Congresswoman and 17 others shot in Arizona

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I suppose it should no longer shock me when you entirely miss the point. Sarah Palin did too. She (somehow) thinks that this issue is about her, and the never-ending media conspiracy to paint her as a benighted fool blundering her way into the darkness while loudly proclaiming that she can see the light.

Obama realizes (as the rest of us should) that it's about a nine-year old girl, a long-standing political judge, a retiree who sacrificed his life to save that of his wife, etc. etc.

The point isn't "let's make certain phrases taboo." The point is "let's have a debate that is worthy of those people." One of the things that means is "let's not pretend that people who disagree with us should be shot." But it, of course, means so much more than that. It also means "let's not treat our opponents as though their love of country were at issue along with their ideology." And also--and this is where the Tea Party and Sarah Palin should perk their ears up and listen, "let's not polarize the debate for our own political gain; instead, let's have a debate where in addition to communicating, we also listen to each other." That is, less shouting, less finger-pointing, fewer "calls to arms" and more discourse, more conversation, more intelligence.

More importantly, less demagoguery, more democracy. And that's a rule that Sarah Palin should indeed fear, because it signals the end of her role in politics. The same could be said for a list of politicians on both sides of the aisle, and it's my hope that in the coming weeks we hear from those people less and less.

More civilized debate. Absolutely! But I can't help feel that you are pointing the finger one way as though one side is more guilty and the other more civil. And seeing your second post pretty much confirms that. Well your Obama said and did what you are condemning too! Do you REALLY need to be reminded what the left did during Bush's Presidency? Now that was demagoguery!

Pretty sanctimonious lady. This thread started out and continues, due to two lost souls, with people pointing the finger and slandering every Conservative figure (especially Sarah Palin) and a movement (gee those crazies went out and....voted) as accomplices in the murder. Hell the idiot Krugman waited 1 hour to do so.

[Stimpy]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

If you said that some white supremecists have co-opted the tea party movement, go ahead but it is inaccurate to say the tea party is based around white supremecy.

That is accurate. They are on the fringe and have actively participated in the events, but I wouldn't say they represent the Tea Party. The Tea Party is their representation though. These movements all over the country endorsed the Tea Party and gave money to the cause. This you cannot deny.

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I guess the founding fathers were fringe lunatic conspiracy theorists?

That is a huge stretch of both the discussion and the language of the discussion.

The Constitution is full of "screwed up beliefs"?

No, but it is full of liberal beliefs. The founding fathers were disciples of John Locke and framed the constitution using many of the concepts and ideals they learned from his philosophy.

You're really painting all militia with a broad stroke here. There have been a couple examples of poorly constructed militia movements no doubt, but you must watch too much msnbc news. Citizen militias have not caused many American deaths. The media loves to paint militiias as a threat to society, when it's purpose is the exact opposite.

Yeah, don't watch MSNBC. They are also not a news agency, nor claim to be one. I get my information from primary sources and don't care for the useless opinion that affect the discourse and inform the intellectually lazy.

Of course you're ignoring the bombing of the Muraugh building and the influence the Michigan Militia had on the Nichols brothers. There is a reason why local, state and federal law enforcement track the behaviors of militias. They are fringe movements that hold fringe views and have access to incredible stores of weapons. These fringe elements put their views a head of every other citizen in the nation and that makes them very dangerous.

You should really read the 2nd amendment. It is meant for the States to form well regulated militias in order to defend themselves from federal tyranny.

You should read the 2nd amendment in context of the full document. If that doesn't work for you then maybe you can spend some time reading the writings of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Franklin, etc. Their letters further explain the framing of the constitution and make the meanings more concrete. You'd find each right does not exist in a vacuum. They are part of the entire framework and they support the entire context. The constitution outlines every facet of our government. You cannot pick and choose which parts of the constitution you wish to defend. If you defend one part of it, you must defend it all. That is where every patriot movement fails.

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is a very common one amongst conservatives. Again, it does not take into consideration context of the rest of the constitution nor the context of time. At the time the country was a loose federation of semi-autonomous states. There were very few professional soldiers and the volunteer militia was the mechanism to support the professional force. Citizens were considered the reserve force and expected to step forward and swell the ranks in the event of another incursion by a foreign or other domestic (state) army. You also have to appreciate the WMD of the day was the frigate and heavy cannon. All of this was before the United States developed a national army and comprehensive national defense strategy. Times have changed.

There is now a national army. There is a well defined national defense strategy. The WMD of the day is the nuclear weapon, capable of killing millions in one strike. More damage can be done with one air wing than the entire force faced by the founding fathers. There is a well defined reserve army, accountable to the Governor of each state. A civilian based militia is an anachronism. The modern civilian militia is a bunch of wing nuts running around in the woods playing soldier. It is not required and would be ineffective against every force except another civilian force.

As a gun owner I have no problem with others owning side arms and long rifles. But this delusion of forming militias to protect your interpretation of the constitution is just plain silly. The best militia would not stand up in an engagement with the National Guard. I would be all for a redrafting of the 2nd amendment to place it in a modern context, but some of the interpretations floating around are just plain silly and contribute to the negative discourse.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by HOZ

More civilized debate. Absolutely! But I can't help feel that you are pointing the finger one way as though one side is more guilty and the other more civil. And seeing your second post pretty much confirms that. Well your Obama said and did what you are condemning too! Do you REALLY need to be reminded what the left did during Bush's Presidency? Now that was demagoguery!

Pretty sanctimonious lady. This thread started out and continues, due to two lost souls, with people pointing the finger and slandering every Conservative figure (especially Sarah Palin) and a movement (gee those crazies went out and....voted) as accomplices in the murder. Hell the idiot Krugman waited 1 hour to do so.

You are missing the point too; a nine year old girl is dead. Show some respect and go and grind your axe elsewhere.

[puckluck]

Survivor makes threat of "you're dead" to a tea party official when he was talking about gun control.

http://www.batangastoday.com/arizona...-meeting/8873/

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Stimpy

"The killing of U.S. District Judge John M. Roll comes two years after he received death threats while he presided over a $32 million civil-rights lawsuit filed by illegal immigrants against an Arizona rancher.

When Roll ruled the case could go forward, U.S. Marshal David Gonzales said in 2009 that talk-radio shows cranked up the controversy and spurred audiences into making threats."

So youi bring this up knowing full well that the reason Roll was killed is because he was standing too close to the Congresswomen. Nice! I guess the facts never stop you from pointing fingers at your political foes.

Originally Posted by Stimpy

I just read Iowa's last post and he makes some very good points. It's done. We'll never agree on it, so we should move forward rather than looking back. Cheers to Iowa!

Ya well fortunately America has a constitution and a super majority in the House of Representatives that believes in it. Free speech and gun ownership is safe for now.
You and Iowa are just going to have to deal with it.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

You are missing the point too; a nine year old girl is dead. Show some respect and go and grind your axe elsewhere.

The 9 year old girl is dead because of someone with a mental illness.

Your using her death for a political means: Silencing speech you don't like. Where is the respect in that?

It took you a whole 2 posts to attack Sarah Palin. How is she the problem? She has recieved a lot more than she ever gave.

[Stimpy]

Since we're going to play the cartoon game.

[CaptainCrunch]

What kills me about this whole thing is that we're all looking for the easy answer and the political answers to what happened because there's either an edge to be gained or the easy answer lets us close the book on this and move on.

We've seen information that Loughner didn't watch T.V. when it came to politics or listen to the radio. He was sorry is an incredibly sick man that had never been charged with a crime.

So where does the fault lie. The fault probably lies with all of the people that stated that he was scary, that they saw signs of his mental illness and didn't do anything. The fault doesn't even lie with gun control because he'd never been charged or institutionalized.

Sure we can and should talk about changes to the gun control system, I truly think that it has to happen.

But the discussion should be what should have happened when people saw this guy sliding over the edge so that the next time something like this can be prevented.

As tiring as the tea party thing as become and as tiring as the political left versus right has become, the most disgusting thing to me is that the blame for this is being laid in the wrong places to gain political points.

The only person who is responsible is the shooter, not some speech about reloading, or a map with cross hairs, or some bimbo of a woman with delusions of grandeur.

This was a sick man committing a sick crime, nothing else.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Ya well fortunately America has a constitution and a super majority in the House of Representatives that believes in it. Free speech and gun ownership is safe for now.
You and Iowa are just going to have to deal with it.

Well I guess we can add math to the list of things you don't understand, alongside legal analysis. 242 out of 435 is just over 55%. That is not a supermajority.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

I guess the founding fathers were fringe lunatic conspiracy theorists?
The Constitution is full of "screwed up beliefs"?

“When you talk about guns you always hear a lot about the second amendment and the founding fathers and what they would say if they were here. Well, I for one think if the founding fathers were here today, they would be super freaked out by cars. You could talk to them all you want about the second amendment and all they would say is, ‘what are all these metal beasts doing rolling down the thoroughfare?!’ And then you’d tell them, ‘those are cars’ and you’d try and talk to them about militias and they would say, ‘how can you speak of militias when steel dragons scream through the sky?!’ And you’d say ‘those are airplanes,’ but even if they could eventually wrap their heads around that, they’d ask, ‘why are all the slaves out?!’ And they would think that. You can groan all you want, but they would think that.”

“And yes, the founding fathers wanted you to have the right to bear arms, but the guys who wrote that would pee through all eight layers of their pants if they saw what guns are now. In 1787 shooting a bullet was only slightly faster than throwing one. If you wanted to be bullet proof in 1787 you put on a heavy coat. So with that in mind, I’m all about Americans having guns, as long as they’re the muskets from 1787 that take forever to load.”

- Seth Meyers - SNL Weekend Update 1/15/11

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

I love political cartoons, they are by far the lowest form of debate. Simple messages that require no critical thought by the person who is reading them, no insight given, just an opinion which is bullishly shoved down ones throat.

I do hope that this changes political rhetoric into being more civil and having actual ideologies discussed rather than slander (doubt that will happen though, as people are using this event to slander others). The fact that someone who was mentally ill by all accounts had access to firearms in the first place is a very scary thought though, moreso than someone using the term reload in a political speech. Most people who critically think about the issue of gun control and in particular handguns feel as though there is no real reason that someone needs to have one other than perhaps target shooting. I appreciate rifles and any weapon which can be used in order to hunt but the only thing that I think a handgun is good for is for killing other people and I have yet to be in a situation in which I felt as though my life was in danger and I have been in some sketchy areas.

[CaptainCrunch]

Even more werdness on the news this morning, they had a town hall meeting with the survivors and one of Lougner's neighbours was interviewed.

She mentiond that the shooter was in a jazz band at one point, and that she enjoyed sitting at home listening to him play because he was quiet talented. This neighbour noticed when he stopped playing the music and began to show signs of weirdness. She went to talk to Loughner's parents and all she got in response was an angry glare.

I tend to think that parents want to think the best about their kids and tend to ignore warning signs. I would think that their guilt now is that they knew he was falling, they didn't do anything and now they're paying the price.

What a horrible thing.

[FlamesAddiction]

Thank goodness the military was able to weed him out during the recruitment process. Could you imagine what this maniac would have become if subjected to mental rigors of combat and with access to more powerful weapons?

[CaptainCrunch]

When I was in, there were a few people that I thought should have been weeded out earlier.

Especially when I was a basic recruit trainer. We'd have nightly conversations among the instructors because there was at least one person in every training group that would give you a really bad vibe. Most of the time we were wrong though.

One thing thats for sure is that Loughner was not a chameleon. Guys like Ted Bundy are far more frightening guys like Russell Williams are far more frightening because they blend into societies view point of normal so easily, while behind that normalacy there's a monster.

Loughner was a monster he just couldn't hide it, the warning signs were all over the place, and nobody did anything about it, probably because of fear.

I would be oppossed to executing him, just like I was oppossed to executing Bundy because there's a wealth of knowledge in their heads.

In a way its a shame that Hitler died, because he would be a facinating study.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

When I was in, there were a few people that I thought should have been weeded out earlier.

Especially when I was a basic recruit trainer. We'd have nightly conversations among the instructors because there was at least one person in every training group that would give you a really bad vibe. Most of the time we were wrong though.

One thing thats for sure is that Loughner was not a chameleon. Guys like Ted Bundy are far more frightening guys like Russell Williams are far more frightening because they blend into societies view point of normal so easily, while behind that normalacy there's a monster.

Loughner was a monster he just couldn't hide it, the warning signs were all over the place, and nobody did anything about it, probably because of fear.

I would be oppossed to executing him, just like I was oppossed to executing Bundy because there's a wealth of knowledge in their heads.

In a way its a shame that Hitler died, because he would be a facinating study.

Written!

http://www.amazon.ca/Hitler-Germans-...5283025&sr=8-1

[Azure]

So I guess Stimpy was Lanny.

Must be the 3rd or 4th time he has tried to come back with a different name.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I tend to think that parents want to think the best about their kids and tend to ignore warning signs. I would think that their guilt now is that they knew he was falling, they didn't do anything and now they're paying the price.

What a horrible thing.

His dad knew something was about to happen, he questioned him about the contents of the bag and tried to chase him down when he bolted.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

I do hope that this changes political rhetoric into being more civil and having actual ideologies discussed rather than slander (doubt that will happen though, as people are using this event to slander others). .

Sticking with personal attacks of posters decrying political rhetoric seems like a good compromise though?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well I guess we can add math to the list of things you don't understand, alongside legal analysis. 242 out of 435 is just over 55%. That is not a supermajority.

Are you suggesting that no Democrat Representatives believe in the constitution? OR...was Calgaryborn suggesting that?