Arizona Congresswoman Wounded; Several Killed by Gunman

[gloomyDAY]

Just interrupted the NFL Playoff Pre-Game Show.

I have my money on a Tea Party loyalist who committed this crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Mark in Oshawa]

Of course Gloomy when it isn't, you will of course apologize for taking the actions of one kook and thinking it is typical of all members in that movement?

Damn tragedy no matter what happened, but I think if a deranged Tea Party guy was going to attack a liberal, he would take a run at someone bigger than just an ordinary congresswoman....

[Mark in Oshawa]

This story has just popped up on my mobile phone, although he hadn't been updated to say she had died. How terrible.... :(

I think the most recent attack in Britain on a political figure involved an egg and our monarchy get bins thrown at their car. This guy must have really thought this through to actually want to end her life. Unbelievable.

It is. The story I read was a gunman just walked into some political town hall meeting with the public and opened up on her. Regardless of one's politics, this sort of attack is disturbing and isn't what 99.9% of the population wants....

[harvick#1]

reports now in that shes at the hospital in surgery, but if shot in the head, thats not a good sign :(

may we hope for the best, this was actually one politician trying to BETTER the USA

[Bob Riebe]

Reports say, that up to twelve people were shot.
From what I read though, most reports are guesses.

One article said she had proposed a five percent pay cut for members of Congress, rather than T.E.A. party people, I would say Democrats in Congress; they like to take more money, not less.

Oh gee, on CNN the first gun control bs, has been spewed forth.
------

The have one suspect and are looking for a second.
---------------

From Fox nineteen people shot, and five dead.
-------------

CNN still ranting about guns.

[Eki]

Fousto was online at that time, so it couldn't have been him.

[BDunnell]

Addendum- she has been raised to saint-hood, by comments on CNN, but apparently the other people shot are not worth the time of day as they seem to be totally ignored.

In much the same way as you deserve to be with comments like those above. Will you ever learn?

[Bob Riebe]

In much the same way as you deserve to be with comments like those above. Will you ever learn?

What, you would prefer I blamed the "Tea" party?
Yet you took time to comment, on me, rather than the topic.
Makes you look rathe obtuse now, does it not?

[BDunnell]

What, you would prefer I blamed the "Tea" party?
Yet you took time to comment, on me, rather than the topic.
Makes you look rathe obtuse now, does it not?

In much the same way as you took time to make a political point which I considered unnecessary. Nowhere, I might add, did I do so. Oh, and you must get over this misuse of the word 'obtuse'.

[Sonic]

Terrible news. Just heard it on the radio - from latest reports it suggests she is alive.

[Bob Riebe]

In much the same way as you took time to make a political point which I considered unnecessary. Nowhere, I might add, did I do so. Oh, and you must get over this misuse of the word 'obtuse'.

Why your lack of sharpness is obvious.

Again, is it the fact I did not blame the "Tea" party as the thread starter did what bothers you?
You made no comment on that with your standard dullard response, addressing me rather than anything about the topic.

[Bob Riebe]

CNN has just sad six dead, an eighteen wounded.

From reading on her, she does seem to be in the spectrum of politicians opposite of the Pelosi style.

[BDunnell]

Why your lack of sharpness is obvious.

Again, is it the fact I did not blame the "Tea" party as the thread starter did what bothers you?
You made no comment on that with your standard dullard response, addressing me rather than anything about the topic.

What is there to address on the topic at this stage?

[Bob Riebe]

It seems a federal Judge was also killed.

[BDunnell]

What a marvellous demonstration this is of the veracity of rolling news coverage. We neither want nor need to know a death toll before it is confirmed, yet apparently others think otherwise — rightly, given the apparent appetite for such instant, yet often inaccurate, information.

[Bob Riebe]

What a marvellous demonstration this is of the veracity of rolling news coverage. We neither want nor need to know a death toll before it is confirmed, yet apparently others think otherwise — rightly, given the apparent appetite for such instant, yet often inaccurate, information.
IF you do not like it, do not read it.
-------

Fox has been reading posts from the alleged shooters log, and it appears- poor grammar- was one of the reasons for the shooting.

[markabilly]

I am always puzzled why the more dead, the more newsworthy the story....hence the need to get the death toll going....

one death of a person should be enough

[BDunnell]

IF you do not like it, do not read it.

So you believe the way in which the modern rolling news media strive amongst themselves to be the first to report a death toll, for instance, is entirely acceptable and appropriate, even when it leads to premature and incorrect reporting? A perfect example was Sky News' Kay Burley on 11 September 2001, stating: 'If you're just joining us, the entire eastern seaboard of the United States has been decimated by a terrorist attack'. Personally, I would prefer the truth to be known before it is reported, but perhaps I'm old-fashioned in this regard.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well enough is know about this guy now that it can be safely said he is a deranged loon, just like a Mark David Chapman or any of the other names we have in our society who have killed for no rational reason someone who is "famous". His anti government nonsense on You Tube was not even identifiable as having a point, which says to me he wouldn't know where to buy Iced Tea, much less be a member of the Tea Party.

Lets just chalk this up to a mentally unstable man with a gun on the loose and taking advantage of an opportunty to make himself famous... This guy isn't left or right, just nuts...

[Lousada]

Well enough is know about this guy now that it can be safely said he is a deranged loon, just like a Mark David Chapman or any of the other names we have in our society who have killed for no rational reason someone who is "famous". His anti government nonsense on You Tube was not even identifiable as having a point, which says to me he wouldn't know where to buy Iced Tea, much less be a member of the Tea Party.

Lets just chalk this up to a mentally unstable man with a gun on the loose and taking advantage of an opportunty to make himself famous... This guy isn't left or right, just nuts...

Isn't every shooter a deranged loon? Normal people don't kill eachother.

[BDunnell]

Well enough is know about this guy now that it can be safely said he is a deranged loon, just like a Mark David Chapman or any of the other names we have in our society who have killed for no rational reason someone who is "famous". His anti government nonsense on You Tube was not even identifiable as having a point, which says to me he wouldn't know where to buy Iced Tea, much less be a member of the Tea Party.

Lets just chalk this up to a mentally unstable man with a gun on the loose and taking advantage of an opportunty to make himself famous... This guy isn't left or right, just nuts...

Enough is known about him now? How, with respect, can you say that? Were you there? Did you know him? Have you been interviewing him in the aftermath of his arrest? Are you privy to his innermost thoughts? Or have you merely watched a few hours' worth of news coverage and drawn your views from that?

[Mark in Oshawa]

Enough is known about him now? How, with respect, can you say that? Were you there? Did you know him? Have you been interviewing him in the aftermath of his arrest? Are you privy to his innermost thoughts? Or have you merely watched a few hours' worth of news coverage and drawn your views from that?

Go watch his video's on You Tube. I don't have the link, but if that is any indication of where this guy's mind is at, you wont disagree.....

[BDunnell]

Go watch his video's on You Tube. I don't have the link, but if that is any indication of where this guy's mind is at, you wont disagree.....

I would not presume to suggest I knew anything about anyone from watching some videos on YouTube.

[Mark in Oshawa]

I would not presume to suggest I knew anything about anyone from watching some videos on YouTube.
Normally I wouldn't either....but I think I can safely say from this, it is evidence the elevator didn't go to the top.

[Mark in Oshawa]

The point is Ben, too many people have tried to pin this on the Tea Party movement, as if all anyone in the movement wanted to do was shoot liberal politicans. A New Jersey paper I saw online had a headline stating "is Palin responsible?" Seriously, a lot of people have to get in off the ledge and look at the guy and realize he is like many of the psycho's, an opportunist with a whacked agenda that on he gets.

[BDunnell]

Normally I wouldn't either....but I think I can safely say from this, it is evidence the elevator didn't go to the top.

Well, that seems to be the issue settled. Why bother with a trial when we can all come to a verdict just like that?

[BDunnell]

The point is Ben, too many people have tried to pin this on the Tea Party movement, as if all anyone in the movement wanted to do was shoot liberal politicans. A New Jersey paper I saw online had a headline stating "is Palin responsible?" Seriously, a lot of people have to get in off the ledge and look at the guy and realize he is like many of the psycho's, an opportunist with a whacked agenda that on he gets.

I would agree wholeheartedly with what the BBC's North America editor Mark Mardell has had to say on the matter, in a very balanced piece indeed on the BBC website.

'We do not, as I write, know what lies behind the shooting of a Democratic congresswoman and others in Arizona at a political meeting.

But it is an indication of the febrile, volatile nature of politics in America that, immediately the news broke, the internet was alive with anger, a dispute between the left and the right.

The congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, had been one of 20 names on a "hit list" issued by Sarah Palin, complete with graphics of a rifle-like telescopic sight. Ms Palin, of course, meant that she was to be targeted by voters in the mid-term elections.

But after the shooting, Ms Palin's Facebook site was filled with people blaming her for creating the atmosphere where this could happen. Equally, Twitter was full of right-wingers accusing the left of reacting before they knew the facts, or even blaming the left for the shooting.

Sarah Palin has issued a statement saying: "My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today's tragic shooting in Arizona.

"On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice."

President Barack Obama has also put out a statement, calling the shooting an "unspeakable tragedy", adding: "We do not yet have all the answers. What we do know is that such a senseless and terrible act of violence has no place in a free society."

This shooting may or may not have anything at all to do with politics. But it has become part of the political story already.'

[Bob Riebe]

So you believe the way in which the modern rolling news media strive amongst themselves to be the first to report a death toll, for instance, is entirely acceptable and appropriate, even when it leads to premature and incorrect reporting? A perfect example was Sky News' Kay Burley on 11 September 2001, stating: 'If you're just joining us, the entire eastern seaboard of the United States has been decimated by a terrorist attack'. Personally, I would prefer the truth to be known before it is reported, but perhaps I'm old-fashioned in this regard.

No- in this case- having switched between two sources, one made sure to repeatedly state nothing they said was absolute they were only going by what they were being told; the other, did no such thing, and repeatedly politicized the event from the get-go.

One did it correctly, and the other showed an agenda.
I can only loathe to imagine, what MSNBC was doing.

I turned off the TV and turned on a radio station where a talk-show host was first on the liberal show that preceded hers, she is conservative, and then on her own, brought on another show-host.
She asked her audience, to call in over break, whether they wanted to continue with discussing the shooting or go to her preplanned subjects.
Obviously as she brought in the guest, they preferred to hear of the shooting.

She said to her guest that she did not want to politicize the shooting but her guest said it was too late that, that had already started and to pretend other wise was naive.

NOW- that this will be covered continually, to the point that other news, equally or more important, will ignored, that is disgusting.
-----------
I no longer have source to foreign, news outlets, at least in a breaking-news format but I am interested to hear how they will cover this; espcially the Financial Times.

----------------
Only in a convoluted, or in a deliberate manner with an agenda, could Sarah Palin, in any manner, be said to be linked to this even in even the slightest manner.

His web sight- is said to say- that he was a fan of the Communist Manifesto and Fascist Party literature.
Why did the BBC not mention that?

[BDunnell]

No- in this case- having switched between two sources, one made sure to repeatedly state nothing they said was absolute they were only going by what they were being told; the other, did no such thing, and repeatedly politicized the event from the get-go.

One did it correctly, and the other showed an agenda.
I can only loathe to imagine, what MSNBC was doing.

I turned off the TV and turned on a radio station where a talk-show host was first on the liberal show that preceded hers, she is conservative, and then on her own, brought on another show-host.
She asked her audience, to call in over break, whether they wanted to continue with discussing the shooting or go to her preplanned subjects.
Obviously as she brought in the guest, they preferred to hear of the shooting.

She said to her guest that she did not want to politicize the shooting but her guest said it was too late that, that had already started and to pretend other wise was naive.

NOW- that this will be covered continually, to the point that other news, equally or more important, will ignored, that is disgusting.

Can you honestly say that you would have posted all of the above had it been a Republican politician who had been shot? I ask that question entirely seriously.

[Bob Riebe]

Can you honestly say that you would have posted all of the above had it been a Republican politician who had been shot? I ask that question entirely seriously.
Absolutely.

Although in a morbid speculation, it would be interesting to somehow know how it would have been handled had the victim been a conservative.

[BDunnell]

Absolutely.

Good.

[Mark in Oshawa]

Well, that seems to be the issue settled. Why bother with a trial when we can all come to a verdict just like that?

Well Ben, there has to be trial but when you are seen by a couple hundred witnesses and tackled by some while you are shooting into the crowd, I think the worst District Attorney in the US could still get a conviction.

The BBC quote you had does sum up what is wrong with American politics right now. It is so heated and full of nonsense that when someone actually steps over the line and does something hideous like this, both sides have their people who try to say it is the fault of...well no, it isn't the fault of anyone but a sick man feeding off the negative energy of modern politics getting his mitts on a weapon and using it against someone who didn't deserve to be attacked in any way shape or form.

My point still remains, by trying to claim this guy is left motivated or right motivated, it clouds the reality. The guy was nuts.....that is my opinion yes Ben, but I think there is nothing I have read all day that tells me that his motives were anything but that of an anarchist, who oppose all order, left or right...

[Mark in Oshawa]

Absolutely.

Although in a morbid speculation, it would be interesting to somehow know how it would have been handled had the victim been a conservative.


That is a question I openly thought about when some loon film maker had the movie "the Assassination of George W. Bush" out there..and I thought...ya...what if someone actually does, and it turns out he was from the American left? Oh boy...there are more than few people on the radical fringe that would have a hard time spinning that one, and it is no different if this loon was a regular Tea party leader and ate dinner at Sarah Palin's house last week. The fact is, thank god he was neither. He was acting on his own little agenda.....and the ******* will rot in jail for a long time if they don't actually find a way to put the death penalty on him.

[BDunnell]

Absolutely.

Although in a morbid speculation, it would be interesting to somehow know how it would have been handled had the victim been a conservative.

I can't say this question bothers me for one moment.

[BDunnell]

Well Ben, there has to be trial but when you are seen by a couple hundred witnesses and tackled by some while you are shooting into the crowd, I think the worst District Attorney in the US could still get a conviction.

The BBC quote you had does sum up what is wrong with American politics right now. It is so heated and full of nonsense that when someone actually steps over the line and does something hideous like this, both sides have their people who try to say it is the fault of...well no, it isn't the fault of anyone but a sick man feeding off the negative energy of modern politics getting his mitts on a weapon and using it against someone who didn't deserve to be attacked in any way shape or form.

My point still remains, by trying to claim this guy is left motivated or right motivated, it clouds the reality. The guy was nuts.....that is my opinion yes Ben, but I think there is nothing I have read all day that tells me that his motives were anything but that of an anarchist, who oppose all order, left or right...

All very well and good — after all, one thinks of incidents in other countries, such as the courthouse shooting in Switzerland a few years ago — but it's quite a convenient get-out clause if it turns out the man was in some respect politically motivated, no matter what his mental state might be. There are, I might add, individuals considered to be in the American political and media mainstream whose mental state I would quite genuinely question.

[gloomyDAY]

Open-season on moderate Congressional representatives.

I bet some Arizonans aren't too disturbed that this happened.
Hell, I bet some of them even believe it was divine intervention.

Giffords may be the first of many.

[shazbot]

Some day this country is going to have to wake up to it's ridiculous obsession with guns and the wholly outdated constitutional right to bear arms. Until then we have to stomach these dreadful crimes, and wait for the next shooting. Some will even justify the right because of such incidents. Madness.

[gloomyDAY]

Some day this country is going to have to wake up to it's ridiculous obsession with guns and the wholly outdated constitutional right to bear arms. Until then we have to stomach these dreadful crimes, and wait for the next shooting. Some will even justify the right because of incidents like these. Madness.I don't think that this really has to do with the 2nd Amendment. Most Americans are responsible gun owners. What concerns me more is that this type of behavior will become socially acceptable. A loud mouth armchair expert is going to tell a bunch of TV watching zombies that the death of a politician is appropriate towards achieving their goal of a new America. The United States is on a knife edge of rage, despair, and total indiscretion for the well-being of their neighbors who have ideological differences. The rift is just getting wider and this may get ugly...

[shazbot]

Most Americans are responsible guns owners. Most, not all - and there's the rub. As long as there are responsible gun owners there will be also be the irresponsible, and dangerous owners. The right to bear arms is as old as the hills and I believe has its roots in the English constitution as far as the USA is concerned. I can't help but feel that in 2011 it's a somewhat outdated ideal in a civilized society. Of course there will always be a way to get a weapon however tight the law, but why make it so easy?

[Roamy]

This is a horrible event and I am sad for those involved. This really has no bearing on the right to bear arms. The islams have proved you don't need a gun. This is about the kooks living among us. There was probably no way to intercept this idiot as freedom of speech would allow his websites. Quite frankly they were not that bad, I have probably said worse.

With respect to gun ownership I think we need to get the country on the same page. Some poor guy got a 7 year sentence for buying a gun legally. We have many many foolish laws on the the books and we really need to address these situations.

This horrible event will probably end up restricting public people even further from their loyal followers. I understand this congresswoman for some reason had received many threats prior to this incident. Therefore prudent actions would and should have dictated security.

Unfortunately the world is going to have these events on a daily basis. Look at the horrible bombings all over the world. It is sad and someday I guess we can expect some kook to pull the big pin.

[anthonyvop]

Congress woman killed along with staff.



Just interrupted the NFL Playoff Pre-Game Show.

I have my money on a Tea Party loyalist who committed this crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?partner=rss&emc=rss


Open-season on moderate Congressional representatives.

I bet some Arizonans aren't too disturbed that this happened.
Hell, I bet some of them even believe it was divine intervention.

Lets see.....

She isn't dead.

Look like he is a nut job with leftest tendencies

You took an isolated indecent and condemn an entire nation.

CONGRATULATIONS!
You achieved an Internet Message Board HAT-TRICK

[gloomyDAY]

Lets see.....

She isn't dead.

Look like he is a nut job with leftest tendencies

You took an isolated indecent and condemn an entire nation.

CONGRATULATIONS!
You achieved an Internet Message Board HAT-TRICKYeah, nut job alright.

[gloomyDAY]

Lets see.....

She isn't dead.

Look like he is a nut job with leftest tendencies

You took an isolated indecent and condemn an entire nation.

CONGRATULATIONS!
You achieved an Internet Message Board HAT-TRICKI'm glad that she's alive! Ecstatic actually.

In light of what happened, Sarah Palin took down the picture of Giffords on a target. Still trust the Teabaggers? Hate invoking radicals is what that party has become. They can't even give a proper rendition of the Constitution and made omissions.

[Bob Riebe]

I'm glad that she's alive! Ecstatic actually.

In light of what happened, Sarah Palin took down the picture of Giffords on a target. Still trust the Teabaggers? Hate invoking radicals is what that party has become. They can't even give a proper rendition of the Constitution and made omissions.
Palin is not part of this scenario except to hate filled people with an agenda.

[Eki]

Palin is not part of this scenario except to hate filled people with an agenda.
I'm guessing a hate filled person with an agenda committed those shootings.

[ArrowsFA1]

Palin is not part of this scenario except to hate filled people with an agenda.
This is worth a viewing - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/36033690#36033690

[shazbot]

Its not a popular opinion around here but I totally agree with you. :)

Well great, there are two of us now! With respect to a previous post I make the connection with the right to bear arms only (!) from the standpoint that guns are way to easy to get hold of. I would like to have thought that the dreadful events that started this thread might have opened up discussion on gun laws but almost unbelievably it very quickly turned into a skewed political debate, almost putting aside the fact that 6 people died including a 9 year old girl. The right to bear arms certainly didn't help these poor souls, and can you imagine the carnage that would have ensued if a well meaning member of the public had tried to defend him/herself?

I know it's an emotive topic because it seems to go right to the core of what it is to be an American - the right to defend yourself and your family. It's hard to argue against that sentiment, but how many people have actually had to use a gun to defend themselves? A tiny , tiny percentage. Far less than the amount of people shot dead every year in homicides, suicides and accidental shootings. The trouble is there are approximately 200 million guns in private hands, so unless there is a sea change amongst the general population we will have to bear these tragedies. Some will even see the events of yesterday as justification to arm themselves.

[anthonyvop]

I'm glad that she's alive! Ecstatic actually.

In light of what happened, Sarah Palin took down the picture of Giffords on a target. Still trust the Teabaggers? Hate invoking radicals is what that party has become. They can't even give a proper rendition of the Constitution and made omissions.

I blame it on

A store Chain
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2010/10/target-logo-2.jpg

Or better yet

A extreme left wing webiste

http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-3-05-33-pm.png?w=510&h=384

The idea that a politician using the word "Target" or Targeting" in a campaign discussion leads to violence is the epitome of political correctness gone wild.

[anthonyvop]

Did the Tea Party or Sarah Palin incite Jared Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords?

January 8, 2011 · 47 comments

Sadly, charges are already flying over who is “responsible” for inciting Jared Loughner, 22, to shoot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona and a dozen others, six of whom have died.

Liberal websites are quickly accusing Sarah Palin and the Tea Party of creating the environment that set off a crazed lunatic like Loughner. Even old liberal warhorse Jane Fonda has indicted Sarah Palin with absolutely no evidence to support her accusations.
jared loughner

Jared Loughner's photo from the 2006 Mountain View High School yearbook

However, a quick look at Loughner’s YouTube channel offers no basis for such conclusions. In fact, if anything, it seems to indicate extreme left wing influences.

For example, Loughner’s YouTube channel lists the following books as his favorites.

I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

It’s highly unlikely that Mein Kampf and The Communist Manesfesto are listed among the reading material of very many Tea Party members.

Loughner created and uploaded three remarkably paranoid videos to his YouTube channel. You can see them at the bottom of this story. None of them have anything to do with the Tea Party or Sarah Palin.

That being said, we think you’ll find it instructive to watch the one video Loughner marked as his favorite among the millions of YouTube videos available. It shows a man wearing a smiley face mask walking up to and setting on fire an American flag planted in the desert. Burning the American flag is almost exclusively the domain of liberal protesters. It’s something no Tea Party patriot would ever condone.

Make sure you turn up the audio and listen to the words of the heavy metal music to understand Loughner’s twisted view of the world.

UPDATE: Catie Parker, one of Loughner’s classmates at Mountain View High School, also indicates that he was extremely left wing. Here’s a series of Tweets she left regarding the assassin aggregated into one continuous message:

This is a circus. Good Morning America just called me … it’s loughner just checked my year book … I haven’t seen him since ’07. Then, he was left wing … more left. I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive … he had a lot of friends until he got alcohol poisoning in ’06, & dropped out of school. Mainly loner very philosophical … As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy … he was a pot head & into rock like Hendrix,The Doors, Anti-Flag. I haven’t seen him in person since ’07 in a sign language class … He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was “stupid & unintelligent”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3L1lsLU-kUw&feature=player_embedded

[Daniel]

Most Americans are responsible guns owners. Most, not all - and there's the rub. As long as there are responsible gun owners there will be also be the irresponsible, and dangerous owners. The right to bear arms is as old as the hills and I believe has its roots in the English constitution as far as the USA is concerned. I can't help but feel that in 2011 it's a somewhat outdated ideal in a civilized society. Of course there will always be a way to get a weapon however tight the law, but why make it so easy?

I couldn't agree more. You can fully understand why the USA of the past needed its citizens to be armed, but in this day and age why the hell do people need guns to defend themselves when it's more likely that a family member will use it on you than a armed robber.

I just wonder how many incidents like this have to happen for people to realise that anything other than a hunting rifle doesn't really belong in the hands of a member of the public.

It's fine to say that guns don't kill people and that it's nutjobs, but is there really any simple and effective way of weeding these people out? Even if they were most of these people can still get access to guns anyway.....

[Daniel]

This. :up:

I knew you'd agree :)

It just gets up my nose that people don't see the sense in it.

Sure guys like Fousto and Tony are most probably absolutely fine owning a gun and I'm sure would never turn them on someone else, but it's not Fousto or Tony I'm worried about. Is it really worth people's lives to have the freedom to own a gun which you will most likely never need to use?

[ArrowsFA1]

The idea that a politician using the word "Target" or Targeting" in a campaign discussion leads to violence is the epitome of political correctness gone wild.
You don't see how the use of a crosshair targeting a politician could be seen as inflammatory? Particularly at a time when:
Gun-rights advocates across America have made a point of turning up to some political events carrying weapons, including powerful rifles, in order to demonstrate their right to bear arms (link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/08/arizona-shooting-gabrielle-giffords-politics))

It's not about the use of one word, it's about the atmosphere in which politics is being played out in the US at present.

[BDunnell]

Sure guys like Fousto and Tony are most probably absolutely fine owning a gun and I'm sure would never turn them on someone else, but it's not Fousto or Tony I'm worried about. Is it really worth people's lives to have the freedom to own a gun which you will most likely never need to use?

Indeed. The fact of someone feeling the need to own one for reasons of security I have never understood. That is indicative either of major societal problems or, more probably given that the fear of crime is always enormously greater than the likelihood of being a victim, a deep-seated sense of paranoia and insecurity — something I feel a fair number of right-wing Americans are affected by, to a much more significant degree than one sees amongst those on the right in European countries.

[OWFan19]

Had a law abiding gun carrying citizen been in the crowd, then maybe other lives would have been saved. I understand that our foriegn buddies don't fully understand why some of us own guns. Believe me, as a father to be, I have been thinking a lot about what I want to do with my guns. At this point, some will be placed in another location (locked in a safe). I do own a handgun, which is the one I am wondering what to do with it. I live in the mountains, so I am more apt to shoot a bear than a human intruder. But its better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

As for the politcs of the AZ killing. Some say this nut leaned left. Likely because they are trying to protect their own politcal leanings. And those on the left are trying to protect theirs. All I can say, anyone ranting about the constitution, gold, and anti-government doesn't sound that left to me. Its hard not to call this shooting politcal because of the anti-government rantings and the fact a Congresswoman was the target. It was a sad event, and clearly showing how divised our country has become. Sad, Sad, day for the entire country.

[BDunnell]

Had a law abiding gun carrying citizen been in the crowd, then maybe other lives would have been saved.

Or maybe others would have been lost had the law-abiding gun-carrying citizen not known how to use the weapon safely. I would personally feel far less safe knowing there were people brandishing firearms in any sort of crowd, no matter how law-abiding or sensible these individuals may be, than if there were no such weapons present.

[Daniel]

Had a law abiding gun carrying citizen been in the crowd, then maybe other lives would have been saved. I understand that our foriegn buddies don't fully understand why some of us own guns. Believe me, as a father to be, I have been thinking a lot about what I want to do with my guns. At this point, some will be placed in another location (locked in a safe). I do own a handgun, which is the one I am wondering what to do with it. I live in the mountains, so I am more apt to shoot a bear than a human intruder. But its better to have a gun and not need it, than to need a gun and not have it.

As for the politcs of the AZ killing. Some say this nut leaned left. Likely because they are trying to protect their own politcal leanings. And those on the left are trying to protect theirs. All I can say, anyone ranting about the constitution, gold, and anti-government doesn't sound that left to me. Its hard not to call this shooting politcal because of the anti-government rantings and the fact a Congresswoman was the target. It was a sad event, and clearly showing how divised our country has become. Sad, Sad, day for the entire country.

Like I said, I don't really have a problem with people having bolt action hunting rifles. Sure they can be used to kill people but the potential is much lower and of course hunting is a perfectly legal activity. Sure it's better to have a gun and not need it than not have a gun and need it, but what about having a gun and being Phil Hartman? -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hartman#Death

Why did there need to be a law abiding gun owner in the crowd? Unarmed people tackled the gunman without the aid of guns. Plus as Ben says, it's a crowd, a law abiding but possibly poorly trained member of the public is possibly likely to kill a bystander......

[OWFan19]

Yes, I agree with you guys to a point about another gun in the crowd might be an added danger. But 18 people got hit, with a second possible gunman on the loose. Sure an innocent person could be shot, but at that point they already were in great danger. A well trained gun owner would not just start firing in a crowd.

A hunting rifle does far more damage than a shotgun or handgun. Granted handguns hold more rounds, the rounds themselves are only good up to a short distance. Rifles are highly accurate, and ungodly powerful that can project the bullet more than a mile. All guns are dangerous, one isnt better than the other in terms of being safer.

As for Phil, guns do not prevent anything, they are just a slight insurance policy. The sad fact in our country, guns are everywhere. There are too many to ever remove them all.

[Daniel]

Yes, I agree with you guys to a point about another gun in the crowd might be an added danger. But 18 people got hit, with a second possible gunman on the loose. Sure an innocent person could be shot, but at that point they already were in great danger. A well trained gun owner would not just start firing in a crowd.

A hunting rifle does far more damage than a shotgun or handgun. Granted handguns hold more rounds, the rounds themselves are only good up to a short distance. Rifles are highly accurate, and ungodly powerful that can project the bullet more than a mile. All guns are dangerous, one isnt better than the other in terms of being safer.

As for Phil, guns do not prevent anything, they are just a slight insurance policy. The sad fact in our country, guns are everywhere. There are too many to ever remove them all.
The point is that it's VERY difficult to carry a hunting rifle undetected.

[OWFan19]

The point is that it's VERY difficult to carry a hunting rifle undetected.
Yes, I agree with that. Unless you really plan it out to hide, which someone that is nuts might. JFK killing is a good point.

[BDunnell]

Yes, I agree with you guys to a point about another gun in the crowd might be an added danger. But 18 people got hit, with a second possible gunman on the loose. Sure an innocent person could be shot, but at that point they already were in great danger. A well trained gun owner would not just start firing in a crowd.

Law enforcement is the job of the appropriate agencies, not private individuals. It concerns me somewhat that anyone would even consider endorsing the presence of random armed people in a crowd as a means of guaranteeing security.

[shazbot]

Had a law abiding gun carrying citizen been in the crowd, then maybe other lives would have been saved.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. Fortunately it is only a hypothetical scenario but what if you had two independant law abiding citizens carrying guns. Who would you shoot? Who's the bad guy? The cops turn up, and who do they shoot? The results don't bear thinking about.

If one has children in the house then I'm sure most people have them very securely locked away and hopefully not loaded (guns that is not children!). In that case how quickly can you get to the gun if you need it? All situations are different of course but if your house gets broken into by a guy carrying a gun are there more likely to be shots fired if you are similarly armed?

There needs to be serious discussion about limiting fire arm ownership.

[Daniel]

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. Fortunately it is only a hypothetical scenario but what if you had two independant law abiding citizens carrying guns. Who would you shoot? Who's the bad guy? The cops turn up, and who do they shoot? The results don't bear thinking about.

If one has children in the house then I'm sure most people have them very securely locked away and hopefully not loaded (guns that is not children!). In that case how quickly can you get to the gun if you need it? All situations are different of course but if your house gets broken into by a guy carrying a gun are there more likely to be shots fired if you are similarly armed?

There needs to be serious discussion about limiting fire arm ownership.
Couldn't agree more.

[markabilly]

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. Fortunately it is only a hypothetical scenario but what if you had two independant law abiding citizens carrying guns. Who would you shoot? Who's the bad guy? The cops turn up, and who do they shoot? The results don't bear thinking about.

If one has children in the house then I'm sure most people have them very securely locked away and hopefully not loaded (guns that is not children!). In that case how quickly can you get to the gun if you need it? All situations are different of course but if your house gets broken into by a guy carrying a gun are there more likely to be shots fired if you are similarly armed?

There needs to be serious discussion about limiting fire arm ownership.
yawn....subject already discussed.....i can not beleive anyone is reading all this stuff like it has any validity....thinking that it is all the gun's fault that some nut case pulled the trigger instead of planting a bomb; yes, it is everybody else's fault than his.....some are even blaming sarah palin. Funny is how stupid all this nonsense is...


RIP all the unfortunate victims too bad, we do not ban criminals from existence, but thaat would be too harsh, so say some

think i will take a nap....

[Eki]

Seems that she might recover after all. Good news.

[shazbot]

Honestly markabilly I have no idea what you are trying to say. -

"I can not beleive [sic] anyone is reading all this stuff like it has any validity"

This tragedy is a perfectly valid reason to discuss the role of guns in modern American society.

"thinking that it is all the gun's fault"

Oh dear, please don't tell me it's not the guns fault. The gun is an inanimate object developed by man to kill. You can't separate the two - anthropomorphizing guns is nonsense.

"Funny is how stupid all this nonsense is.."

"we do not ban criminals from existence, but thaat [sic] would be too harsh, so say some"

No idea on these two I'm afraid.

[anthonyvop]

Law enforcement is the job of the appropriate agencies, not private individuals. It concerns me somewhat that anyone would even consider endorsing the presence of random armed people in a crowd as a means of guaranteeing security.


So in your world only the state has the right to decide who's life should be protected?

That really saddens me that people actually feel that way.

[Eki]

So in your world only the state has the right to decide who's life should be protected?

That really saddens me that people actually feel that way.
"The state" is formed of people, all the people in that state, not just of one individual like Charles Manson or you. I certainly wouldn't want Charles Manson or you to have the right to decide whose life should be protected. And the state without people is nothing.

[airshifter]

Honestly markabilly I have no idea what you are trying to say. -

"I can not beleive [sic] anyone is reading all this stuff like it has any validity"

This tragedy is a perfectly valid reason to discuss the role of guns in modern American society.

"thinking that it is all the gun's fault"

Oh dear, please don't tell me it's not the guns fault. The gun is an inanimate object developed by man to kill. You can't separate the two - anthropomorphizing guns is nonsense.

"Funny is how stupid all this nonsense is.."

"we do not ban criminals from existence, but thaat [sic] would be too harsh, so say some"

No idea on these two I'm afraid.


Without getting into my views, why not start a thread on the subject rather than hijack this one? What is done is done and our discussion here of how this people were injured and killed doesn't change the event.

[Bob Riebe]

I couldn't agree more. You can fully understand why the USA of the past needed its citizens to be armed, but in this day and age why the hell do people need guns to defend themselves when it's more likely that a family member will use it on you than a armed robber.

I just wonder how many incidents like this have to happen for people to realise that anything other than a hunting rifle doesn't really belong in the hands of a member of the public.

It's fine to say that guns don't kill people and that it's nutjobs, but is there really any simple and effective way of weeding these people out? Even if they were most of these people can still get access to guns anyway.....
The Second Amendment exists as a form of protecting the people from the government; which shows why this statement-- "You can fully understand why the USA of the past needed its citizens to be armed,- the last thing you do is understand why U.S. citizens are allowed to be armed.

[Eki]

The Second Amendment exists as a form of protecting the people from the government;
Is the government a threat where you live? Here the government is a friend. I thought only in third world dictatorships people were afraid of their government.

[Bob Riebe]

I knew you'd agree :)

It just gets up my nose that people don't see the sense in it.

Sure guys like Fousto and Tony are most probably absolutely fine owning a gun and I'm sure would never turn them on someone else, but it's not Fousto or Tony I'm worried about. Is it really worth people's lives to have the freedom to own a gun which you will most likely never need to use?

Based on what fact- not a the sky-is-falling opinion?

Beyond that gun control proponents love it when this happens, as the Rhambo said- "never let a crisis go to waste."

[Bob Riebe]

Indeed. The fact of someone feeling the need to own one for reasons of security I have never understood. That is indicative either of major societal problems or, more probably given that the fear of crime is always enormously greater than the likelihood of being a victim, a deep-seated sense of paranoia and insecurity — something I feel a fair number of right-wing Americans are affected by, to a much more significant degree than one sees amongst those on the right in European countries.

You feel, based on what?
Simple ignorance?

From your learned experience, why do cities with the most draconian gun laws have the highest crime rates.

[Bob Riebe]

Or maybe others would have been lost had the law-abiding gun-carrying citizen not known how to use the weapon safely. I would personally feel far less safe knowing there were people brandishing firearms in any sort of crowd, no matter how law-abiding or sensible these individuals may be, than if there were no such weapons present.

That statement is asininely obtuse based on what you would call "a deep-seated sense of paranoia and insecurity".

[BDunnell]

So in your world only the state has the right to decide who's life should be protected?

That really saddens me that people actually feel that way.

Do you believe in the rule of law or do you not?

[BDunnell]

That statement is asininely obtuse based on what you would call [b] "a deep-seated sense of paranoia and insecurity.[/b

Please try again, this time writing in English without the usual pompous yet inarticulately-used bluster. What is wrong with my saying I would feel less safe in a crowd full of gun-wielders?

[BDunnell]

You feel, based on what?
Simple ignorance?

My experiences of same. Yourself included.



From your learned experience, why do cities with the most draconian gun laws have the highest crime rates.

I don't know. However, do provide us with the benefit of your wisdom on the matter. I trust detailed studies have been conducted, and not under the supervision of Professor Google.

[Bob Riebe]

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree there. Fortunately it is only a hypothetical scenario but what if you had two independant law abiding citizens carrying guns. Who would you shoot? Who's the bad guy? The cops turn up, and who do they shoot? The results don't bear thinking about.

If one has children in the house then I'm sure most people have them very securely locked away and hopefully not loaded (guns that is not children!). In that case how quickly can you get to the gun if you need it? All situations are different of course but if your house gets broken into by a guy carrying a gun are there more likely to be shots fired if you are similarly armed?

There needs to be serious discussion about limiting fire arm ownership.
You are forwarding ideas totally based on paranoia.

But to make you happy, in Minnesota, a armed man tried to high-jack a car.
The driver to protect his wife, attacked and disarmed the high-jacker.
The wife called 911 on her cell and told them what had happened and that her husband was hold the criminal at gunpoint.
The trained authority arrives, gets out of his car, with a shotgun and shoots the womens husband dead.

Yeah, the only people I want armed are the police, you know, they are super-men unlike the huddled masses who are ignorant fools.

[BDunnell]

Yeah, the only people I want armed are the police, you know, they are super-men unlike the huddled masses who are ignorant fools.

Do you believe in the rule of law?

[Bob Riebe]

"The state" is formed of people, all the people in that state, not just of one individual like Charles Manson or you. I certainly wouldn't want Charles Manson or you to have the right to decide whose life should be protected. And the state without people is nothing.
Is that the same state that ruled over Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia because ALL THE PEOPLE chose so?

[shazbot]

Without getting into my views, why not start a thread on the subject rather than hijack this one? What is done is done and our discussion here of how this people were injured and killed doesn't change the event.

Fair enough but I think it's a little unfair to label my contribution to this topic as a hijack. This thread is about the dreadful shootings in Arizona and surely it's only a natural and logical progression to examine gun laws? This thread started with the news of a fatal shooting, and that's what we should be discussing, not politics.

[BDunnell]

Is that the same state that ruled over Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia because ALL THE PEOPLE chose so?

Please inform me where in Eki's post to which you refer he makes the slightest reference, even implied, to the Soviet Union?

[Bob Riebe]

My experiences of same. Yourself included.



I don't know. However, do provide us with the benefit of your wisdom on the matter. I trust detailed studies have been conducted, and not under the supervision of Professor Google.
I live here, do you?

Yet you are arrogant enough to say how people, in an area you know nothing about in fact, are paranoid?

You, like another poster on this forum who loudly boasts on others states of mind, are a legend in your own.

[Bob Riebe]

Do you believe in the rule of law?
Some times.

[Bob Riebe]

Please inform me where in Eki's post to which you refer he makes the slightest reference, even implied, to the Soviet Union?

Then tell me which state he is speaking of.

[Bob Riebe]

Please try again, this time writing in English without the usual pompous yet inarticulately-used bluster. What is wrong with my saying I would feel less safe in a crowd full of gun-wielders?

Truth hurts, I see.

[BDunnell]

I live here, do you?

Yet you are arrogant enough to say how people, in an area you know nothing about in fact, are paranoid?

You, like another poster on this forum who loudly boasts on others states of mind, are a legend in your own.

Well, that's told me, hasn't it?

[BDunnell]

Truth hurts, I see.

Answer the question I put to you.

[shazbot]

You are forwarding ideas totally based on paranoia.

But to make you happy, in Minnesota, a armed man tried to high-jack a car.
The driver to protect his wife, attacked and disarmed the high-jacker.
The wife called 911 on her cell and told them what had happened and that her husband was hold the criminal at gunpoint.
The trained authority arrives, gets out of his car, with a shotgun and shoots the womens husband dead.

Yeah, the only people I want armed are the police, you know, they are super-men unlike the huddled masses who are ignorant fools.

This seems to be the perfect reason not to have guns!

[Eki]

Is that the same state that ruled over Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia because ALL THE PEOPLE chose so?
OK, so your state is occupied by the US against the will of most people of your state. Which state is that, and do you have an independence movement?

[BDunnell]

Some times.

To think that you consider the values in which you believe are worth exporting...

[Eki]

Then tell me which state he is speaking of.
The states in dictatorships.

[Bob Riebe]

Is the government a threat where you live? Here the government is a friend. I thought only in third world dictatorships people were afraid of their government.

The founders of this country knew the only way to make a government respect its citizenry, at all times, was to live in fear of the results of betraying said same citizenry.

The U.S. Civil War, was a case in fact; the South had full right to secede, fortunately for Lincoln, that fact did not stop the citizens of the North from going to war with the South.

In this day and age, a civil war is less likely, as with all the law scholars out there, if some truly wanted to secede, no law would stop them and getting the military to intercede would be a disaster.

[Daniel]

You are forwarding ideas totally based on paranoia.

But to make you happy, in Minnesota, a armed man tried to high-jack a car.
The driver to protect his wife, attacked and disarmed the high-jacker.
The wife called 911 on her cell and told them what had happened and that her husband was hold the criminal at gunpoint.
The trained authority arrives, gets out of his car, with a shotgun and shoots the womens husband dead.

Yeah, the only people I want armed are the police, you know, they are super-men unlike the huddled masses who are ignorant fools.

Link please. That sounds like grade a bullplop.

[Daniel]

The founders of this country knew the only way to make a government respect its citizenry, at all times, was to live in fear of the results of betraying said same citizenry.

I'm sure if the founding fathers were here they'd tell you to shut your piehole and realise that the country is a lot different to what it was back then and that there's no need for the populace to be armed to the point where they start shooting each other.

[BDunnell]

Link please. That sounds like grade a bullplop.

I predict that his response will be to (a) not answer the question, (b) criticise the 'asinine', 'obtuse' nature of your 'rhetoric', and (c) come out with an insult he's used before, possibly along the lines of one being a legend in one's own mind.

[Eki]

OK, so your state is occupied by the US against the will of most people of your state. Which state is that, and do you have an independence movement?
I feel for you Bob. The US is a bully. Even Moqtada Sadr wants the Iraqis to unite against the US, be they Shiia or Sunni:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12141874


Iraq Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr urges Iraqis to unite

Anti-US Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr has told an enthusiastic crowd of followers in Iraq to give the country's new government a chance.

The radical cleric was making his first speech since returning to his stronghold in Najaf after nearly four years of self-imposed exile in Iran.

Last month his movement secured a deal to join the new government with seven ministries and 39 seats in parliament.

He urged resistance against "occupiers of Iraq" and led chants against the US.

His militia, the Mehdi Army, clashed several times with US and Iraqi forces after the 2003 US-led invasion.

[Bob Riebe]

This seems to be the perfect reason not to have guns!
For whom the police?

[BDunnell]

For whom the police?

For whom the police what?

[Bob Riebe]

OK, so your state is occupied by the US against the will of most people of your state. Which state is that, and do you have an independence movement?

You are trying to work your way out having to defend your statement from this exchange:

Originally Posted by anthonyvop
So in your world only the state has the right to decide who's life should be protected?

That really saddens me that people actually feel that way.

Originally posted by Eki
"The state" is formed of people, all the people in that state, not just of one individual like Charles Manson or you. I certainly wouldn't want Charles Manson or you to have the right to decide whose life should be protected. And the state without people is nothing.
---------------------

First you say the state, simply the state, but when that balloon bursts in your face, you try to skew your generalization.
SO
Is "the state" the people, or is it not?

[shazbot]

Well, in an ideal world yes! One could perhaps argue that without so many guns in publics hands the hijacker may not have been armed, and the situation may not have turned out the way it did. All hypothetical of course - In an ideal world we'd have peace and love and auto racing :)

[Bob Riebe]

To think that you consider the values in which you believe are worth exporting...

I do not believe in exporting anything, I am not in the import-export business.

[BDunnell]

I do not believe in exporting anything, I am not in the import-export business.

Good for you.

[Bob Riebe]

I feel for you Bob. The US is a bully. Even Moqtada Sadr wants the Iraqis to unite against the US, be they Shiia or Sunni:

Yeah, and I see he and probably some of his muslim buddies, have decided they will get more traction now, if they start murdering Christians, especially if they are in church.

Quite the man whose opinion you seem to think has merit.

[BDunnell]

I am not aware of 'mulim'.

[Bob Riebe]

I'm sure if the founding fathers were here they'd tell you to shut your piehole and realise that the country is a lot different to what it was back then and that there's no need for the populace to be armed to the point where they start shooting each other.

Oh, you are sure, please give us the reason.

I await with abated breath for this astounding revelation.

[Bob Riebe]

Link please. That sounds like grade a bullplop.
You look it up.

[Bob Riebe]

I am not aware of 'mulim'.
I fixed it for you.

[BDunnell]

You look it up.

Without access to your imagination, that may be hard for him.

[BDunnell]

I fixed it for you.

And look at the difference it's made. What was a poorly-spelled, badly-punctuated rant is now merely a badly-punctuated rant.

[Daniel]

Oh, you are sure, please give us the reason.

I await with abated breath for this astounding revelation.

What reason? You're jibber jabbering......

[Daniel]

You look it up.

I found it here

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=where+do+I+find+out+about+this+supposed+shootin g+that+probably+never+happened+which+this+Bob+Rieb e+guy+is+jibber+jabbering+on+about%3F

[Bob Riebe]

What reason? You're jibber jabbering......
Are you sure of this also?

[Bob Riebe]

And look at the difference it's made. What was a poorly-spelled, badly-punctuated rant is now merely a badly-punctuated rant.
Oooooh, you sound so manly when you write like this, it just sends shivers up my spine.

[Daniel]

Are you sure of this also?
:laugh:

You're a joke and I think even Tony and Roamy would be ashamed to be on the same political wing as you. To say that your ability to participate in a debate is "weak" is to overstate your abilities massively.

[Bob Riebe]

:laugh:

You're a joke and I think even Tony and Roamy would be ashamed to be on the same political wing as you. To say that your ability to debate is "weak" is to overstate your abilities massively.

You actually THINK, shizzam, that is a revelation.

Now I had my fun with you, have a good day.

[Daniel]

You actually THINK, shizzam, that is a revelation.

Now I had my fun with you, have a good day.

Wow I've been zinged :( Ben, may I comfort myself against your heaving manly chest? :bigcry:

[Bob Riebe]

Without access to your imagination, that may be hard for him.
Are you sure?

[Daniel]

Announcement for everyone

http://bios.weddingbee.com/pics/41540/dont-feed-the-troll.jpg

[BDunnell]

Wow I've been zinged :( Ben, may I comfort myself against your heaving manly chest? :bigcry:

I think we've all been taught a lesson here. I, for one, am going to go away and have a good, long mull over my opinions in the light of the powerful arguments deployed here.

[Daniel]

I think we've all been taught a lesson here. I, for one, am going to go away and have a good, long mull over my opinions in the light of the powerful arguments deployed here.

Please don't go. I need your manly chest. No homo.

http://current.com/shows/infomania/91120515_thats-gay-no-homo.htm

[BDunnell]

By the way, couldn't the thread title be changed? After all, she hasn't actually been killed. Seems a bit unsuitable.

[chuck34]

I'm sure if the founding fathers were here they'd tell you to shut your piehole and realise that the country is a lot different to what it was back then and that there's no need for the populace to be armed to the point where they start shooting each other.

That is absolute BS. Have you ever read anything about the Founders, the Constitution, and the debates surrounding it's writing and ratifying, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists Papers, correspondence between the founders, etc? I seriously doubt that you have because if you had you would not have said that.

If the Founders were here today, they would be disgusted with the rights and freedoms we have allowed our government to take from us. They would be wondering why the people hadn't risen up to overthrow this oppressive government yet. To quote an original "right-wing nutter": "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Please note that I am NOT advocating any sort of violent revolution, just giving you my opinion on potential views of Founders based on what I have read of them.

[Daniel]

That is absolute BS. Have you ever read anything about the Founders, the Constitution, and the debates surrounding it's writing and ratifying, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists Papers, correspondence between the founders, etc? I seriously doubt that you have because if you had you would not have said that.

If the Founders were here today, they would be disgusted with the rights and freedoms we have allowed our government to take from us. They would be wondering why the people hadn't risen up to overthrow this oppressive government yet. To quote an original "right-wing nutter": "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Please note that I am NOT advocating any sort of violent revolution, just giving you my opinion on potential views of Founders based on what I have read of them.
I don't doubt they'd have issues with the freedoms that have been taken away especially in the name of freedom. But I very much doubt that the USA would cease to function tomorrow if all civilians had their guns taken away and the founding fathers would be intelligent enough to realise that.

The fact that you've been ****ed out of so many of your freedoms even though people still have the right to bear arms show that guns themselves have little if nothing to do with keeping the government in check.

[BDunnell]

That is absolute BS. Have you ever read anything about the Founders, the Constitution, and the debates surrounding it's writing and ratifying, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists Papers, correspondence between the founders, etc? I seriously doubt that you have because if you had you would not have said that.

If the Founders were here today, they would be disgusted with the rights and freedoms we have allowed our government to take from us. They would be wondering why the people hadn't risen up to overthrow this oppressive government yet. To quote an original "right-wing nutter": "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Please note that I am NOT advocating any sort of violent revolution, just giving you my opinion on potential views of Founders based on what I have read of them.

Would you, in the light of this, say that the founding fathers were right-wing?

[chuck34]

I don't doubt they'd have issues with the freedoms that have been taken away especially in the name of freedom. But I very much doubt that the USA would cease to function tomorrow if all civilians had their guns taken away and the founding fathers would be intelligent enough to realise that.

The fact that you've been ****ed out of so many of your freedoms even though people still have the right to bear arms show that guns themselves have little if nothing to do with keeping the government in check.

True, but the opposite may also be true. If the citzenry did not have guns, then it would have been much easier for governments to take freedoms. And the fact that we have not used the 2nd Amendment to check the government, does not mean that that is not the express reason it was placed in the Bill of Rights. It IS there, so if you want to take away responsible people's right to own a gun, then you need to start a movement to repeal it. Good luck.

At any rate, isn't some common sense needed here? I'm sure that we can all agree that the majority of gun owners are responsible, right? We can also agree that criminals who want guns will get them, reguardless of any laws? And we all know that there are millions of guns out there, right? So what is outlawing all guns, or even making it "harder"to own a gun really going to do at this point? Maybe reduce the number of accidental deaths, but that may be easilly offset by the number of crimes that have been stopped by "good" guns? So honestly, what will "tougher" gun control laws going to REALISTICLY do?

Especially in this case, it sounds like this guy was unstable enough that he would have gotten a gun with or without a complete ban.

[chuck34]

Would you, in the light of this, say that the founding fathers were right-wing?

Whenever someone espouses the views of the Founders, thay are almost always called some sort of right wing nut job. Is that your question?

[Daniel]

True, but the opposite may also be true. If the citzenry did not have guns, then it would have been much easier for governments to take freedoms. And the fact that we have not used the 2nd Amendment to check the government, does not mean that that is not the express reason it was placed in the Bill of Rights. It IS there, so if you want to take away responsible people's right to own a gun, then you need to start a movement to repeal it. Good luck.

At any rate, isn't some common sense needed here? I'm sure that we can all agree that the majority of gun owners are responsible, right? We can also agree that criminals who want guns will get them, reguardless of any laws? And we all know that there are millions of guns out there, right? So what is outlawing all guns, or even making it "harder"to own a gun really going to do at this point? Maybe reduce the number of accidental deaths, but that may be easilly offset by the number of crimes that have been stopped by "good" guns? So honestly, what will "tougher" gun control laws going to REALISTICLY do?

Especially in this case, it sounds like this guy was unstable enough that he would have gotten a gun with or without a complete ban.

Ah come on Chuck, take a look at Australia or the UK. Two places where people don't commonly own guns aside from hunting weapons and they're no less free than you are. If what you were saying were true then the UK would be like the UK was in "V for Vendetta" and if you've been here you'll know it's not.

The topic of gun control in the US is a thorny issue though, if guns were to be outlawed tomorrow you know various nuts would travel out to their bunkers and would probably require Iwo Jima style flushing out..... It's not a simple issue but I think people need to be encouraged to hand in their guns and I think the types of new weapons which can be sold to people should be limited to bolt action rifles.

[BDunnell]

Whenever someone espouses the views of the Founders, thay are almost always called some sort of right wing nut job. Is that your question?

No. Quite clearly, my question is exactly as it was written.

[chuck34]

No. Quite clearly, my question is exactly as it was written.

Then you are asking, were they considered right wing in their time? Well right versus left is a fluid definition. They were classic liberals, so I suppose you could consider them left wing? But, as I said left/right are fluid so it's hard to pin down. That being said, my first use of "right-wing nutters" is using todays terms to describe them. So using that sort of definition, they were right wing as I said in my last response.

[OWFan19]

That is absolute BS. Have you ever read anything about the Founders, the Constitution, and the debates surrounding it's writing and ratifying, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalists Papers, correspondence between the founders, etc? I seriously doubt that you have because if you had you would not have said that.

If the Founders were here today, they would be disgusted with the rights and freedoms we have allowed our government to take from us. They would be wondering why the people hadn't risen up to overthrow this oppressive government yet. To quote an original "right-wing nutter": "the tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants"

Please note that I am NOT advocating any sort of violent revolution, just giving you my opinion on potential views of Founders based on what I have read of them.
You are not advocating violence, but you are accepting it! The philosophy that we are losing freedoms is what cause nut jobs like Jared to shoot up people. You control the government by voting. Its your fault for not being more active in your government democratically. Our founding fathers would be looking at Obama and wondering why he is not a slave. Face it, our country has evolved. Some say good, some say bad. But I always ask what freedoms have we lost to conservatives, they never can answer.

[anthonyvop]

Do you believe in the rule of law or do you not?

I believe in the rule of law until in infringes on my rights or the rights of others. Once that occurs the law is null and void.

For example if the state was to create a law denying me the right to defend myself or others then that state has abdicated it's role as a legal entity.

[anthonyvop]

Is the government a threat where you live? Here the government is a friend. I thought only in third world dictatorships people were afraid of their government.

In a democratic society the laws are at the whim of a mob. As long as it respects the rights of others then it is good. once it stops respecting that right then it is to be feared.

All one has to do is look at Germany. It evolved from the Weinmar Republic(A parliamentary republic with free elections) into a Fascist State in 14 years.

[BDunnell]

I believe in the rule of law until in infringes on my rights or the rights of others. Once that occurs the law is null and void.

In which case, you do not believe in the rule of law at all.

[BDunnell]

All one has to do is look at Germany. It evolved from the Weinmar Republic(A parliamentary republic with free elections) into a Fascist State in 14 years.

Weimar, not 'Weinmar'.

[Daniel]

In a democratic society the laws are at the whim of a mob. As long as it respects the rights of others then it is good. once it stops respecting that right then it is to be feared.

All one has to do is look at Germany. It evolved from the Weinmar Republic(A parliamentary republic with free elections) into a Fascist State in 14 years.

As long as people are largely happy with their lives and are not having to deal with shortages of food and massive inflation then this sort of thing is unlikely to ever happen again.

[anthonyvop]

In which case, you do not believe in the rule of law at all.

No...I believe in the rule of Law but that the rights of man supersedes them

[anthonyvop]

Weimar, not 'Weinmar'.


All hail the SFB who has never committed a Typo ever!


How is the weather up their on the pedestal you imagine yourself on?

[BDunnell]

No...I believe in the rule of Law but that the rights of man supersedes them

Good luck if you ever have to try and get any of this past a court as your defence.

[BDunnell]

All hail the SFB who has never committed a Typo ever!


How is the weather up their on the pedestal you imagine yourself on?

SFB? Do, pray, enlighten me.

And 'up there' in this case.

[anthonyvop]

Good luck if you ever have to try and get any of this past a court as your defence.

WOW!!!

You really don't get it do you?

[anthonyvop]

SFB? Do, pray, enlighten me.

And 'up there' in this case.

Your soooooooooooo smart.....I am sure you can figure it out.

[BDunnell]

Your soooooooooooo smart.....I am sure you can figure it out.

No, please let me know. I'm literally dying to find out.

[BDunnell]

WOW!!!

You really don't get it do you?

You? No, I don't.

[chuck34]

You are not advocating violence, but you are accepting it! The philosophy that we are losing freedoms is what cause nut jobs like Jared to shoot up people. You control the government by voting. Its your fault for not being more active in your government democratically. Our founding fathers would be looking at Obama and wondering why he is not a slave. Face it, our country has evolved. Some say good, some say bad. But I always ask what freedoms have we lost to conservatives, they never can answer.

How do you not know that I am not "active in my government"? Quite the opposite is trrue as a matter of fact. Are you involved?

You haven't lost freedoms to conservatives because they are trying to CONSERVE your freedoms.

[chuck34]

As long as people are largely happy with their lives and are not having to deal with shortages of food and massive inflation then this sort of thing is unlikely to ever happen again.

Who says history has to repeat itself EXACTLY? And who says that food shortage and/or massive inflation will never happen again? I bet if you asked a German in, oh I don't know 1890 or so, they would have said that those thing would never happen there either.

[OWFan19]

How do you not know that I am not "active in my government"? Quite the opposite is trrue as a matter of fact. Are you involved?

You haven't lost freedoms to conservatives because they are trying to CONSERVE your freedoms.
Which freedom have you lost?

[chuck34]

Which freedom have you lost?

Not wanting to start a whole nother thread, but how about the freedom to buy healh insurance or not?

[Easy Drifter]

A point that is being overlooked in the history of the US is that through the 1800's and early 1900's just about every one west of the Mississippi had guns. The settlers hunted as the west was being settled as well as protection against often hostile Indians. Law enforcement was spotty to say the least and mostly confined to the towns.
Cowhands carried revolvers as much for killing injured livestock as any other reason.
So the history of guns in the US is deep rooted and not restricted to the founding of the nation.
Cdn. settlers and cowhands were also armed but tended to carry rifles rather than pistols.

[OWFan19]

Not wanting to start a whole nother thread, but how about the freedom to buy healh insurance or not?
Yet you kill the freedoms of gays having a legal union, as well as what people smoke. You have the freedom of not buying health insurance, you just might pay a 200 dollar a year tax for doing so.

[Eki]

In a democratic society the laws are at the whim of a mob. As long as it respects the rights of others then it is good. once it stops respecting that right then it is to be feared.

All one has to do is look at Germany. It evolved from the Weinmar Republic(A parliamentary republic with free elections) into a Fascist State in 14 years.
All Germans having guns wouldn't have stopped it. May even had made it worse.

BTW, all Iraqis under Saddam had a right to own guns (a custom the Americans allowed to continue in a restricted form after the invasion). Did they use them to protect or get democracy? No.

[ArrowsFA1]

Republicans and Democrats - political friends and foes - came together to express compassion after Saturday's tragedy. If those involved could hold that level of civility, we'd all be better off.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/viewpoints/articles/2011/01/09/20110109gabrielle-giffords-valdez.html

[chuck34]

Yet you kill the freedoms of gays having a legal union, as well as what people smoke. You have the freedom of not buying health insurance, you just might pay a 200 dollar a year tax for doing so.

When have I "killed the freedoms of gays to have a legal union"? When have I "killed the freedoms for people to smoke what they want"? Be careful with saying things like that. Some people don't necessarily fit stereotypes.

Do you honestly think that paying $200 really means you are free? If you think that's freedom, I'm afraid you are sorely misguided.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Yet you kill the freedoms of gays having a legal union

Can you point to a single piece of such legislation over the course of the human history and the moment when it was abolished by conservatives/bigots/aliens/elfs or whoever else?

[ArrowsFA1]

It's interesting to note that:
House records indicate only a few assassination attempts against members of Congress: A duel between two House members in 1838, a brutal fistfight over slavery between two House members and a senator in 1856, an attack by Puerto Rican nationalists on Congress in 1954 and the ambush of a California congressman in 1978 while he was on an investigative trip to Guyana.
However
The FBI reports that death threats to members of Congress tripled in the second half of 2010, mostly tied to the issue of health care.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2011-01-09-ariz-shooting-political-rhetoric_N.htm

[BDunnell]

When have I "killed the freedoms of gays to have a legal union"? When have I "killed the freedoms for people to smoke what they want"? Be careful with saying things like that. Some people don't necessarily fit stereotypes.

You may not personally have done so, but such freedoms were long denied, or are denied still. Clearly, one person's freedom is another person's criminal offence.

[anthonyvop]

You may not personally have done so, but such freedoms were long denied, or are denied still. Clearly, one person's freedom is another person's criminal offence.

There is no law in the US that denies a gay couple from entering into a union.

There are rules that prevent them from obtaining certain specific, government issued, licenses just like there are a myriad of restrictions concerning licensing and permits.

[Roamy]

yea one thing I like about it is the fact now two guys can say they are gay and join the country club as a family. This makes the cost half - good value for avid golfers.

[Mark]

Is that how you obtained your membership? :D

[Tazio]

On a slightly different note;
I find this groups use of their 1st Amendment right rather disgusting!

Kind of old news, but did you read about this?
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/westboro_bapstis_church_to_pro.php
make sure you click on the link that I have listed below. (you may have to access it from the first link)
http://www.godhatesfags.com.

What a bunch of Freak-o's :confused:

[Bob Riebe]

On a slightly different note;
I find this groups use of their 1st Amendment right rather disgusting!

Kind of old news, but did you read about this?
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/westboro_bapstis_church_to_pro.php
make sure you click on the link that I have listed below. (you may have to access it from the first link)
http://www.godhatesfags.com.

What a bunch of Freak-o's :confused:
That group deserves its own thread.
Do not corrupt this one with that topic, although-- news last night reported as an addendum during the shooting coverage that a new Arizona law will not allow protesters within three hundred feet of a funeral.

I have little doubt that there is probably an extra nasty part of hell for that congregation.

[anthonyvop]

On a slightly different note;
I find this groups use of their 1st Amendment right rather disgusting!

Kind of old news, but did you read about this?
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/01/westboro_bapstis_church_to_pro.php
make sure you click on the link that I have listed below. (you may have to access it from the first link)
http://www.godhatesfags.com.

What a bunch of Freak-o's :confused:


That they are but I defend their right to express their ideas.

[Eki]

yea one thing I like about it is the fact now two guys can say they are gay and join the country club as a family. This makes the cost half - good value for avid golfers.
If they say they are gay Mormons, can a whole gang of men join?

[Azumanga Davo]

If they say they are gay Mormons, can a whole gang of men join?

Spot the error time again on Motorsport Forums...

[Eki]

Spot the error time again on Motorsport Forums...
a) Mormons don't allow polygamy
b) Mormons don't allow gay marriage
c) There aren't any gay Mormons
d) Country clubs don't allow Mormons
e) Mormons don't allow golf
f) Country clubs aren't gullible

[Bob Riebe]

To bring this thread back out of the childishness Eki wants to go down to; Pres. Obama's speaking last night was the first time he truly sounded like the Head of State.
He did a very good job.

Oddly the talking heads on CNN had more negative comments than the ones on Fox.

The morons in the audience who shouted out and whistled, while the Presidnet spoke, which one could see by the Pres. eyes he did not approve, were the only sour note of the night.
Sad when during a memorial to the dead, some asses treat it like a prep. rally.

[Azumanga Davo]

f) Country clubs aren't gullible

Unless it happens to be the one Alan Partridge went to. :D

[Roamy]

Is that how you obtained your membership? :D

well kinda - I went as a lesbian so I could tee off from the red tees :)

[Roamy]

If they say they are gay Mormons, can a whole gang of men join?

it is two per family membership - what part of gay union are you not used to??

[Eki]

it is two per family membership - what part of gay union are you not used to??
So they are bigots who don't approve gay polygamy? Why couldn't a gay union involve more than two people? A union can include millions of people, like the Soviet Union or the European Union.

[Bob Riebe]

So they are bigots who don't approve gay polygamy? Why couldn't a gay union involve more than two people? A union can include millions of people, like the Soviet Union or the European Union.
The topic of this thread is about innocent people who were murdered by a nut-job gunman, can you just once take your asinine drivel else where
Maybe start your own thread, even if few will read it or respond.

[markabilly]

So they are bigots who don't approve gay polygamy? Why couldn't a gay union involve more than two people? A union can include millions of people, like the Soviet Union or the European Union.
wow, that is the kind of thought you boyfriend gluesten would understand, but there is no connection between several people shot down by a nutjob, whose political thoughts were very akin to the standard liberal drool, and your usual drivel...

[Bob Riebe]

This headline was removed shortly after being posted from my servers news site, and when I found it again, they had changed to title to remove the part about the threat.
I wonder how liberal news organizations will handle this if they mention it at all.

Arizona shooting victim arrested after threat

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110116/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_victim_arrested

[Mark in Oshawa]

Bob, I read that in today's paper. Doesn't surprise me. This fiction the fanatical hatred is only one one side of the political divide is just that...a fiction.

This guy was a victim of a loon, and yet he still wishes to take on the right, as if they were the ones who attacked him. Crazy dude...

AS I said somewhere else today, when Obama's speech is being lauded by many on the right for his attempt to turn down the rhetoric and bring people back to reality is ignored, it is those who still blame the right for it that keep turning it back up.

[Tazio]

This is just plain sick.
I find it more than little ironic considering we are observing a National Holliday today,
for a courageous American Martyr who paid the ultimate price for bringing
profound social and political change to this country.
Sad, very sad.

[Tazio]

I wonder how liberal news organizations will handle this if they mention it at all.


Keith Oberman condemned it unconditionally
This guy is a Viet Nam Vet.
I wonder if he has PTSD
At least he had enough sense to apologize