Comments on: School shooting conspiracy theory http://skeltoac.com/2008/02/16/school-shooting-conspiracy-theory/ First name: Andy. Last name: Skelton. Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:51:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7-bleeding By: Andy Skelton http://skeltoac.com/2008/02/16/school-shooting-conspiracy-theory/#comment-1911 Andy Skelton Sun, 17 Feb 2008 05:06:23 +0000 http://skeltoac.com/?p=171#comment-1911 Creative indeed! While all forms of "theorizing" are basically an expression of creativity, I meant this one to be light-hearted, if not fully untruthful. Lately I have grown tired of blaming the American evil empire for everything wrong in the world. Maybe I should pick on Australia? ;-) No, I love your PM. Creative indeed! While all forms of “theorizing” are basically an expression of creativity, I meant this one to be light-hearted, if not fully untruthful.

Lately I have grown tired of blaming the American evil empire for everything wrong in the world. Maybe I should pick on Australia? ;-) No, I love your PM.

]]> By: Sam Bauers http://skeltoac.com/2008/02/16/school-shooting-conspiracy-theory/#comment-1909 Sam Bauers Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:14:45 +0000 http://skeltoac.com/?p=171#comment-1909 Seems a little far-fetched. If the historical context of the writing of the second amendment is followed then in fact the federal government will have no desire to stem the abolition of firearms. The ability of the states or public to raise militia is meant to be integral in stopping the federal government ruling by the sword with it's armies. So you would think those most interested in disarming the populace would be your own federal government, not some "foreign enemy". It would have to be a long term plan on the part of a foreign entity in any case, not to mention a really long shot. Given the trouble that the might of the US armed forces have had containing insurgency backed by small arms in Iraq, you might consider that the federal governments biggest fear is a well-armed local militia that may oppose them in their own backyard. Your suggestion buys in too easily to the idea that your threats lie beyond your borders. This has proved to be historically inaccurate on more than one occasion, usually in the postmortem of a foreign conflict. But that melds well with the general air of paranoia that conspiracy theory usually bathes in. I hope you are just engaging in creative writing here, if so you've done well. Seems a little far-fetched. If the historical context of the writing of the second amendment is followed then in fact the federal government will have no desire to stem the abolition of firearms. The ability of the states or public to raise militia is meant to be integral in stopping the federal government ruling by the sword with it’s armies. So you would think those most interested in disarming the populace would be your own federal government, not some “foreign enemy”. It would have to be a long term plan on the part of a foreign entity in any case, not to mention a really long shot.

Given the trouble that the might of the US armed forces have had containing insurgency backed by small arms in Iraq, you might consider that the federal governments biggest fear is a well-armed local militia that may oppose them in their own backyard.

Your suggestion buys in too easily to the idea that your threats lie beyond your borders. This has proved to be historically inaccurate on more than one occasion, usually in the postmortem of a foreign conflict. But that melds well with the general air of paranoia that conspiracy theory usually bathes in.

I hope you are just engaging in creative writing here, if so you’ve done well.

]]>