1991 Book Predicts School Shootings By Drugged Individuals In Order To Disarm Public.

Run_to_da_hills

It doesn't take much to see a pattern emerging, The Batman Aurora shooting which was allegedly carried out by a drugged up individual (Who was still off his head three days later at a court appearance from being continuously pumped with drugs).

Does this seem familiar? From the pages of Milton William Cooper’s 1991 book Behold A Pale Horse.


“The government encouraged the manufacture and importation of firearms for the criminals to use. This is intended to foster a feeling of insecurity, which would lead the American people to voluntarily disarm themselves by passing laws against firearms. Using drugs and hypnosis on mental patients in a process called Orion, the CIA inculcated the desire in these people to open fire on schoolyards and thus inflame the ant-igun lobby. This plan is well under way, and so far is working perfectly. The middle class is begging the government to do away with the 2nd Amendment.” — with Anya Lambert. A complete lecture by Cooper onThe Secret Government is available here:



http://www.pakalertpress.com/2012/12/30/1991-book-predicts-school-shootings-by-drugged-individuals-in-order-to-disarm-public/

Behold-Horse-Milton-William-Cooper

Jonny7

Cool story, does the book include any evidence? or is the author another loopy conspiracy theorist?

You never point out those patterns RTDH.

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

Cool story, does the book include any evidence? or is the author another loopy conspiracy theorist?

You never point out those patterns RTDH.

The Author predicted that drugged up patsy's would be used in staged shoot outs to achieve agendas on gun curbing.

Corkfeen

Any book that existed in the last 2 thousand years, you'll use as evidence. Conspiracy theorists have been coming up with ideas like that for decades. She's full of bull**** even in that single paragraph, in 1991 there wasn't a push from the public to repeal the second amendment.

In fact, there's not even such a push at the moment. Its an effort to remove semi-automatic rifles from the public domain which is perfectly fine. The founding fathers could not have predicted such massive leaps in firearms so it becomes necessary to regulate. Its worth pointing out that ownership of them was limited up until 2004 so its basically re-regulating. You're simply using off the wall ideas as fairly awful evidence.

By this logic, I could use the Manchurian Candidate or Zoolander as proof.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

The Author predicted that drugged up patsy's would be used in staged shoot outs to achieve agendas on gun curbing.

Yeah but that hasn't happened, so the author made a false prediction.

If you thought unicorns did the shootings and the author wrote a book predicting unicorns would do it.. same thing.

One lie does not validate another

Run_to_da_hills

Corkfeen wrote: »

Any book that existed in the last 2 thousand years, you'll use as evidence. Conspiracy theorists have been coming up with ideas like that for decades. She's full of bull**** even in that single paragraph, in 1991 there wasn't a push from the public to repeal the second amendment.

In fact, there's not even such a push at the moment. Its an effort to remove semi-automatic rifles from the public domain which is perfectly fine. The founding fathers could not have predicted such massive leaps in firearms so it becomes necessary to regulate. Its worth pointing out that ownership of them was limited up until 2004 so its basically re-regulating. You're simply using off the wall ideas as fairly awful evidence.

By this logic, I could use the Manchurian Candidate or Zoolander as proof.

There you go generalizing again.:rolleyes:

This thread is about this particular book and not about other books that have been printed over the last 2000 years,

Corkfeen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

There you go generalizing again.:rolleyes:

This thread is about this particular book and not about other books that have been printed over the last 2000 years,

I've discussed the single prophetic paragraph....... Shootings were happening even by 1991. There was one suicide in a school with a gun in 1991 and five people were murdered in a university that year. It wasn't a massive leap for spree shootings in schools to start occuring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1990s

You never addressed anything I said previously btw. Its also worth pointing out that the author was a rather dangerous nutjob. Should we give credibility to the alien parts or is it only the parts of his writings that suit your agenda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper

Run_to_da_hills

Corkfeen wrote: »

You never addressed anything I said previously btw. Its also worth pointing out that the author was a rather dangerous nutjob. Should we give credibility to the alien parts or is it only the parts of his writings that suit your agenda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper

He probably knew too much which is why he was taken out.

Corkfeen

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He probably knew too much which is why he was taken out.

I knew you were gonna say that, we're just discounting the alien part are we? They always know too much, don't they but just come across as idiots.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

He probably knew too much which is why he was taken out.

Was this before or after he shot an arresting officer in the head?

Run_to_da_hills

Jonny7 wrote: »

Was this before or after he shot an arresting officer in the head?

Why were they after him to begin with?.

Jonny7

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Why were they after him to begin with?.

Well, already being a fugitive isn't a great start.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/07/news/mn-1182

JustinDee

Pearl Jam also predicted this as evident in 'Jeremy' ... or are they part of the conspiracy too, maybe? What about JD Salinger?

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Any book that existed in the last 2 thousand years, you'll use as evidence. Conspiracy theorists have been coming up with ideas like that for decades. She's full of bull**** even in that single paragraph, in 1991 there wasn't a push from the public to repeal the second amendment.

In fact, there's not even such a push at the moment. Its an effort to remove semi-automatic rifles from the public domain which is perfectly fine. The founding fathers could not have predicted such massive leaps in firearms so it becomes necessary to regulate. Its worth pointing out that ownership of them was limited up until 2004 so its basically re-regulating. You're simply using off the wall ideas as fairly awful evidence.

By this logic, I could use the Manchurian Candidate or Zoolander as proof.

That works both ways, neither could they imagine the future firepower available to the state, which is the worlds sole military superpower. It is my understanding the second amendment gives US citizens the right to bear arms so as to defend itself against a corrupt Federal government. Do you expect them to do this with handguns?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Well, already being a fugitive isn't a great start.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/nov/07/news/mn-1182

Some fugitive, he was living openly at his registered address. So they should kill people who don't pay taxes?

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That works both ways, neither could they imagine the future firepower available to the state, which is the worlds sole military superpower. It is my understanding the second amendment gives US citizens the right to bear arms so as to defend itself against a corrupt Federal government. Do you expect them to do this with handguns?

At this point in time, the easy availability of firearms is an issue. The Federal government is far less of a threat than people who don't even store their guns in a safe. There is no way in hell that they'll place heavy regulations on handguns but they will on semi-automatic rifles. In all likelihood the regulations would have a set period to expire after so they have to be renewed, so the permanence isn't even guaranteed.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Some fugitive, he was living openly at his registered address. So they should kill people who don't pay taxes?

Erm, he shot a deputy and was engaging in a firefight. His death was his own fault and a consequence of his actions.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

That works both ways, neither could they imagine the future firepower available to the state, which is the worlds sole military superpower. It is my understanding the second amendment gives US citizens the right to bear arms so as to defend itself against a corrupt Federal government. Do you expect them to do this with handguns?

It's open to interpretation.

The most modern and common sense interpretation is that it's an individual's right to bear non-military (fire)arms for home protection.

The NRA, gunnuts and Michigan militia types obviously have a different take.

CT community appears to be divided on this - individuals need apparently need fully automatic weapons to defend against the evil government, but that means agreeing with the NRA, Fox, the gun industry and a majority of old white Republicans.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Some fugitive, he was living openly at his registered address. So they should kill people who don't pay taxes?

Yes just a tax dodger.

Authorities said the gun battle ensued when Apache County deputies tried to arrest Cooper on charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and endangerment stemming from disputes with local residents in July and September. A handgun-toting Cooper fled when the deputies identified themselves. He opened fire as two deputies closed in, Volden said.

The charges stemmed from run-ins with residents who drove up to his home atop a butte and stopped nearby, only to be confronted by a gun-toting Cooper, who demanded that they leave, Volden said. The residents were not on Cooper's property.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

At this point in time, the easy availability of firearms is an issue. The Federal government is far less of a threat than people who don't even store their guns in a safe. There is no way in hell that they'll place heavy regulations on handguns but they will on semi-automatic rifles. In all likelihood the regulations would have a set period to expire after so they have to be renewed, so the permanence isn't even guaranteed. .

I agree wholeheartedly that the availability is a serious issue. However, The US government kills far more people with it's weapons than any militias do.

Corkfeen wrote: »

Erm, he shot a deputy and was engaging in a firefight. His death was his own fault and a consequence of his actions.

According to who?

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

I

CT community appears to be divided on this - individuals need apparently need fully automatic weapons to defend against the evil government, but that means agreeing with the NRA, Fox, the gun industry and a majority of old white Republicans.

... and the Bill of Rights.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly that the availability is a serious issue. However, The US government kills far more people with it's weapons than any militias do.


According to who?

Whatever your stance is on America's international conflicts. It has feck all relation to Americans dying on US soil.

From the LA Times article:

A wanted militia figure who vowed that he would never be taken alive was killed by a law enforcement officer after he shot a sheriff's deputy trying to arrest him, authorities said Tuesday.

It doesn't sound out of place for him to do such a thing. He was paranoid about government so taking shots against the police isn't surprising or out of character.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

Whatever your stance is on America's international conflicts. It has feck all relation to Americans dying on US soil.

On the contrary. NDAA makes the US a "battlefield" in the war on terror (or whatever it's latest PR friendly label is)

Corkfeen wrote: »

From the LA Times article:

Oh, "authorities said". No need to ask questions so

BTW the article also says he was a "militia figure". So what militia did he belong to?

Corkfeen wrote: »

It doesn't sound out of place for him to do such a thing. He was paranoid about government so taking shots against the police isn't surprising or out of character.

I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know very much about him at all. Yet you are accusing him of attempted murder based on his supposed character which ironically would make you the conspiracy theorist.

I'm also going to assume that you didn't know that he was disabled. He only had one leg in fact. Apparently in the US police shooting and killing disabled people is not unheard of either. So where does that leave us?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/protests-houston-police-shoot-unarmed-man-wheelchair

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, "authorities said". No need to ask questions so

This is the famous selective questioning or you just question everything?

I'm going to hazard a guess that you don't know very much about him at all. Yet you are accusing him of attempted murder based on his supposed character which ironically would make you the conspiracy theorist.

The guy shot a deputy in the head, you have an alternative version of events?

If you do, are you questioning it?

I'm also going to assume that you didn't know that he was disabled. He only had one leg in fact. Apparently in the US police shooting and killing disabled people is not unheard of either. So where does that leave us?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/25/protests-houston-police-shoot-unarmed-man-wheelchair

You want some straw with that wheelchair man?

It's like the Bill O'Reilly school of tenuous links in here.

gibraltar

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is my understanding the second amendment gives US citizens the right to bear arms so as to defend itself against a corrupt Federal government. Do you expect them to do this with handguns?

This is completely wrong - the main reason people think this is because the NRA was basically taken over by the very right wing conservatives in 1977 who have since used a lot of political power to change the legal meaning of the second amendment.

Prior to 77 the legal interpretation of the second amendment that had existed for over a hundred years hinged upon the part that gets left out now - the part relating to a "well regulated militia", after 77 the laws were fairly quickly changed by re-interpreting the second amendment.

So anyone who thinks that the the second amendment is just about the right of individuals to to have weapons should understand that the entire notion was created by some very rich and well connected conservatives with the help of the repuplician party.

gnfnrhead

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Oh, "authorities said". No need to ask questions so

If that is the stance you are taking, fair enough.

he was disabled.

According to who?

He only had one leg in fact.

According to who?

Apparently in the US police shooting and killing disabled people is not unheard of either.

According to who?

Or do those statements not need to be questioned because you agree with them?

SoulandForm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_DlYweBUJo

Seems like he predicted 9/11 as well.

SoulandForm

Jonny7 wrote: »

CT community appears to be divided on this - individuals need apparently need fully automatic weapons to defend against the evil government, but that means agreeing with the NRA, Fox, the gun industry and a majority of old white Republicans.

Gun ownership is not a left/right issue.

In some ways I would be far left but Im very, very opposed to gun control.

I also agree with the people at Fox that the world is round- the argument that because someone or other believes in something that you should not believe in it because they are wrong on other things makes no sense.

SoulandForm

Corkfeen wrote: »

I've discussed the single prophetic paragraph....... Shootings were happening even by 1991. There was one suicide in a school with a gun in 1991 and five people were murdered in a university that year. It wasn't a massive leap for spree shootings in schools to start occuring.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States#1990s

You never addressed anything I said previously btw. Its also worth pointing out that the author was a rather dangerous nutjob. Should we give credibility to the alien parts or is it only the parts of his writings that suit your agenda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_William_Cooper

He later came to realize that so-called aliens are not what they are presented to be.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

This is the famous selective questioning or you just question everything?

Why must you twist everything. This is common sense surely. There are two sides involved in a shootout. There is a homocide. One side is dead and cannot give their side of the story. The opposing side (the killers) says "he started it!". There are no neutral witnesses.

You are aware that people that have killed people often lie to cover themselves right?

Jonny7 wrote: »

The guy shot a deputy in the head, you have an alternative version of events?

Plain clothes Sheriff's dept officers parked their truck at the end of his street and were playing their stereo full blast and generally causing a disturbance. He went out to move them in his car to move them on. He was then ambushed by uniformed officers and attempted to drive back to his home. He exited his car to make his way to his front door when out jumped more officers and a fire-fight ensued leaving a deputy with a gunshot wound to the head and Cooper riddled with bullets and dead.

Brown Bomber

gnfnrhead wrote: »

If that is the stance you are taking, fair enough.


According to who?


According to who?


According to who?

Or do those statements not need to be questioned because you agree with them?

Again, common sense. If the police (or anyone else) takes the life of someone through force then there needs to be an investigation. This applies even if the police claim innocence.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why must you twist everything. This is common sense surely. There are two sides involved in a shootout. There is a homocide. One side is dead and cannot give their side of the story. The opposing side (the killers) says "he started it!". There are no neutral witnesses.

You are aware that people that have killed people often lie to cover themselves right?

Have an alternative version?

Plain clothes Sheriff's dept officers parked their truck at the end of his street and were playing their stereo full blast and generally causing a disturbance. He went out to move them in his car to move them on. He was then ambushed by uniformed officers and attempted to drive back to his home. He exited his car to make his way to his front door when out jumped more officers and a fire-fight ensued leaving a deputy with a gunshot wound to the head and Cooper riddled with bullets and dead.

Why aren't you questioning this version of events?

Quick, play the "sitting on the fence" card.

Jonny7

SoulandForm wrote: »

Gun ownership is not a left/right issue.

In some ways I would be far left but Im very, very opposed to gun control.

I also agree with the people at Fox that the world is round- the argument that because someone or other believes in something that you should not believe in it because they are wrong on other things makes no sense.

I am not referring to gun ownership. Reread my post.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

Have an alternative version?

Why aren't you questioning this version of events?

Quick, play the "sitting on the fence" card.

Ah FFS...:rolleyes:

If your not interested in having an honest conversation and insist on playing childish games don't bother responding to me in future.
Cheers.

Jonny7

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah FFS...:rolleyes:

If your not interested in having an honest conversation and insist on playing childish games don't bother responding to me in future.
Cheers.

I'm pointing out the flaws and contradictions in your argument, something you're well familiar with.

Brown Bomber

Jonny7 wrote: »

I'm pointing out the flaws and contradictions in your argument, something you're well familiar with.

The above appears delusional.

Could you break it down for me?

Where is the "flaws and contradictions" in not accepting as fact the claims where"authorities said..." when the authorites have just ended the life of a man?

Run_to_da_hills

This sort of ties in with the title.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhO0Pul_FcE

old hippy

Mass shootings, as we tend to have seen over the years are usually the work of disturbed, mentally ill persons. It's sadly cyclical, other mentally ill people think that to do such a thing will be of great importance and or/infamy. Then a further swathe of mentally ill people bandy about the fake premise that it's all part of some big conspiracy or it were the aliens what done it.

How to break the cycle? For starters, the US needs free and easy access for it's citizens to mental health services. Gun ownership needs tightening, of course but that's not likely to happen.

Brown Bomber

old hippy wrote: »

Mass shootings, as we tend to have seen over the years are usually the work of disturbed, mentally ill persons. It's sadly cyclical, other mentally ill people think that to do such a thing will be of great importance and or/infamy. Then a further swathe of mentally ill people bandy about the fake premise that it's all part of some big conspiracy or it were the aliens what done it.

How to break the cycle? For starters, the US needs free and easy access for it's citizens to mental health services. Gun ownership needs tightening, of course but that's not likely to happen.

Mentally ill with implications of iliteracy. Can't help yourself can you?

Doubtlessly there are mentally ill people who question events to draw their own conclusions. Equally there are mentally ill people who gullibly accept as fact every claim an authority makes.

old hippy

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Mentally ill with implications of iliteracy. Can't help yourself can you?

Doubtlessly there are mentally ill people who question events to draw their own conclusions. Equally there are mentally ill people who gullibly accept as fact every claim an authority makes.

It's a good thing to question "official" versions and statements. It's positively healthy and good for democracy. However, when you begin to see conspiracies in everything, in every event that occurs - that's when it becomes an unhealthy obsession.

So yes, it's my belief that a sizeable percentage of people posting on CT threads here and elsewhere have mental health issues. Issues on how to deal with the crushing reality of life.

They just can't help themselves.

SoulandForm

old hippy wrote: »

So yes, it's my belief that a sizeable percentage of people posting on CT threads here and elsewhere have mental health issues. Issues on how to deal with the crushing reality of life.

They just can't help themselves.

When you realize the level of social control and that the powers that be do not have your best interests at heart it doesnt make the crushing reality of life easier, actually the reverse.

Infact I think people stay away from "conspiracy theory" because and dismiss it because they are not psychologically or spiritually strong enough to deal with the reality.

Look at something obvious like 9/11- people continue to believe the official story because admitting the obvious truth would be to frightening for them.

old hippy

SoulandForm wrote: »

When you realize the level of social control and that the powers that be do not have your best interests at heart it doesnt make the crushing reality of life easier, actually the reverse.

Infact I think people stay away from "conspiracy theory" because and dismiss it because they are not psychologically or spiritually strong enough to deal with the reality.

Look at something obvious like 9/11- people continue to believe the official story because admitting the obvious truth would be to frightening for them.

Oh dear, I know I'm going to regret this but what, pray tell, is the obvious truth in relation to 9/11?

Please don't tell me it was an inside job/the Israelis etc?

Joshua J

SoulandForm wrote: »

When you realize the level of social control and that the powers that be do not have your best interests at heart it doesnt make the crushing reality of life easier, actually the reverse.

Infact I think people stay away from "conspiracy theory" because and dismiss it because they are not psychologically or spiritually strong enough to deal with the reality.

Look at something obvious like 9/11- people continue to believe the official story because admitting the obvious truth would be to frightening for them.

I lurk here a lot and I think you've hit the nail on the head. As you say, once you realise that we are governed, for the most part, by sociopaths, things becomes less confusing.

SoulandForm

Joshua J wrote: »

I lurk here a lot and I think you've hit the nail on the head. As you say, once you realise that we are governed, for the most part, by sociopaths, things becomes less confusing.

And a lot more scary!

Tzar Chasm

I also think its a bit bulls it to label these shooters as 'mentally ill' granted some may be unhinged, but lots more are mentally sound, they're just angry and disenfranchised.

brehivk was not mentally Ill, kliebold and harris were not mentally ill, derrick bird was not mentally ill, these people were angry, you may have difficulty understanding their motives but it is dangerous to write them off as mentally ill just so you can sleep easier

humanji

Old Hippy, take a week off to read the charter.

hooradiation

SoulandForm wrote: »

Infact I think people stay away from "conspiracy theory" because and dismiss it because they are not psychologically or spiritually strong enough to deal with the reality.

Inventing fantasies does not make one psychologically or spiritually strong.

Jonny7

SoulandForm wrote: »

Infact I think people stay away from "conspiracy theory" because and dismiss it because they are not psychologically or spiritually strong enough to deal with the reality.

It's fun to entertain some theories but most of them are nonsense, which doesn't lend well to the ones that have a shred of credibility.

Look at something obvious like 9/11- people continue to believe the official story because admitting the obvious truth would be to frightening for them.

What really happened then? invisible energy beams? mini-nuke? remote controlled planes?

Your analogy is the wrong way round, some people can't deal with reality and hence go to fantastical conspiracy theories.