Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[transplant99]

If that isn't politically motivated then is? Did you also miss where he produced a series of anti-government and anti-immigration You Tube videos and made similar posts on his social networking pages?

Yes he is anti-government...any government....that has nothing to do with partisan politics. Not sure why you are arguing against that as it has been well established to this point and pretty much even argued by you when you posted this...

"Mr. Montanaro recalled his friend developed "a hate for government and just how everything was systematic...He thought government controlled people too much.""

"I really can't understand why Jared was so interested in Giffords," Mr. Montanaro said. "I imagine it was simply because she was the most accessible."

Politics and government are seperate things.

No, Giffords was shot because she pissed off the kid 3 years earlier. What was it that pissed him off so bad again? Her political stance on issues the kid didn't like

False.

He stated it was because of his perception that she treated him at a previous rally (much like the one on Saturday) very poorly or didnt give him enough of her time.

So he gunned down a politician at a political rally after leaving behind notes about politics and assassination. How do you construe that not being politically motivated

Again...politics and government are not one and the same although no question linked.

She was not shot because she was a Democrat, she was shot because she was a politician...period. One he was familiar with. In fact i read something earlier today where it was explained that he had a big problem with George W as well.

This guy shot these people because he is batcrap crazy...not because of inflammatory political rhetoric.

That being said, I agree the crap has to stop as even if this particular scumbag wasn't motivated by the nonsense, its not a very hard stretch to see that exact thing happen in the near future with some other nutbar.

[CaptainCrunch]

When you look at this guy, and you look at his web sites and videos, I don't see how he was galvanized by the political rhetoric from one side or the other.

The guy was motivated by his own anti government stance, not what the tea party was saying. The guy was motivated by his own twisted sense of self worth and logic and not what the democrats and republicans were saying.

This assassination attempt was born out of his own anti government stance, and his feelings that the victim was a politician and not on the stances of the parties or their speeches.


And while its nice to lump white supremacist rants and murder threats and people who are on the rather extreme sides of fringe groups, those people are inflamed no matter what. If the Democrats, Republicans and Tea Partiers all sat around holding hands and singing we will overcome, these people would still be enraged and angry.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

If I had a show called Displaced Flames Fan's Montana I would likely chronicle a hunting trip.

Fair enough, but you'd actually know what you are doing on that hunting trip.

If on your show (which would no doubt be great) you went to a mountain, strapped on a snowboard and banzai headband and tried to pass yourself off as "totally radical", like snowboarding is something you do all the time, then you'd be, ahem, pulling a Palin.

You'd be trying to project some bullspit image that isn't true, and you'd look foolish doing it. That's what she does. I've seen it. It's embarrassing. I actually felt embarrassed for her.

But bla bla bla... the more we hear about this guy, the crazier he sounds. If Mrs. Palin hadn't put those crosshairs on that poster, this still would have happened. She shouldn't have done it, but it didn't make the guy crazy. Being crazy made him crazy. All the other stuff looks like window dressing now. Not good, actually bad, but not putting a gun in this guy's hand.

[Tinordi]

This is quickly crystallizing as a (yet again) a gun control issue not necessarily a "partisan politics" issue.

How many shootings by deranged killers (that are essentially impossible to proactively identify) will it take for the gun tooting maroons to realize that the only way to limit gun violence is to outlaw guns?

And you know what, if Americans never do realize it then inevitable future situations of gun violence (Virginia Tech, DC Sniper, Arizona, Columbine) will be what they deserve.

What was that quote about insanity? Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and thinking you'd get a different result.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I think it's time to dispense with the false dilemma that some in this thread have posed, in which either the shooter was a politically motivated nutcase or a general, run-of-the-mill nutcase. He probably saw himself as politically motivated, but lunacy has no political stripe.

And the truth is, it doesn't matter. From the available evidence it seems likely he would have called himself some sort of a libertarian, but I think it's best if we don't legitimize his views by making it seem as though they belong within any mainstream political stripe.

So let's dispense with the weak attempts to assign him a political label (my favourite: pretending that the libertarian manifesto Atlas Shrugged and the fascist manifesto Mein Kampf amount to evidence of his leftism. That was perhaps this thread's silliest moment) He doesn't have to belong to a political movement to be influenced by the climate of polarization that exists in the U.S.

It's time for both sides to tone down the rhetoric. Using the rhetoric of violence cannot be considered acceptable any more, whether you favour or oppose health care reform, or whether you (for some reason) want to bring back the Gold Standard. These are not issues that someone should die over. Whether you're a tea-partier, a yellow dog democrat, a far-right republican, a libertarian or a marxist: let's agree that the rhetoric of hatred and violent uprising has to stop. This rhetoric has been used (by everyone, but by some sectors more effectively) to pander to the lowest--and most extreme--political denominators, and some areas are now reaping that whirlwind.

This was the real point of the Stewart/Colbert rally this summer: let's settle down. Let's have real discourse. Let's make politics less stupid.

The time for American politics to start using their brains and stop using their knee-jerks is now. This moment will either be remembered as the time when it all went to hell, or the moment when people finally realized that people don't have to spill blood over politics. I'm always an optimist: but the first step is that some of the worst purveyors of this rhetoric--and they know who they are--have to step up and be accountable for their actions, and their words.

[Reggie Dunlop]

^^^ Yeah what he said.

More Debate Clubs, fewer Bully Pulpits.

[Tinordi]

Also what is up with this collective schizophrenia of the American public? This frankly insane distrust of "the government" and the same type of sick obsession with the apocalypse (end of days, peak oil, etc. etc. etc.) is a just a bewildering immaturity and psychosis that is easily wedged by the powerful. Any type of moderately accessible and logical policy debate is almost instantly derailed by real life trolls boiling down to these collective lapses is any type of reason, maturity and thoughtfulness by raising the old "big government" straw man and playing off many American's almost sick desire for some type of apocalyptic ending. Yes yes, we know that you all ran from the monarchy and slaughtered one another whole scale in the civil war... I guess they just can't move on from that collective history.

It also helps answer the question of:
How is it that the country with the highest GDP per capita in the world is also somehow populated by what seems to be the most superstitious and irrational people in the western world?

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

This is quickly crystallizing as a (yet again) a gun control issue not necessarily a "partisan politics" issue.

How many shootings by deranged killers (that are essentially impossible to proactively identify) will it take for the gun tooting maroons to realize that the only way to limit gun violence is to outlaw guns?

And you know what, if Americans never do realize it then inevitable future situations of gun violence (Virginia Tech, DC Sniper, Arizona, Columbine) will be what they deserve.

What was that quote about insanity? Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and thinking you'd get a different result.

What is your suggestion for removing the millions of guns that already exist in the U.S.? Is everyone going to comply if they're asked nicely?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by Iowa Flames Fan

The time for American politics to start using their brains and stop using their knee-jerks is now

You actually have it backward. Once the American people start using their brains will the politics follow. The political system is representative of the people who elect it, not the other way around.

Sadly, once this reality is accepted, it leads to a pretty cynical outlook. It seems pretty plain that this country is simply incapable of having a thoughtful policy debate because frankly, there isn't much thought.

There is no shortage of militantness however.

[Gozer]

I dont know how you guys look at Stimpy's hitlist-list and conclude this situation might get out of hand.

It IS out of hand. Political representatives are being gunned down at political events in a pattern of political violence...but let's all slow down and not assign any blame. It's just a totally random coincidence and the real crime is finger pointing. *eyeroll*

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

What is your suggestion for removing the millions of guns that already exist in the U.S.? Is everyone going to comply if they're asked nicely?

How about a nice offer of 5 years in jail if they don't comply.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Fair enough, but you'd actually know what you are doing on that hunting trip.

If on your show (which would no doubt be great) you went to a mountain, strapped on a snowboard and banzai headband and tried to pass yourself off as "totally radical", like snowboarding is something you do all the time, then you'd be, ahem, pulling a Palin.

You'd be trying to project some bullspit image that isn't true, and you'd look foolish doing it. That's what she does. I've seen it. It's embarrassing. I actually felt embarrassed for her.

But bla bla bla... the more we hear about this guy, the crazier he sounds. If Mrs. Palin hadn't put those crosshairs on that poster, this still would have happened. She shouldn't have done it, but it didn't make the guy crazy. Being crazy made him crazy. All the other stuff looks like window dressing now. Not good, actually bad, but not putting a gun in this guy's hand.

Good point.

I happen to agree that the political rhetoric that involve crosshairs and making targets out of politicians, as stupid as they may be, has to stop.

A poster I disagree with 99% of the time said it best earlier. Left vs Right is not life or death. Either side can be voted out of office.

And that may have been proven earlier in November, when numerous long-ranking members of Capital Hill were replaced by a bunch of ######s who are taking advantage of a lot of frustration with Washington right now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

How about a nice offer of 5 years in jail if they don't comply.

Yes, because that is working so well with the multi-billion dollar effort known as the drug war.

Keep on dreaming about your delusional reality. We spent billions on a gun registry in Canada, along with some pretty ridiculous laws, and it didn't help any of the 4 RCMP officers from Mayerthorpe.

Do I have to say it yet again? The majority of 'gun violence' is committed by people involved in illegal activities. In order to stop this, and to get rid of the guns these people use, you would need to make criminals compile with 'law.' Which is like I said delusional, because they are called 'criminals' for a reason.

I'm all for better background checks, more gun safety, perhaps more mandatory courses, along with the common sense approach of the people selling the guns saying no when they sense a problem with someone who wants to buy a weapon, but lets not be so naive to think that outlawing firearms will actually accomplish a damn thing.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How is it that the country with the highest GDP per capita in the world is also somehow populated by what seems to be the most superstitious and irrational people in the western world?

We're feisty.

As far as all the talk about banning guns, its never ever going to happen. The current administration has done literally NOTHING towards that goal, but try telling that to someone on the right. Its "widely known" that Obama hates guns, with no real evidence to back it up. Imagine if there WERE evidence. Any government that actually tried to collect some of the 200 MILLION+ guns that the FBI estimates are privately owned in America will instantly be run out of office, or worse, start major civil unrest/war.

That said, there is a lot we can do about smart gun control. The problem with that is we have this little group called the NRA that takes any limit on gun ownership whatsoever and makes it into the worst thing in the world. On the other side you have liberals that ban assault weapons based mostly on the fact that they look scary, while allowing hunting rifles with similar capabilities. Seriously, having a bayonet lug or a carry handle on your rifle played a part in whether it was legal or not for a while. So as in most American political issues, we have to sides that are so far apart that the silent majority in the middle doesn't really have anyone to turn to.

[GreenTeaFrapp]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, because that is working so well with the multi-billion dollar effort known as the drug war.

Comparing guns to drugs is a horrible example. Drugs make huge money because their customers are addicted and repeat customers. Guns aren't addictive and usually people don't need to see their gun dealer every week for a new gun.

Do I have to say it yet again? The majority of 'gun violence' is committed by people involved in illegal activities. In order to stop this, and to get rid of the guns these people use, you would need to make criminals compile with 'law.' Which is like I said delusional, because they are called 'criminals' for a reason.

Was the Tucson shooter a criminal before he went haywire? How would he get a gun if there were stricter gun laws in the US?

I'm all for better background checks, more gun safety, perhaps more mandatory courses, along with the common sense approach of the people selling the guns saying no when they sense a problem with someone who wants to buy a weapon, but lets not be so naive to think that outlawing firearms will actually accomplish a damn thing.

Outlawing firearms will reduce the supply. Sure there will still be tons of them out there in Americans' homes but throwing your arms up and saying nothing can be done is the lazy way out. It will take time to get Americans to not feel the need to pack a piece to keep up with the Joneses in the bad part of town but why must everything be an overnight solution?

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by T@T

How about a nice offer of 5 years in jail if they don't comply.

Most of the gun owners would be in jail then- and how would the country pay for that? Jails are already overcrowded. And a threat like '5 years in jail to whomever doesn't fork over their guns would be considered totalitarian. Something like that would cause a revolution.

Look- I get the point. Guns are bad. Hand guns and assault weapons are not necessary. But people who don't live here don't understand that Americans were always given 'the right to bear arms' (however you want to decipher it) as a basic right in the Constitution and there is no way that they are going to give up their guns. It just isn't going to happen. Not saying it's right or wrong, just stating a basic fact.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yes, because that is working so well with the multi-billion dollar effort known as the drug war.

Keep on dreaming about your delusional reality. We spent billions on a gun registry in Canada, along with some pretty ridiculous laws, and it didn't help any of the 4 RCMP officers from Mayerthorpe.

Do I have to say it yet again? The majority of 'gun violence' is committed by people involved in illegal activities. In order to stop this, and to get rid of the guns these people use, you would need to make criminals compile with 'law.' Which is like I said delusional, because they are called 'criminals' for a reason.

I'm all for better background checks, more gun safety, perhaps more mandatory courses, along with the common sense approach of the people selling the guns saying no when they sense a problem with someone who wants to buy a weapon, but lets not be so naive to think that outlawing firearms will actually accomplish a damn thing.

Maybe I should have been specific(again) and named "handguns". you will allways have an odd ###### bent on suicide willing to use anything to kill including a hunting rifle like the Mayerthorpe case.

Once again, handguns should not be a right, they didn't even exist when the 2nd amendment was written (unless you call a f'n musket a handgun) All your hyperbole doesn't change the fact that the US of f'n A is out of control with gun crimes and now it's starting to bleed into our country with about 10,000 handguns being smuggled across our border each year.

If you want an example of why a total ban works just look at Japan. Post war the Japanese were experiencing a brutal amount of gun related crimes because mostly the US soldiers brought them there, in 1951 the Japanese government implemented an old law with stiff punishments for possessing firearms and lethal weapons (except hunting firearms) the police have the right to check your house even if suspected of having a gun. guess what? Japan has the least murders and suicides on the civilized planet..coincidence?

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What was that quote about insanity? Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and thinking you'd get a different result.

No this is in no way the defention of insanity, from dictionary.com

Insanity
noun, plural -ties. 1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind.

2. Law . such unsoundness of mind as affects legal responsibility or capacity.

3. Psychiatry . (formerly) psychosis.

4. extreme folly; senselessness; foolhardiness.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insanity

I don't know who originally claimed that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing, but expecting a different result" but they where wrong or trying to attach new meaning to the word. Now it seems to have caught on in popular culture as true, when it is not.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by J pold

No this is in no way the defention of insanity, from dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insanity

I don't know who originally claimed that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing, but expecting a different result" but they where wrong or trying to attach new meaning to the word. Now it seems to have caught on in popular culture as true, when it is not.

I agree. I can flip a coin once, then do it again completely expecting a different result. Obviously I'm loony.

[BigBrodieFan]

Originally Posted by J pold

No this is in no way the defention of insanity, from dictionary.com

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insanity

I don't know who originally claimed that the definition of insanity is "doing the same thing, but expecting a different result" but they where wrong or trying to attach new meaning to the word. Now it seems to have caught on in popular culture as true, when it is not.

It was Albert Einstein.