View topic - Gabrielle Gifford shooting • Redscape

: Faxmonkey; Adjutant; Posts: 763; Joined: 18 Jun 2008, 5:49 am

10 Jan 2011, 12:32 am

Machiavelli wrote: One regrets that none of the sane, law-abiding folks in the crowd was armed, else they might have stopped this guy before he shot so many, but that's the cost of the erosion we've already suffered of our 2nd amendment rights.

Yes i can think of nothing that would make me feel safer. Lets just imagine 2 or 3 average Joes with weapons. Suddenly gunfire and for the first time in their life they pull their weapon in a high stress situation. Suddenly there are 4 people in the crowd with guns, 3 of which probably don't know who the shooter is, never mind all the bystanders who now have to decide were to run based upon multiple potentiall gunmen. What about police/security that arrive ?
But never mind lets say guy A shoots guy B what do you do ? Did the crazy man shoot a good guy or did a good guy get lucky. Do you wait to find out, or don't you have to shoot first ?

Sometimes i can't help but feel that you talk out of your a$$.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 15994; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

10 Jan 2011, 2:20 am

Machiavelli wrote:Kooks will be kooks, and kooks (especially kooks within 100 miles of our completely (thanks to the lefties) porous border with the failed state that is Mexico) will not be prevented by the tightest gun laws from arming themselves (after all, it appears that America's tight drug laws didn't prevent the shooter from being a pothead).

And these 'tight gun laws' didn't stop him from obtaining a weapon legally, which kind of makes the point about the border utterly redundant.

One regrets that none of the sane, law-abiding folks in the crowd was armed, else they might have stopped this guy before he shot so many, but that's the cost of the erosion we've already suffered of our 2nd amendment rights.

FM makes the point that in a chaotic situation, more people with guns might not have helped, and may have made things worse.

The shot congresswoman supported the 2nd Amendment, by the way. I wonder how she feels having had a legal weapon used on her.

But hey, you fight against restrictions on kooks getting legal weapons, Mach. It's your rights, huh?

As for American Renaissance, our Daily Mail is reporting it as having been Fox News that saw the link:

Fox News claimed it had seen a Department of Homeland Security memo which said Jared Lee Loughner, 22, had ties to American Renaissance, which is staunchly anti-immigration, anti-government and anti-Semitic.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... sance.html

Of course, you know what these media liberal types at the Mail and Fox are like, Mach, they will say anything to discredit the right.

: Faxmonkey; Adjutant; Posts: 763; Joined: 18 Jun 2008, 5:49 am

10 Jan 2011, 5:21 am

I just read this http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/us/po ... ml?_r=1&hp and that sprang out:

Ms. Mansour said that the cross hairs, in fact, were not meant to be an allusion to guns, and agreed with her interviewer’s reference to them as “surveyors symbols.” Aides to Ms. Palin did not respond to interview requests on Sunday.

If you use all those gun violence allusions at least have the decency to stand by them or retract them but don't insult the intelligence of basically everyone by coming up with BS like that, if the situation gets hairy.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

10 Jan 2011, 7:38 am

Gabrielle Giffords, when the Palin web site first came out with the cross hairs graphics, was interviewed talking specifically about the meaning of the graphics. She said, (approximately) "People have to understand that there can be consequences for their language..."
Well I don't know that the shooter was specifically influenced by the Palin web site, the consequence of Palin's intemperance now seems to be the still birth of her growth in public acceptance. Whatever her efforts to become acceptable to more voters in the past year (Fox news gig, Palin Alaska gig, Wall Street Journal articles) she's now going to be permanently tied to her intemperate use of violent imagery and that's surely an end to her growth. (I almost send her ambitions but I doubt that will ever end.)

One thing I've noted in comments on other boards is that defenders of the 2nd constitution bulwark their defense by claiming that the 2nd amendment and citizens right to bear arms is intended by the founders as a way to assure that a tyrannical government can't take away citizens liberties.
My first question is really? How?
Isn't this just a coded call for armed insurrection? And its an insurrection to be acted upon based solely upon the individual citizens judgment of the actions of the government? And isn't that incredibly dangerous to provide individuals with both the means and the assumed right to violently attack their government at any time? Surely that's NOT the founders intention.

Based on the shooters history of paranoia about the government (including his question asked to Giffords at a public event a few months ago) isn't this likely what he was responding to?
Surely this view is pure madness and has wrought consequences that sane people should consider when asking why armed individuals are a necessity to "liberty".

The right wing paranoia about tyrannical government seems to be exactly the motivator necessary for unhinged individuals to attack members of the government. Tied to the hysterical notion that the Constitution actually provides for their role as armed insurrectionists provides for them a legitimacy.
(Didn't Sharon Angle refer to "2nd Amendment remedies"?)

: Archduke Russell John; Dignitary; Posts: 3239; Joined: 29 Jan 2003, 9:54 am

10 Jan 2011, 8:52 am

Sassenach wrote:Guns tend to flow south into Mexico not north from it.

I vaugely remember this debate on here before and wasn't it shown at the time that less then 20% of guns captured in Mexico actually came from the U.S.?

: Green Arrow

10 Jan 2011, 9:26 am

Is RickyP asking for censorship of what is being said or personal responsibility? If it is the latter, then I would agree. You should be held responsible for what you say. If it is censorship (Hopefully that is NOT what he is saying!), I would vehemently disagree. We have a right to say our opinions, and be held responsible for those words.

Hopefully he is not trying to get rid of the 1st Amendment along with the 2nd. I am sure he would stop before his beloved 14th.

: Minister X; Dignitary; Posts: 8486; Joined: 01 Mar 2002, 9:37 am

10 Jan 2011, 9:28 am

You cannot put any significance or meaning on "ties" a schizophrenic may have had with one group or another, or talk about him being a liberal or conservative, or a supporter or not of some policy or amendment. A schizophrenic cannot understand the concept of a public interest or the meaning of "community". Legality/lawlessness and cause-effect are not concepts of which a person like this can make much sense. Sarah Palin used intemperately violent imagery? Shame on her, but so did Rocky and Bullwinkle, and the latter might have seemed more real to this guy than Mama Grizzly.

: rickyp; Statesman; Posts: 11324; Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

10 Jan 2011, 9:30 am

I don't know where the weapons come from," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told Congress in February.

source: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0116americanguns0116.html?&wired

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

10 Jan 2011, 10:21 am

Faxmonkey wrote:I'm certainly no fan of the Palin "dont retreat, reload" or "2nd amendment remedies" kind of rhethoric, but i think this was just a single mentally ill person and not some riled up conservative.

Thank you! Danivon was making associations and connections that were, at best, strained. In his ramblings, did he ever mention doing this for Palin? How her "targeting" inspired him? (As if, btw, Democrats don't "target" certain seats? The fact that they don't use an image of gunsights on a web page a few thousand people see means what?). Massive stretch by Danivon--and a massive dose of reality by Fax . . . must be the new Redscape!

Judging from his Youtube and other internet stuff at least. Though violent imagery in the political discussion probably didn't help the situation either.

Oh well. I could hope. Let's remember, it was the President who referred to the GOP as "enemies," etc. This country has a history of heated political rhetoric. It is not rhetoric that has caused political assassinations. It has been people deranged enough to think their actions would change the political equation in their favor. If rhetoric alone sufficed, we would have had massive political violence during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

: Green Arrow

10 Jan 2011, 10:34 am

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568

I guess the DailyKos targets as well...

Perhaps we should increase the incarceration rates for mentally unstable people rather than decrease access to guns. Would you agree that removing mentally deranged people from society would limit some (not all!) of these mass murders? After all, that is what RickyP wants to see; the reduction of mass killings. Certainly he would indict his Kos site, and call for the placement of unstables in secure facilities.

: Green Arrow

10 Jan 2011, 10:37 am

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/06/14/obama-if-they-bring-a-knife-to-the-fight-we-bring-a-gun/

Even the President uses violent imagery in his speech. I forget... Did Danivon criticize the President for this? Was there fear spoken from Fax and RickyP about this threat?

Partisanship. Exactly what I spoke about at the beginning of this forum.

It is a whack-job who should be tried, and if convicted, punished to the fullest extent of the law.

: Doctor Fate; Ambassador; Posts: 21062; Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

10 Jan 2011, 11:23 am

While Krugman (and others) have linked Palin, Beck, and O'Reilly to this shooting, has anyone produced evidence that the shooter was influenced by them?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opini ... ef=opinion

Look what Uncle Markos wrote prior to the election season (already posted by GA, but quoted here):

Who to primary? Well, I'd argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I've bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

Ackerman, Gary (NY-05)
Altmire, Jason (PA-04)
Arcuri, Mike (NY-24)
Baca, Joe (CA-43)
Baird, Brian (WA-03)
Barrow, John (GA-12)
Bean, Melissa (IL-08)
Berkley, Shelley (NV-01)
Berman, Howard (CA-28)
Berry, Marion (AR-01)
Bishop, Sanford (GA-02)
Bishop, Timothy (NY-01)
Boren, Dan (OK-02)
Boswell, Leonard (IA-03)
Boucher, Rick (VA-09)
Boyd, Allen (FL-02)
Boyda, Nancy (KS-02)
Brown, Corrine (FL-03)
Butterfield, G.K. (NC-01)
Cardoza, Dennis (CA-18)
Carney, Chris (PA-10)
Castor, Kathy (FL-11)
Cazayoux, Don (LA-06)
Chandler, Ben (KY-06)
Childers, Travis (MS-01)
Cleaver, Emanuel (MO-05)
Clyburn, James (SC-06)
Cooper, Jim (TN-05)
Costa, Jim (CA-20)
Cramer, Bud (AL-05)
Crowley, Joe (NY-07)
Cuellar, Henry (TX-28)
Davis, Artur (AL-07)
Davis, Lincoln (TN-04)
Dicks, Norman (WA-06)

Donnelly, Joe (IN-02)
Edwards, Chet (TX-17)
Ellsworth, Brad (IN-08)
Emanuel, Rahm (IL-05)
Engel, Elliot (NY-17)
Etheridge, Bob (NC-02)
Giffords, Gabrielle (AZ-08)
Gillibrand, Kirsten (NY-20)
Gordon, Bart (TN-06)
Green, AL (TX-09)
Green, Gene (TX-29)
Gutierrez, Luis (IL-04)
Harman, Jane (CA-36)
Hastings, Alcee (FL-23)
Herseth Sandlin, S. (SD-AL)
Higgins, Brian (NY-27)
Hinojosa, Ruben (TX-15)
Holden, Tim (PA-17)
Hoyer, Steny (MD-05)
Kanjorski, Paul (PA-11)
Kildee, Dale (MI-05)
Kind, Ron (WI-03)
Klein, Ron (FL-22)
Lampson, Nick (TX-22)
Langevin, JIm (RI-02)
Lipinski, Dan (IL-03)
Lowey, Nita (NY-18)
Mahoney, Tim (FL-16)
Marshall, Jim (GA-08)
Matheson, Jim (UT-02)
McCarthy, Carolyn (NY-04)
McIntyre, Mike (NC-07)
McNerney, Jerry (CA-11)
Meeks, Gregory (NY-06)
Melancon, Charlie (LA-03)

Mitchell, Harry (AZ-05)
Moore, Dennis (KS-03)
Murphy, Patrick (PA-08)
Murtha, John (PA-12)
Ortiz, Solomon (TX-27)
Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Perlmutter, Ed (CO-07)
Peterson, Colin (MN-07)
Pomeroy, Earl (ND-AL)
Rahall, Nick (WV-03)
Reyes, Silvestre (TX-16)
Richardson, Laura (CA-37)
Rodriguez, Ciro (TX-23)
Ross, Mike (AR-04)
Ruppesberger, Dutch (MD-02)
Salazar, John (CO-03)
Schiff, Adam (CA-29)
Scott, David (GA-13)
Sestak, Joe (PA-07)
Sherman, Brad (CA-27)
Shuler, Heath (NC-11)
Sires, Albio (NJ-13)
Skelton, Ike (MO-04)
Smith, Adam (WA-09)
Snyder, Vic (AR-02)
Space, Zach (OH-18)
Spratt, John (SC-05)
Stupak, Bart (MI-01)
Tanner, John (TN-08)
Ellen Tauscher (CA-10)
Taylor, Gene (MS-04)
Thompson, Bennie (MS-02)
Udall, Mark (CO-02)
Wilson, Charles (OH-06)
Yarmuth, John (KY-03

Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can't save their jobs, they'll pay more attention to those who can.

So, wait. How do we know the shooter is not a lefty activist taking his marching orders from the dailykos? Markos put a "target" and a "bulls eye" (sic) on Giffords.

I really don't think liberals ought to carry on with this fight--you are stuck defending the rhetoric of those whose views you share and cannot connect the shooter to Palin any more than I can connect him to the President.

Want insights? Read this Mother Jones interview with a childhood friend--apparently the last person he communicated with before the shooting. http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/01 ... age?page=1

Read that and then tell me how anyone can establish anything other than this: this was one messed up dude.

: GMTom; Administrator; Posts: 11284; Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

10 Jan 2011, 11:33 am

Watching the football games this weekend, I was assaulted by all sorts of gun and violence references, should we blame the NFL as well? Shotgun formation, Bullet passes, Targeted receivers, Bombs, QB's with Rifles and Canons for an arm, Running people over like a tank, Teams that need to reload. The old Buffalo K-Gun offense. In basketball they Shoot the ball, "Pistol Pete" Maravich, it goes on and on, please don't try and tell me this is American only. We relate some things to guns, is that some sort of condoning their use? This was a whack job,to try and relate a tragic situation to a political party is a bit sickening. If you can point to a politician who actually called for violence, they should be called out and removed from office (any party) but simple gun references is not the same and is in fact shared by all.

: danivon; Ambassador; Posts: 15994; Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

10 Jan 2011, 11:44 am

Green Arrow wrote:Is RickyP asking for censorship of what is being said or personal responsibility? If it is the latter, then I would agree. You should be held responsible for what you say. If it is censorship (Hopefully that is NOT what he is saying!), I would vehemently disagree. We have a right to say our opinions, and be held responsible for those words.

Hopefully he is not trying to get rid of the 1st Amendment along with the 2nd. I am sure he would stop before his beloved 14th.

Well, there are already laws against incitement, aren't there? Are they an egregious assault on the 1st Amendment?

Clearly, whether people have the right to use such imagery is not actually the point. It's that they choose to, whether it's responsible or not.

: Green Arrow

10 Jan 2011, 11:49 am

People have the right to own guns also. It is how they use them that matters. Is that what you are saying?

478 posts • Page 2 of 32 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 32

Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Gabrielle Gifford shooting