No I'm saying that Tracy is not claiming Sandy Hook was a hoax perpetrated in order to argue for gun control like you claim so the way I see it you are just making the connection in order to smear one side of a political debate.

The link you post references exactly two (2) people making gun control related hoax claims, a lawyer and a talk show host, as if a Shock Jock and an ambulance chaser couldn't have some other reason for making such controversial statements.

If Tracy wasn't saying that, then why did he say:
Link - http://memoryholeblog.com/2012/12/24...g-information/


Oh, and if it was just two people who believed in the conspiracy then how did Gene Rosen get so much online harassment? Or Robbie Parker? How about the 'Sandy Hook Exposed' video who Snopes ran an article about here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/newtown.asp
If no-one else had such thoughts about this event then how do these things happen? Unless these two men, the Shock Jock and the Ambulance Chaser are very prolific on the internet. :hmmm:

Sounds like you're quoting this nut after his admission that something actually did happen at Sandy Hook right? Well perpetrating a hoax versus taking political advantage of an incident are two very different things. Even you can't deny that anti-gun forces have attempted the latter every time there has been an attack. They are even trying to use the San Bernadino terrorist attack to advance their political agenda.

Here's some more:

http://www.debate.org/opinions/was-t...rol-conspiracy

http://kdvr.com/2015/10/05/strong-st...-to-step-down/

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=si...OQC8fSUca3l8gL

One site with anonymous posts and the other two about just two individuals. Like I said, way to try and smear a couple hundred million pro-gun people. :up:

That quote is from the article he wrote on December 24th 2012, ten days after the attack. Calls for his resignation didn't reach the mainstream media until January 9th 2013.
The thing is, and perhaps using the word 'hoax' in this manner is misleading, but what Tracy believes is not that nothing happened at Sandy Hook, but that an operation took place there in order to advance the governments agenda against gun ownership and the second amendment.

Take a look at his book:
http://rense.com/general96/nobodydied.html


That is as maybe, but that's beyond the remit of this thread, this thread is about a man who believes that the government deliberately orchestrated the event at Sandy Hook in order to advance an anti-gun agenda, and sadly he is not alone in his belief, and even more sadly, people who also think the same way that this man does will harrass parents of the children who died at Sandy Hook and people involved on that terrible day in their quest to get the 'ultimate scoop' to prove that Sandy Hook was a government action.
I dare say similar things happen to people who survived 9/11, they probably also get idiots chasing after them trying to get them to admit it was a cruise missile fired by George Bush in order to raise oil prices for his masters at Halliburton, or some such nonsense. :nope:

And where did I link these people with those people?

The thing is Oberon both sides in just about any debate subject can find negative examples that fit their agendas but that does not mean they are representative of the whole. When you use amorphous terms like "certain people" in a debate as large as gun control you are unfairly stigmatizing millions of people.

It was an amorphous term, I'll grant that, and I would be lying if I said that my mind didn't add 'right wing nutjobs' after it, but I'll also freely admit that I'm aware of left-wing nutjobs just as numerous as those on the right.
What you might not realise, and that's fair enough because I've often been used as the perfect example of the liberal loon in these parts is that I do not classify all pro-gun members as 'right wing nutjobs', heck, everyones favourite democratic socialist, Bernie Saunders, has come under fire on the left because of his stance on gun control not being strict enough for some.
So honestly when I mean 'certain people', I mean the fringe element, the negative examples more than I mean the whole because I understand the difference between the two. Just like I understand the difference between a normal Muslim and a radical Muslim, which is another point where you can find plenty of negative examples in order to unfair stigmatize millions, no, billions of people, but of course, that's for a different topic and I don't want to run this thread into an iceberg like the other one. :haha: :03:

I know why you're jumpy, you expect the same blowback when some nutjob goes amuck with a gun in a school or something that I expect when some radical Muslim nutjob goes amuck.

It's hard work being a moderate, eh? :03: