>The attack was so meticulously planned. How could that be the work of an insane person?
This could easily be turned on the owner. "The house was so meticulously planned. How could that be the work of an insane person?"
The thing I see in this article is two people whose actions are rational given a belief in a collapse. It's the belief in the collapse that's insane.
Of course the owner doesn't see the attacker as insane. They share the same premise.
The attacker talked of building a bunker and the CIA tracking him.
"[The owner] instead speculated about political forces that might have it in for him and his family. He talked about hired assassins and past C.I.A. experiments with brainwashing, and suggested that a violent attack on the home of a Second Amendment champion like himself had all the signs of an operation to justify more gun control."
This is so blatant, it simply must be the point of the article.
Of course. They couldn't call him a loonie, for legal reasons, but they could show it just by presenting the facts, and anyone can draw the conclusion.
But something else they show is that you don't need biochemical anomalies to be insane. Those just make it quicker, and more forgiveable. Descent into madness for no reason, as if by choice, seems worse.
Preppers' homes will be like honeypots when the chaos comes. You'll know that they are full of resources and, as this article shows, many of the residents will not actually know how to defend themselves.
Seems like both participants in this drama have problems. I was shocked that he was disappointed he called the cops. I guess his anti-establishmentism runs deep. Would he fail to call the fire brigade if the house caught fire?
>Moral of the story: Don't piss off the establishment politicians, or bad shit is likely to happen to you and yours.
I think you read another article, someone with mental problems broke into a house and killed one of the occupants.
The house was famous because it was advertised for sale on Zillow and for some reasons, since it had a 3,000,000 US$ nuclear shelter, it became viral.
Allegedly the killer wanted to access this bunker "so that he could secure it for himself and his family and friends".
These are the reported facts, the rest is either embellishments by the New York Times or sort of conspiracy theories by the owner[0], who was a former member of the Kentucky House of Representatives.
When/if some actual proof of the killing being originated by his previous political activity will come out, then there will be something to believe your "moral of the story".
[0] from the article:
How could that be the work of an insane person? he asked.
He instead speculated about political forces that might have it in for him and his family. He talked about hired assassins and past C.I.A. experiments with brainwashing, and suggested that a violent attack on the home of a Second Amendment champion like himself had all the signs of an operation to justify more gun control.
Well, if you think like that, everything will confirm it. One guy believed civilisation was going to end and built themselves a bunker, some other guy believes the same thing who doesn't have a bunker, and has easy access to guns, because society is going to collapse and everyone needs to protect themselves, decides to take one by force.
I see a common thread here, but it's not establishment politicians.
This could easily be turned on the owner. "The house was so meticulously planned. How could that be the work of an insane person?"
The thing I see in this article is two people whose actions are rational given a belief in a collapse. It's the belief in the collapse that's insane.
Of course the owner doesn't see the attacker as insane. They share the same premise.
The attacker talked of building a bunker and the CIA tracking him.
"[The owner] instead speculated about political forces that might have it in for him and his family. He talked about hired assassins and past C.I.A. experiments with brainwashing, and suggested that a violent attack on the home of a Second Amendment champion like himself had all the signs of an operation to justify more gun control."
This is so blatant, it simply must be the point of the article.