interviews or realize that everybody wants to talk to him so he can pick whoever he wants to speak to.

 

[ax1]

Invalid Link Removed

He's on the Ellen Degeneres show. It's not that odd for somebody to either get stressed out and stage fright about doing a bunch of interviews or realize that everybody wants to talk to him so he can pick whoever he wants to speak to.

Ok thanks I had no idea...Im really behind on the whole Vegas thing. Still struggling with Jet lag and having trouble catching up with this stuff.

You guys should pay a little attention to President Xi doing the twice a decade address to the Party Congress...it will start on the 19th and last all week.

Beijing had so much security they had guards on every single bus, train, many corners, street....I had never seen anything like that my 12 years going there. I heard foreigners were getting surprise visits from the police to get checked up on, I wasnt one of them. I did have a security guard in a bank follow me out the door and ask me in Chinese if I like China and I cheered him up real well.

This will mark the transition between President Xi's 1st and 2nd term. Traditionally the Prez will name a successor but Xi is unexpected to do so. There may be a move and prepare steps to lead himself to an unprecedented 3rd and 4th term which will last up to 20 years (dictatorship.) It wont be announced but if he doesnt name a successor to prop him up for the next 5 years this is major.

They are implementing "Xi thought" and he has been purging the entire country political opposition with arrests, forced confessions and imprisonment. Targets have been close aids to the previous 2 presidents (my uncle was classmates with one of them!!!) so this has been serious business. There definite has been moves as to where many are considering the most powerful leader since Deng (Tianamen Square, 1989 called the shot.)

He just threatened Taiwan not to declare independence which is interesting as Washington continues to sell them arms.

Anyways, pay attention to China...what goes in China affects America and the rest of the globe.

 

[thebigt]

Ok thanks I had no idea...Im really behind on the whole Vegas thing. Still struggling with Jet lag and having trouble catching up with this stuff.

You guys should pay a little attention to President Xi doing the twice a decade address to the Party Congress...it will start on the 19th and last all week.

Beijing had so much security they had guards on every single bus, train, many corners, street....I had never seen anything like that my 12 years going there. I heard foreigners were getting surprise visits from the police to get checked up on, I wasnt one of them. I did have a security guard in a bank follow me out the door and ask me in Chinese if I like China and I cheered him up real well.

This will mark the transition between President Xi's 1st and 2nd term. Traditionally the Prez will name a successor but Xi is unexpected to do so. There may be a move and prepare steps to lead himself to an unprecedented 3rd and 4th term which will last up to 20 years (dictatorship.) It wont be announced but if he doesnt name a successor to prop him up for the next 5 years this is major.

They are implementing "Xi thought" and he has been purging the entire country political opposition with arrests, forced confessions and imprisonment. Targets have been close aids to the previous 2 presidents (my uncle was classmates with one of them!!!) so this has been serious business. There definite has been moves as to where many are considering the most powerful leader since Deng (Tianamen Square, 1989 called the shot.)

He just threatened Taiwan not to declare independence which is interesting as Washington continues to sell them arms.

Anyways, pay attention to China...what goes in China affects America and the rest of the globe.

thanks for the update, nice to get 1st hand info!!!

 

[thebigt]

Invalid Link Removed

He's on the Ellen Degeneres show. It's not that odd for somebody to either get stressed out and stage fright about doing a bunch of interviews or realize that everybody wants to talk to him so he can pick whoever he wants to speak to.

I know you will have something smart alek [pun intended] to say about this, but my gut tells me there is way more to this story than we are being told.

 

[Aleksandar37]

I know you will have something smart alek [pun intended] to say about this, but my gut tells me there is way more to this story than we are being told.

You're allowed to believe whatever you want, but which is more likely: 1) life isn't like the movies and this poor guy happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (or right time depending on how you look at it), gets shot, reluctantly becomes a "hero", gets swept up in the adrenaline of it all, but then starts to calm down and realizes that his face is going to be everywhere and he'll have to talk to millions of people through a camera, so he stresses out and takes a step back with his family and friends to choose the best way to tell his story once OR 2) whatever conspiracy theory you think he's a part of because you think a Vegas hotel owner is honest?

 

[CJNator]

People need to realize the government isn’t always corrupt or conspiring. The public sector is full of incompetent individuals so that may be perceived as conspiracy or corruption may just be incompetence.

 

[thebigt]

You're allowed to believe whatever you want, but which is more likely: 1) life isn't like the movies and this poor guy happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time (or right time depending on how you look at it), gets shot, reluctantly becomes a "hero", gets swept up in the adrenaline of it all, but then starts to calm down and realizes that his face is going to be everywhere and he'll have to talk to millions of people through a camera, so he stresses out and takes a step back with his family and friends to choose the best way to tell his story once OR 2) whatever conspiracy theory you think he's a part of because you think a Vegas hotel owner is honest?

I am writing down the number of this post so I can come back to it....if you believe the load of crap we are being told about the shooting I will have lost respect for you-too many things don't add up.

but you are on record as believing this fish tale to be the gospel truth!!!

 

[Aleksandar37]

I am writing down the number of this post so I can come back to it....if you believe the load of crap we are being told about the shooting I will have lost respect for you-too many things don't add up.

but you are on record as believing this fish tale to be the gospel truth!!!

I believe this guy wasn't hidden or killed by the government to shut him up which has been alleged in this very thread. Why are you extrapolating that to the entire incident? Everybody has been asking where he was. I love that I get **** for actually providing a factual answer.

 

[thebigt]

I believe this guy wasn't hidden or killed by the government to shut him up which has been alleged in this very thread. Why are you extrapolating that to the entire incident? Everybody has been asking where he was. I love that I get **** for actually providing a factual answer.

factual answer my left foot...I've got 5 bucks that says those facts will change AGAIN...wanna bet?

this story is not over yet, not by a long shot!!!