No Solid Proof Paddock Was The Shooter

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish through use of Article V, what did they intend to serve the purpose of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish IF freedom of speech was not intended to serve that purpose?

 

This is the opinion forum and the thread is based on opinions. We ask questions because they leave too many unanswered.
No thinking person could claim it is what they say it is when what little they say is full of holes.
I'm basically taking a break from this anyway. But all anyone wants to discuss is politics it seems.

 

I have yet to see any PROOF that there was a second shooter. Guys come on why make this more complicated then it has to be? I know conspiracies are fun but does everything thing big in the world need to be one? Guy has guns, guy goes crazy, guy kills people, guy shoots himself, done over. That is unless you have proof of anything different. Oh and if you do please give it to the FBI

 

If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish through use of Article V, what did they intend to serve the purpose of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish IF freedom of speech was not intended to serve that purpose?

 

What free speech? Freedom of speech left with freedom of association and states rights. There were about 3 federal laws in 1780s now there are 10000s.

 

CAB refuses to answer these questions.

CAB, you are no Constitutional authority. You clearly don't understand the document.

1) Do you love and support our Constitution?

2) Do you accept that you are not an authority on the Constitution?

3) Do you understand that the "ultimate purpose of free speech" is to speak freely? You are doing that.

And now CAB is talking about Mullah hypnotic powers?

And now CAB is using sealion tactics perfected by Alinsky and Limbaugh to deflect the conversation. He asks questions about Art V that have nothing to do with the OP.

Oh, vey.

 

Yes,this is the "political" opinion & beliefs section of the forum, not "conspiracy theory" section--mmmm,wonder why anyone then would want to talk politics???

 

Why would you ask such questions when the case is still under investigation and basically all the media has to print is unproven conjecture?

 

There could have been 2 people.

 

Not unless they could fly out of a 32nd floor window..Paddock was locked in and barricaded from the inside.

 

Not a theory that questions are unanswered so whats your point? You have no more facts about this than anyone else does so if there is any theory here it comes from those who deny we have a problem with the facts not making any sense and proof there were more one than one shooter. Just because some want to deny it doesn't make it any less factual.
Why not open your mind and listen to the evidence instead of lies?

 

Not unless they could fly out of a 32nd floor window..Paddock was locked in and barricaded from the inside.

 

The only thing that flew out the window was the lefts coo coo bird.

 

LOL, you defy logic with 1), because I AM suporting the constitution. 2) is nonsense from you because you are not being accountable to the principles of the constitution which removes your rightful authority to EVEN inquire agent.

You have not explained how American state Citizens are to unify to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable right without free speech serving the PURPOSE of doing so. This renders you with no credibility for asking. You have shown you are against the constitution by failing to recognize its most prime intents.

And, you will not even say why you fail to accept those intents.

 

Please,reread your post that I responded to!
And just for the record,I am listening to the evidence as it comes out,--Are you?
I say that because you are the one making assumptions before the investigation is complete.
The Las Vegas authorities are asking for anyone ----" If you saw or heard anything,say something"----that to me does not sound like anyone trying to cover up ,it tells me they are wanting the truth as much as everybody else---

 

Blue birds is my best friend of 55 years favorite bird. Your not her are you? LOL>

To ask questions is to be informed. To just take whatever they dish out is to be in denial.

 

Why not ask while the news is still new? Once they get through with it no telling what they will have fed us. I don't trust them or anyone else for that matter but I do kno what my own ears hear and that is two guns firing at different intervals and at the same time in different sequences. But people believe what they want to believe according the messenger they follow.

 

Where was this? I heard one. Different intervals? I heard a bump stock firing at different speeds which is typical depending on how securely the weapon is held.

Why not withhold judgment until the investigation is over and the reports are finished?

The messenger you seem to follow is named Conjecture.

 

A salient point!

Currently all speech is considered equal, but the creation of "free speech zones" was one of the first major encroachments onto what was fairly free.

The notion that all speech is equal is seriously flawed. Obviously the speech that preserves free speech is the the greatest speech. Or extending that, the speech that protects all rights is the greater. Unity is needed to protect rights, so speech enabling that with law is the ultimate. But, the implications include the protection of unalienable rights.

The PURPOSE of free speech is part of the right that protects all rights, which is something American state Citizens can develop under the 9th Amendment, the 1st Amendment and Article V.

 

Yes, and use evidence! People that were on the ground have no reason to lie and their testimony is the best we can find.



This site has good background on the shooter.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/las-vegas-shooting-suspect-stephen-paddock/story?id=50225619

 

When the message they put out is false then why is it wrong of others to call them on it? They are claiming it was one shooter. Also hiding evidence from the people.

 

The shooter had made at least 1 trip to the Phillipines.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-stephen-paddock-made-mysterious-100000-wire/

 

Not sure I follow you but I do agree unity is what protects all rights. Since we are divided now we are also losing all rights including free speech.
Out so called free press has turned into a fifth column of some agenda promoters from hell,imo. Most people get their rights confused with their obligations. Free speech is not free.it has to be earned.

 

This alleged warning from a woman that people were going to die sounds like something a kook might say. There are plenty of crazy people running around talking such crap, and it will stand out if it happens to precede actual deaths as "promised." It doesn't mean she was connected to what happened or knew that it was going to happen. After all, it isn't like she was at all specific about it, going by what has been reported. Again, just sounds like the words of some angry, unbalanced person.

But, of course, people like there to be a conspiracy. Tragedies like this are more "interesting" to some people if there is some grandiose conspiracy behind it. People like mysteries. This is why crime novels and TV shows and movies get so convoluted about characters and plots, and why these are so popular. Real life seldom measures up to these, but that won't stop some people from trying to make something up anyway and seize on any reported claim, true or false, that might support such thinking.

 

The public NEVER has access to open cases. That is not "hiding." You can request the entire case file once the investigation is over, assuming nobody is charged. If another person is charged relative to this case, then you'll have to wait until that case is adjudicated.

Since you have no access to those files as of yet, how do you know they give "false messages" to people? For what basis do you have to call them out?

Concern by conjecture on TV, unverified statements and claims?