When I heard about the rampage, the first thing I did was say a prayer for the families. The second thing I did was wonder how long it would take the liberals to seize upon an opportunity to blame this on conservatives.

Turns out, it didn't take long.

Karl F, on another thread, posted that Sarah Palin had a "crosshair" over her on a map of vulnerable Democrats that had seats that were up for grabs this November. Karl, do you really believe that map is a contributing factor in what happened? Do you have any evidence, any whatsoever, to support that? Do you really think that Palin had violence on her mind when she used that graphic? Karl, are you similarly upset when Democrats do things like that? Do you really think that Democrats don't use the same language during campaigns?

Further evidence of why you have to have something wrong with your brain to be a part of the liberal movement. When Obama says "we have to fight in battleground states", that's OK. When Palin says the same thing, she's inciting violence.

I watched the coverage on MSNBC just to hear what they were saying, and they kept talking about "right wing vitriol". Look, I agree 100% that it would do us all good if we dialed it back a bit, and I'm as guilty of that as anyone here. But if you listened to MSNBC, you'd think that only conservatives spew vitriol. This is a network that only refers to the tea party as "tea baggers", yet they claim that only conservatives participate in this kind of behavior. And no one on the left, NO ONE, suggests that MSNBC is wrong for pretending that only conservatives behave this way. It's unbelievable. MSNBC can do a segment on how mean Foxnews is for spewing hate, and in the very next segment, they call the tea party "a bunch of tea baggers", and no one on the left sees anything wrong with that.

Bury the dead, and let the cops investigate. If the guy was a member of the Tea Party, since when do we hold an entire group responsible for the actions of a single kook? Are liberals suggesting that we hold all blacks accountable for the actions of the worst apples in the barrel? Or are liberals suggesting that only conservative groups are all responsible for everything that each of them do?

You people literally have no shame, and your hypocrisy knows no bounds. I truly hate these people (the ones who would blame this tragedy on those with different political opinions), I really do.

Welcome to my ignore list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Welcome to my ignore list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Took you this long? :rotf2:

Come on now, none of these gems did it for you:
"Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?"
"Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?"
"From who did Obama "inherit" the economic mess?"
"Liberalism - let all the criminals go, it's not their fault"

The line for me was:
His attempt to correlate Indiana Medicaid denying a baby a transplant, which was due largely to the Republican Governor's budget cuts, with the Obama health care proposal at the time. Then to use that correlation to defend Palin's idiot Death Panel comments.

Like I said in that thread after he complained about my comments regarding his absurdity:
"Why bother? Trying to have a discussion with you is futile and merely results in a long pretentious, condescending post from you droning on about how much you hate liberals. Reading about the same 5 talking points has grown exceptionally boring."

I'm sure the words "typical liberal" or "an expected liberal's reply" will pop up somewhere in his replies here.

guess it's getting tougher and tough to look in the mirror...hey JD...maybe he was just being sarcastic ?....

I thought Jim jumped the shark when he commented on Pelosi's looks. I laughed that an actuary was actually talking about someone else's looks. It was the one of the funniest thing I've heard on here. The SOA meetings have more ungroomed people than any event I've ever been to.

I'm beginning to see Jim's point, some are quite quick to nitpick and even condemn what others say while taking little ownership of what they say, clearly not remembering what they've said and having little recognition of it's impact and even parroting some of the most incendiary rhetoric....

do as I say, not as I do..... lest I will insult you and then "ignore" you....:uhuh:

hey Jim...if they say it , it's "sarcasm"...if you say it...it's "hate speech"...see how it works?

Welcome to my ignore list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Eben, if you could have taken the time to point out why my opinion on this is without merit, that would have been better. I sincerely enjoy engaging with thoughtful folks who disagree with me...I relish that, because that's how you learn.

I did see your post on the other thread where you said, sarcastically, that you were "shocked" that the shooter was a member of the Tea Party. In my opinion, that was an unreasonable thing for you to say, and here's why...there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that the Tea Party supports the use of violence towards those with whom they disagree.

But you took the easy way out and insulted me, without supporting why you think my position is invalid. That says more about you than it does about me.

Took you this long? :rotf2:

Come on now, none of these gems did it for you:
"Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?"
"Is Pelosi a liar or a lunatic?"
"From who did Obama "inherit" the economic mess?"
"Liberalism - let all the criminals go, it's not their fault"

The line for me was:
His attempt to correlate Indiana Medicaid denying a baby a transplant, which was due largely to the Republican Governor's budget cuts, with the Obama health care proposal at the time. Then to use that correlation to defend Palin's idiot Death Panel comments.

Like I said in that thread after he complained about my comments regarding his absurdity:
"Why bother? Trying to have a discussion with you is futile and merely results in a long pretentious, condescending post from you droning on about how much you hate liberals. Reading about the same 5 talking points has grown exceptionally boring."

I'm sure the words "typical liberal" or "an expected liberal's reply" will pop up somewhere in his replies here.

Hey Johnny D...if you're going to trash me, is it too much to ask that you trash me for things I actually said? I don't remember correlating the Indiand Medicaid and Palin's death panel comments.

So Johnny, if you think my question about Pelosi had no merit, can I assume that you do not think she was lying when she said that defecit reduction has been the mantra of Democrats? You think that was a truthful statement?

What's wrong with asking from whom did Obama inherit the economic mess? If Obama keeps saying again and again that he inherited this mess, what's wrong with asking from whom?

I thought Jim jumped the shark when he commented on Pelosi's looks. I laughed that an actuary was actually talking about someone else's looks. It was the one of the funniest thing I've heard on here. The SOA meetings have more ungroomed people than any event I've ever been to.

When did I do that?

It must be nice to debate others when you allow yourself to put words in the mouth of the other person that are made up.

hey Jim...if they say it , it's "sarcasm"...if you say it...it's "hate speech"...see how it works?

Yes, that's precisely how it works, and they genuinely don't see anything wrong with it. Hence the mental disorder thing...

For God's sake, the investigating sheriff in Arizona (who you will be shocked to learn is a Democrat) said on Foxnews Sunday that right-wing hate speech incites this kind of violence. Of course, when the host asked him what evidence there was that this kook was inspired by right-wing propoganda, the guy said it's just his opinion.

I remember during the town hall meetings on healthcare, the labor unions sent goons to make sure that folks didn't get the chance to speak against Obamacare. I didn't see the lefties protesting that.

We all saw footage of the black panthers in Philadelphia standing outside voting booths in military clothes and holding clubs. The Democrats had nothing to say about that.

Allen Grayson (former Democratic congressman from Florida) caled his opponent "Taliban Dan", and only Foxnews spoke against it.

MSNBC claims that Foxnews condones "hate speech", and then calls millions of Americans "tea baggers". No one on the left sees any hypocrisy there. Fortunately, only 14 or 15 people watch it.

Yet when Sarah Palin uses the common political expression "battleground states", the left starts shrieking about hate speech designed to incite violence.

The SOA meetings have more ungroomed people than any event I've ever been to. :rotf2:

When did I do that?

Different Jim I think.


While I have been repeatedly accused of being right wing on here, I really don't align myself with a wing. I watch the vitriol spittled from both sides and have for the last twenty years while I politically sway left or right abouts the center. I have seen many on the left turn into viscous fools, all the kooks are on the right, just as much as right shouts of the kooks on the left.

Are we really any better of this? Why are we so freikin' divided? We just mire ourselves down so deep and bring us all down.

:rotf2:



Different Jim I think.


While I have been repeatedly accused of being right wing on here, I really don't align myself with a wing. I watch the vitriol spittled from both sides and have for the last twenty years while I politically sway left or right abouts the center. I have seen many on the left turn into viscous fools, all the kooks are on the right, just as much as right shouts of the kooks on the left.

Are we really any better of this? Why are we so freikin' divided? We just mire ourselves down so deep and bring us all down.

That's a great question John. We are more polarized in our differences than we were 20 years ago, and I am honest enough to include myself in that "we", I'm as guilty as anyone (although I like to think I list my reasons when I slam someone).

I cannot imagine how it gets any better. I'm part of the conservative movement that believes that small government, low taxes, fiscal responsibility, individual liberty, strong national defense, right to life, and personal responsibility are the correct ingredients for a better future for our kids. I believe those things to my core, and I see not a shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

People on the left believe differently (in some cases the exact opposite), and just as strongly. How do you bring people together who are so diametrically opposed? I haven't a clue. Part of the problem, I think, is that with the threats of Al Queda and the dire financial situation that local/state/federal gov't is in, more people feel like we're at the edge of a precipace, so our differences really come to the forefront, because we rightly feel a sense of urgency.

For the record, I am a "Casulty" actuary, not a life/health actuary (which is what the SOA governs). We are more handsome as a group, although lamentably, not in my case.

When did I do that?

It must be nice to debate others when you allow yourself to put words in the mouth of the other person that are made up.

If you didn't say that, then I'll apologize. When I see insults in the first post, I usually just ignore the thread.

there is no evidence, none whatsoever, that the Tea Party supports the use of violence towards those with whom they disagree.
Have you been to a Tea Party event? I attended one last year (kind of by accident initially) because I agree with a lot of the principles that the Tea Party was initially founded on. However, the hours I spent there and many of the people I met provided a direct contradiction to your above statement. There was a ton of hate spewed, not by those on the stage, but by many people in the crowd.

The public perception of political groups (well, just about all groups) are defined by the loudest and most extreme in their ranks.


Democrats are defined by far-left social liberals
Republicans are defined by far-right religious conservatives
Pro-choice means you want to slaughter babies
Pro-life means you'll blow up Planned Parenthood locations
Being a fisherman means you'll kill anything and everything that comes by
Being vegetarian means you hug trees
Don't like Unions? You must hate the little guy
Part of a Union? "Is it time for you to take a break yet?"

The same has happened to the Tea Party. The group that initially stood for decreased government and fiscal responsibility are now defined by these people:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3654/3446270869_da873af5ea.jpg?v=0
because they are the loudest and most extreme of the bunch.


You are probably the most guilty one here for assumptions and then extreme accusations. For instance:
So Johnny, if you think my question about Pelosi had no merit, can I assume that you do not think she was lying when she said that defecit reduction has been the mantra of Democrats? You think that was a truthful statement?
We all know what happens when you assume... and for the record, Pelosi is high up there on my "Politicians You're Most Disgusted By" list.

Hey Johnny D...if you're going to trash me, is it too much to ask that you trash me for things I actually said?
You should take your own advice. Especially since, putting words in someone else's mouth (or twisting them until they are far removed from the original meaning) and then providing two paragraphs on how your fabrications of what they said is wrong, doesn't count as "trashing me for things I actually said".

Since you don't remember relating Indiana Medicaid denying a baby a transplant and using that to defend Palin:
http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/political-threads/67843-those-who-mocked-palin-when-she-talked-about-death-panels.html

that sign is clearly photoshopped...good grief?

I was there...there was no hate spewed till JD showed up and started insulting everyone for being inbred rednecks....

Johnny D..

"The public perception of political groups (well, just about all groups) are defined by the loudest and most extreme in their ranks."

If the "public", and you, wants to define an entire group by the actions of its most extreme members, that's their (and your) problem, and it's stupid. Rational, thoughtful people (and I am arrogant enough to include myself in that group) do not do that.

I have been to many tea party events. Never heard any support of violence. Are there extremists? Yes. Do they speak for everyone? Nope.

"Pro-life means you'll blow up Planned Parenthood locations "

Anyone who think sthat is an idiot, they just are. I'm pro-life, which necessarily means that I condemn the acts of anyone who would bomb planned parenthood. I have seen the lefty media try to lump all of us in with the tiny handful of folks who have killed abortionists, and it's stupid and dishonest.

Johnny, you said you didn't like my question about whether or not Pelosi was a liar or a lunatic, yet you also won't admit that you think she was telling the truth. It's kind of hard to figure out what you're saying, other than you keep telling me I'm wrong...

on the death panels thread...Palin was villified for referring to death panels...then in this case, the gov't denies life-saving treatment to a kid. You say the kid died because of Republican cuts? That may well be true, I never said otherwise. Either way, the gov't made a decision not to help this kid, which to me is equivalent to a death panel. See, you assume that if you show that it was a Republican that caused this kid's death, you are proving me wrong. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. I'm opposed to the govt making those decisions, regardless of the political party affiliation of the politician in question. Party has nothing to do with it. I want doctors and families making those decisions, not the government. Am I going too fast for you?

one of the amusing components of hypocricy is that the hypocrit, who will point to their own informed intelligence, intellectual balance and perspective ....seldom shows the intelligence, intellectual balance and perspective to recognize their own glaring hypocricy.....

How do you bring people together who are so diametrically opposed?

We could start by removing terms like Moonbat, Wingnut, Obamorons, Nazi, Tea-Baggers, and other derogatory names from the conversation.

Pretty sure that name calling doesn't lead to the free expression of ideas and open dialogue between people.

We could start by removing terms like Moonbat, Wingnut, Obamorons, Nazi, Tea-Baggers, and other derogatory names from the conversation.

Pretty sure that name calling doesn't lead to the free expression of ideas and open dialogue between people.

Line of the week for me:

A colleauge from the right of Congressman Gibbons:
"You can disagree without disagreeable, and thats what Gabby was"

This discussion is pretty interesting. Of course it is from MSNBC, so some will discount it automatically.

Morning Joe (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#40999185)

Around 10min, Barnicle had a decent take on it.

We could start by removing terms like Moonbat, Wingnut, Obamorons, Nazi, Tea-Baggers, and other derogatory names from the conversation.

Pretty sure that name calling doesn't lead to the free expression of ideas and open dialogue between people.

so you want to ban certain terms that you don't like in order to foster free expression?....OK...set up the parameters...what is acceptable and what is not?

need to ban "insinuations" of such as well because there is a lot of that going on and it is equally distasteful and somewhat gutless....if you tend to freak out over things like words

we should start a list.....

Johnny D..

"The public perception of political groups (well, just about all groups) are defined by the loudest and most extreme in their ranks."

If the "public", and you, wants to define an entire group by the actions of its most extreme members, that's their (and your) problem, and it's stupid. Rational, thoughtful people (and I am arrogant enough to include myself in that group) do not do that. I have been to many tea party events. Never heard any support of violence. Are there extremists? Yes. Do they speak for everyone? Nope.
Oh really? Just like how everyone that doesn't agree exactly with your political ideology is a liberal moron with a mental disease.

"Pro-life means you'll blow up Planned Parenthood locations "

Anyone who think sthat is an idiot, they just are. I'm pro-life, which necessarily means that I condemn the acts of anyone who would bomb planned parenthood. I have seen the lefty media try to lump all of us in with the tiny handful of folks who have killed abortionists, and it's stupid and dishonest.
And I have seen the righty pro-lifers argue that all life is sacred while also supporting capital punishment. It's hypocritical.

Johnny, you said you didn't like my question about whether or not Pelosi was a liar or a lunatic, yet you also won't admit that you think she was telling the truth. It's kind of hard to figure out what you're saying, other than you keep telling me I'm wrong... I disagree with just about everything Pelosi says and it continues to amaze me why she gets elected to party leadership positions. The reason your thread about Pelosi was on the list I made above (and also why after today I'll be going back to ignoring your posts) is that 75% of your posts are rants filled with insults, negativity and sensationalist talking points with the purposes of drumming up more hate and trying to piss off the people who don't perfectly align with your ideologies. Then, mix in your common pretentious tone while calling those who don't agree with you idiots.


on the death panels thread...Palin was villified for referring to death panels...then in this case, the gov't denies life-saving treatment to a kid. You say the kid died because of Republican cuts? That may well be true, I never said otherwise. Either way, the gov't made a decision not to help this kid, which to me is equivalent to a death panel. See, you assume that if you show that it was a Republican that caused this kid's death, you are proving me wrong. Unfortunately for you, that's not the case. I'm opposed to the govt making those decisions, regardless of the political party affiliation of the politician in question. Party has nothing to do with it. I want doctors and families making those decisions, not the government. Am I going too fast for you?
There's that arrogant prickishness again. If you're opposed to the government making those decisions, then you should start speaking out against Medicaid and Medicare. Unfortunately, if you can't afford your own health care, you won't be able to get the same care as someone that does pay for their own health insurance.

I guess this causes a bit of a predicament... do we remove all government sponsored health care(medicare and medicaid) so that politicians aren't making these decisions, or redistribute wealth so that everyone can get all the health care they need regardless of the costs to the taxpayer?

lots to ban in that post :rotf2:

there must be a program that would simply remove any term deemed unacceptable(which could be submitted to a master list at will, by anyone that found the term offensive) from any post submitted...that would probably fix everything....:gh:

As Jonathan Rauch wrote brilliantly in Harper's in 1995, "The vocabulary of hate is potentially as rich as your dictionary, and all you do by banning language used by cretins is to let them decide what the rest of us may say." Rauch added, "Trap the racists and anti-Semites, and you lay a trap for me too. Hunt for them with eradication in your mind, and you have brought dissent itself within your sights."


The#^&awesome stupidity of the calls to tamp down political speech in the wake of the Giffords shooting. - By Jack Shafer - Slate Magazine (http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/pagenum/all/#p2)

so you want to ban certain terms that you don't like in order to foster free expression?....OK...set up the parameters...what is acceptable and what is not?

need to ban "insinuations" of such as well because there is a lot of that going on and it is equally distasteful and somewhat gutless....if you tend to freak out over things like words

we should start a list.....

I was thinking more along the lines of people actually doing it ON THEIR OWN.....maybe taking the high road and showing a little class in the process.

How does anybody think they can sway somebody to their way of thinking if they continuously insult people......

No one can sway anyone on these boards. It's a complete waste of energy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I was thinking more along the lines of people actually doing it ON THEIR OWN.....maybe taking the high road and showing a little class in the process.

How does anybody think they can sway somebody to their way of thinking if they continuously insult people......

I'm offended by those that refer to"class"...the insinuation is that someone deemed to be without class is a lesser human and probably on a lower rung on the social ladder which is highly offensive particularly to minorities...:uhuh:

oh, and it's sooooo 70's

I was thinking more along the lines of people actually doing it ON THEIR OWN.....maybe taking the high road and showing a little class in the process.

How does anybody think they can sway somebody to their way of thinking if they continuously insult people......

The basic problem is that you use the term "taking the high road." Unfortunately, many confuse this with taking the moral high ground...thus defending their stance from those who disagree. Getting this group to the table is like negotiating the Panmunjom ceasefire...

The preceding discussion thread about funding pensions has merit (much like the need to convert today's youth from social security to a form of 401K). However, how do we move off center? Do we pick a date, after which the new program is implemented? I say this because the existing groups have contracts that should be kept (lest the tables turn and everyone loses at any point). How to implement and maintain fairness would be a more appreciable diatribe IMHO.

Unfortunately, we have grown accustomed to the CNN "shock and awe" style of discussion.

I'm offended by those that refer to"class"...the insinuation is that someone deemed to be without class is a lesser human and probably on a lower rung on the social ladder which is highly offensive particularly to minorities...:uhuh:

oh, and it's sooooo 70's


How about we change it to "Common Decency".......does that work.

How about we change it to "Common Decency".......does that work.

I'm good with that....


however, I just spent a weekend watching the mainstream media, leftwing pundints, democrat politicians and a few here in a coordinated way trying to affix the blame for the massacre in Arizona to people that they disagree with politically...an all time low in my opinion......I'm all for common decency and fairness but these people are not honest brokers in any discussion, I would never suggest that they be limited in what they say nor would I suggest anyone here be limited or be told to self limit as long as they stay within the constraints that the moderators deem acceptable and appropriate, I find the blatant dishonesty far more despicable than some random colorful name calling.....the names can be amusing...the lies are not...

btw...I will be the first to pledge to self-police my rhetoric/comments with respect to common decency if it will result in a happier SB political nation

Johnny D-

"Just like how everyone that doesn't agree exactly with your political ideology is a liberal moron with a mental disease."

Please try to hold me accountable for what I actually say, not your interpretation of what I say. On many posts here, I have stated my position and said "reasonable people can disagree", so I don't besmirch everyone who doesn't agree with me on every issue. There are certain parts of liberal ideology that I do believe you have to have a screw loose to support (the notion that there's no such thing as too much spending, the notion that murderers have the right to live but not unborn babies, the notion that conservative economics caused the subprime mortgage crisis...)

"And I have seen the righty pro-lifers argue that all life is sacred while also supporting capital punishment. It's hypocritical."

First, I do not support capital punishment. However, there is NOTHING hypocritical about being against abortion and pro death penalty. An unborn baby is, by definition, innocent of any wrongdoing. Osama Bin Laden is not. In my opinion, there is a strong case to be made that killing Bin Laden is not morally equivalent to killing an unborn baby. If you cannot see a difference between an unborn baby and Osama Bin Laden, I cannot discuss anything with you.

What's completely absurd, totally devoid of any logic, is the liberal notion that it's OK to kill unborn babies, but wrong to kill a mass-murderer. That is an unsupportable position, it has no rational thought behind it. In any event, how many executions take place in this country? One a week? We slaughter 4,000 babies a day. Just to give you some perspective.

"75% of your posts are rants "

I support almost everything I say, with the logic behind my conclusions.

"filled with insults, negativity "

I plea guilty to that one...I have no more patience for folks, for example, who want to blame conservative ideology for what happened in Arizona. Anyone who would suggest that, deserves to be insulted. And at least, while I insult those, I explain why their position is absurd (as you attempted to do, although poorly IMHO)

As for the Pelosi thread, if she wasn't crazy for saying what she said, and she wasn't lying, then how do you explain what she said? In my opinion, the only 2 possibilities are that she's crazy or a liar. If there is an additional possibility, please enlighten me.

he's having a bad day

The preceding discussion thread about funding pensions has merit (much like the need to convert today's youth from social security to a form of 401K). However, how do we move off center? Do we pick a date, after which the new program is implemented? I say this because the existing groups have contracts that should be kept (lest the tables turn and everyone loses at any point). How to implement and maintain fairness would be a more appreciable diatribe IMHO.

Unfortunately, we have grown accustomed to the CNN "shock and awe" style of discussion.

Easy in my opinion. You do what the private sector did. WShen those contracts come up, you modify them and say "on such-and-such a date, contributions to your pension will cease. You will be vested in any contributions already made to your pension, and therefore you have earned a portion of the future benefit. Henceforth, future contributions will be made to a 401(k), and like everyone else, you need to live on whatever you can accumulate"

Try suggesting that to a teacher or a cop (or better yet, to a union rep), and watch the reaction you get. No one will say "hey, I recognize the economic realities of today, so let's discuss this". What they'll say is that, for example, you don't care about kids getting quality education, or that you are anti-cop. There is no talking to these people, not till states file bankruptcy.

Let's not forget how JD was so appalled that everyone was jumping on the Fort Hood shooter and calling the "radical Islamic terrorist" what he was.

JD clearly hates women who are taller then himself.:rotf2:

Everyone back in their respective corners :fury:

Have a :gh:

And show your :love:

How would we frame and honest, non-insulting discussion? Not afraid of hurting one's feelings, but more to have a respectful dialogue on a subject?

Jim,

Easy, yes. Logical, maybe not. I applaud your intent and agree that we need to change. However, the agreement goes beyond a labor contract. By that I mean the agreement pertains to a longer timeframe (typicaly twenty years or so for Fire and Police since I can't speak about teachers). I would be interested to see some concrete examples of how the industry did this years ago (I confess that I am not familiar with how they calculated that). As you can see I'm not ashamed to admit that I do not have knowledge of certain aspects--much like I am sure you have no knowledge of certain aspects of the agreements made regarding longevity in the pension plans. Together, we can learn and find equitable solutions. These are tough decisions and the individuals that are in those positions are putting their lives on the line in return for the agreement. It may not be easy to get the same caliber of person to fill those positions in the future (...and then again, it may be easier given the transient nature of this new generation). I personally think a cut off date where anyone after the date is given a certain amount into their 401K and those before continue with the plan may be the way to go. However, I'm still learning all the sides of the issue.

How would we frame and honest, non-insulting discussion? Not afraid of hurting one's feelings, but more to have a respectful dialogue on a subject?
It's impossible. Even topics that have no partisan basis are almost immediately dragged through the sewers of political polarity. I'm quite surprised that one about Unions has made it this long.

Everyone back in their respective corners :fury:

Have a :gh:

And show your :love:

How would we frame and honest, non-insulting discussion? Not afraid of hurting one's feelings, but more to have a respectful dialogue on a subject?

kinda like The VIEW..right? the "IGNORE" feature here is like when the two dingbats...OOPS..I mean... ESTEEMED LIBERAL THINKERS...acted indignant and strutted off stage...

the "sewers of political polarity"...that's funny...

Easy in my opinion. You do what the private sector did. WShen those contracts come up, you modify them and say "on such-and-such a date, contributions to your pension will cease. You will be vested in any contributions already made to your pension, and therefore you have earned a portion of the future benefit. Henceforth, future contributions will be made to a 401(k), and like everyone else, you need to live on whatever you can accumulate"

Try suggesting that to a teacher or a cop (or better yet, to a union rep), and watch the reaction you get. No one will say "hey, I recognize the economic realities of today, so let's discuss this". What they'll say is that, for example, you don't care about kids getting quality education, or that you are anti-cop. There is no talking to these people, not till states file bankruptcy.

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

you guys are in the wrong thread...the pension thread is over there....

we are discussing the "sewers of political polarity"

weird how topics in the Political Threads always descend into partisan political discussions...one of life's mysteries I suppose...

Jim,

Easy, yes. Logical, maybe not. I applaud your intent and agree that we need to change. However, the agreement goes beyond a labor contract. By that I mean the agreement pertains to a longer timeframe (typicaly twenty years or so for Fire and Police since I can't speak about teachers). I would be interested to see some concrete examples of how the industry did this years ago (I confess that I am not familiar with how they calculated that). As you can see I'm not ashamed to admit that I do not have knowledge of certain aspects--much like I am sure you have no knowledge of certain aspects of the agreements made regarding longevity in the pension plans. Together, we can learn and find equitable solutions. These are tough decisions and the individuals that are in those positions are putting their lives on the line in return for the agreement. It may not be easy to get the same caliber of person to fill those positions in the future (...and then again, it may be easier given the transient nature of this new generation). I personally think a cut off date where anyone after the date is given a certain amount into their 401K and those before continue with the plan may be the way to go. However, I'm still learning all the sides of the issue.

The private sector has made these changes in many different ways. Most companies either cut the pension all together or grandfather it so that any new employee hired after X date is left out. Other private companies, like my wife's actually grandfather vested employees with a pension but after you make over a certain salary, the higher wage earners pay into the pension fund from their salary to subsidize the whole plan (similar to taxing the "rich" to give to the poor) Let’s see a union or public employee make that concession.

As for caliber of people.......the private sector has not had a problem hiring people when they need to and they are not loosing high caliber people due to not offering a pension. I’d be willing to bet that if pensions were rolled into a 401K's we would not see police and teachers fleeing from their jobs. I also think people that are years from retirement (like me) assume that a pension will not be there for them in 30-40 years so it would not make an impact on finding “high caliber” people.

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

What I would suggest is, teachers have earned whatever portion of their pension that they have paid into. Then, after som edate, they no longer "earn" more of their pension, but fund into a 401(k). That's what the private sector did. As for subsidizng the private sector...to me, that's a better alternative than doubling property taxes, which is what you'd have to do to adequately fund those insane pensions.

I do not think it is as easy as that for the following reason: Isn't the main problem with the pension systems for the states is that they have been underfunded. Are you suggesting that the pension plans would lose any amounts that have not been funded yet. If so, I think that would be difficult from a political and legal stand point. It would be a hard argument to make that people should take dramatic cuts to their benefits accrued because prior governments ignored their pension obligations. As far as turning them into 401(k) plans I think it results in just another large subsidy to the financial sector. Maybe they can be self directed but to be honest I really do not know how much flexibility there is.

In the private sector, if the pension plan is underfunded or not fully funded and the company goes under, you loose your pension. (Enron and Polaroid just to name a few). Believe me, I wish it was affordable for everyone to have a pension but in the end, a pension is a "major perk" and it does not seem to be sustainable from a government level. If the yearly salaries were not so high, I could see it being more affordable but you can’t have it both ways. Some public employees are making a hell of a lot of many especially compared to 20 years ago and they still expect a pension which is rated off of that high salary. It just isn't sustainable in this world. The government isn't selling something to make a large profit like a private company and it just isn’t sustainable.

Piscator,

There is a federal agency set up to absorb those funds that failed...the Pension Benefit Guarantee Bureau (we joke that PBGB closely sounds like heebee jeebees!). That's where United pilots went when their fund went belly up along with lots of others. What I find amazing is that railroad retirement, the only federally mandated retirement fund, is self-sufficient at this point. However, their members pay almost 3.5 times what we pay into social security.

When it comes to attracting good people I think the discussion has to be broken into the respective groups, i.e. firefighter, teachers, police, and other public servant. I do think it would be difficult to keep qualified firefighters if they did not have the pensions that they have. However, they are also taking, for the most part, big concessions during the econic downturn (at least here where I live) and no I am not a firefighter. In my area teachers and police have refused concessions. I find that to be the real hard pill to swallow and a major reason why I am less inclined to work with them. I don't dislike unions (I actually pay my dues and I am a conservative)...I dislike unions that bring nothing to the table and expect everything. We all need to take cuts. However, figuring out what cuts to take is the big issue. I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).

I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).
I think Ron Paul has refused the pension.

Piscator,

There is a federal agency set up to absorb those funds that failed...the Pension Benefit Guarantee Bureau (we joke that PBGB closely sounds like heebee jeebees!). That's where United pilots went when their fund went belly up along with lots of others. What I find amazing is that railroad retirement, the only federally mandated retirement fund, is self-sufficient at this point. However, their members pay almost 3.5 times what we pay into social security.

When it comes to attracting good people I think the discussion has to be broken into the respective groups, i.e. firefighter, teachers, police, and other public servant. I do think it would be difficult to keep qualified firefighters if they did not have the pensions that they have. However, they are also taking, for the most part, big concessions during the econic downturn (at least here where I live) and no I am not a firefighter. In my area teachers and police have refused concessions. I find that to be the real hard pill to swallow and a major reason why I am less inclined to work with them. I don't dislike unions (I actually pay my dues and I am a conservative)...I dislike unions that bring nothing to the table and expect everything. We all need to take cuts. However, figuring out what cuts to take is the big issue. I'd like to see the first Congressman willing to not take the pension or health benefits provided after only 8 years in office (try getting that in a contract!!).

Sorry for getting off topic in this thread but it's better than where this thing was going earlier...........

Chesapeake Bill: I agree with you for the most part. But I still think you will get qualified firefighters, teachers, & police without giving a pension (I could be wrong). Up here in Mass we have some very very highly paid police and fire (many of my very close friends are in the profession so I know) Now they work for a (small) city that pays them well so I'm sure they are on the higher end for the state as a whole but you would still not believe what they get paid. Granted, they put their life on the line and you can't take that away from them, but they will even admit (to me atleast) how good they really have it when it comes to compensation (their Union would NEVER say that). The guys on the fire all have sencond businesses on the side as well as much of their work is overnight so they get to sleep on slow nights. Again, they aren't at home in their own bed and you have to give them credit for that (they do say it is nice to be able to sleepo on the job though).

When did the PBGB get started? (shows you how much I don't know). I was always under the impression that the Enron and Polaroid folks literally lost everything. I had a friend who's Dad worked for Polaroid for years and when they went under, he lost his whole pension (maybe it was before PBGB?)

Jim in CT: I take your point that you draw a line in the sand and go forward but I think you are buying a major lawsuit that the state may well lose if it does not pay the money it was required to do so before the cut off date.
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market.

The current issue of the Economist has a great article on public sector employees and the issues facing both the US and the developed European countries. Well worth reading if you have the time.

[QUOTE=mosholu;826182]
Piscator: In the private example there is no more money left at the company to pay into the pensions. With a state that has assets and the power to tax that is not the case which again that leads to a lawsuit and would really hurt the state in the bond market. QUOTE]

The private sector is in business to make as much money and profit as they can. If they can’t even afford pensions then why should the Government (who is not in the business to make money or profit) be expected to provide that to their employees? I'm not saying current employees shouldn't be entitled to them to some degree but it should be grandfathered and ended to new hires. Some (not all) of the state salaries are through the roof and there are pensions associated with those. As these salaries continue to rise, so doesn’t the pensions and it isn’t sustainable. The private sector pretty much ended it and the public sector needs to take a close look at it too (let's face it, the private sector is a hell of a lot smarter than the Government).
Check this link out, it list of salaries for Mass employees. Some of the State Troopers are making north of $150K and some Lieutenant’s well over $180K a year. Those pensions are a huge hit to tax payers money and can't be sustained. The only thing they can do is continue to raise taxes to pay for it. When will it end?

Your tax dollars at work: 2009 State Employee Payroll - Boston Herald.com (http://www.bostonherald.com/projects/payroll/massachusetts/last_name.ASC/POL//8/)

Piscator,

I like your thoughts and appreciate your discussion. If we don't have these tough talks we will never find the answer. I was wrong. It is Corporation, not Bureau as I previosuly mentioned (Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) (http://www.PBGC.gov)). Very interesting reading on their site. The beneficiaries rarely get much of their benefits back as a per dollar ratio but at least they get something. I'm afraid that is where a lot of these benefit funds will be if we don't so something.

Piscator,

I like your thoughts and appreciate your discussion. If we don't have these tough talks we will never find the answer.

Chesapeake Bill, Same here! I appreciate your discussion as well. That's what I like about this site.

No one can sway anyone on these boards. It's a complete waste of energy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Spoken like the MARVELOUS free thinker you are....

there are double rainbows hidden within those words

Blame has to fall on the Parents, the school officials and others whose job it was to see that this troubled kid had serious issues
that everyone turned a blind eye to and did nothing but ignore him.

MSNBC Analyst on Shooting: Media Has ‘Behaved Pretty Well,’ but not Conservatives

January 11, 2011 at 8:00am by Jonathon M. Seidl
On Tuesday morning’s “Morning Joe,“ MSNBC political analyst Mark Halperin summarized the recent response to the Arizona tragedy with the audacious claim that politicians and the media ”behaved pretty well.” But with one caveat: the “good behavior” can’t be extended to conservative commentators.

“I just want to single out one thing,” Halperin said. “I don’t want to over-generalize but I think the media and the politicians have behaved pretty well so far. The thing I’m most concerned about now is the anger on the right-wing commenatariat: on Fox, and George Will, and other conservatives are, in some cases justifiably upset at liberals. But they’re turning this right now, in the last 24 hours, back into the standard operating procedure of all of this is war and fodder for content, rather than trying to bring the country together.”

That caused host Joe Scarborough to do a double take: “Wait a second, Mark. I think they would say that you have that backwards. That a shooting was turned into fodder to attack conservatives.”

Halperin reached into the biblical analogy bag to respond. Conservatives, he said, just should have turned the other cheek: “They’re right. But rather than seizing on it and turning the other cheek, they are back at their war stations. And that’s not going to help us.”

this is war Mr. Halperin, your side launched the SCUD missiles and now you hide behind skirts and the Bible?....We understand that people like you are no different than the islamofacists who play by no moral or ethical rules and demand that your victims adhere to stringent guidelines as you continue to stoop to every form of dispicable attack....

NY TIMES EDITORS
It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman’s act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people.

there are two sides angry at government...those that are angry about what the government is doing to them and those that are angry about what the government isn't doing for them, clearly the Journalists and Editors at the paper of shame have decided that the rhetoric is only a problem from one side and apparently of these people have chosen to ingnore the evidence from people that say they knew this guy and have described him as pothead, left wing, anti-religeon and who know's what the shrine with the skull in his yard was all about but there isn't a single link to anything teaparty, conservative, rightwing, talk radio, Palin etc...still they persist and make it very clear that there is absolutely no debate with theses people...no shame, no consience, no integrity and no principles....

Obama fires up Democrats: 'I want you to argue with them and get in their face'THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, September 18th 2008, 9:50 AM

.........................

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

I don't want to blame either side.
He was a mentally derranged person. In the state with close to the most lineient gun laws in the country, he was able to buy a semi-automatic handgun with extended magazines? That is an underlying issue.

Craig brings up a good point; he lived at home, WTF were his parents doing???

I don't want to blame either side.
He was a mentally derranged person. In the state with close to the most lineient gun laws in the country, he was able to buy a semi-automatic handgun with extended magazines? That is an underlying issue.

Craig brings up a good point; he lived at home, WTF were his parents doing???

Great post. Crazy is crazy, these people are going to be set off by something that makes no sense to us.

I did watch the coverage again last night, and some folks at MSNBC and the New York Times are actually accusing Sarah Palin of being an accessory to mass murder. It's putrid, it's just an attempt by the left (not all on the left, but too many) to silence those with whom they disagree.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.[/QUOTE]

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....

Good question. His parents were probably walking on eggshells hoping nothing would ever happen.

What is the fix for those suffering from a mental illness? Is there a fix? Is fix the wrong word?

He was an adult so there was not much his parents could legally do without his consent.

I'm disappointed yet another tragedy has been politicized.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott, I do believe there is too much access to crazy weaponry. This guy's rampage ended when he was tackled as he stopped to reload. To me, it's very possible that if his magazine had 12 rounds instead of the extended capacity (30 rounds I think?), he would have fired fewer bullets before he was subdued.

Stricter gun control won't eliminate gun crime entirely, obviously. But I'm sure it would reduce gun deaths. Not everyone can build a bomb, or get their hands on one.

Good question. His parents were probably walking on eggshells hoping nothing would ever happen.

What is the fix for those suffering from a mental illness? Is there a fix? Is fix the wrong word?

He was an adult so there was not much his parents could legally do without his consent.

I'm disappointed yet another tragedy has been politicized.

Great question John R. There are a lot of unbalanced folks out there, but very few go this far. I think these occasional tragedies will remain a sad fact of life for the forseeable future. With more diligent oversight by parents and teachers, maybe we can avoid some of these tragedies, but they will never be eliminated.

RIROCKHOUND makes a good point. There are no rational reason I cna think of, why a citizen should be able to buy extended magazines for handguns.

and predictably, many are saying..ahhh, forget about those allegations that we made over the weekend...what we need to do is focus on gun control now and the fairness doctorine....Jim, Bryan....if we ban "extended magazines" would this have been prevented? I don't own a gun, my little brother shot himself in the head with a gun, I don't see why anyone needs an extended magazine or whatever they are but to try to shift this to a gun control debate is absurd and more an attempt to further a political issue through a massacre by a nut.....the guy was a nut, if he couldn't get a gun legally he would and could get one illegally or build a bomb or just drive his car through the crowd....he was obvoiusly going to hurt someone and apparenlty a lot of people saw the signs and said nothing...which seems to be the case in many of these occurances....[/QUOTE]

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

crazy thread Im staying out of.

[Obama fires up Democrats: 'I want you to argue with them and get in their face'THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, September 18th 2008, 9:50 AM

.........................

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” Obama said at a Philadelphia fundraiser Friday night.

and lets not forget -
"But they're going to be paying attention to this election, and if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us ."If they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder. And that's why I think it is so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

direct quote from our President.
Who is inciting violence?

I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone with a 33 shot clip in one gun, or 15 shot clips and two guns or ten shot clips in three guns would do what this guy did....I think we have a running gun control debate in this country... but for many, when things like this happen the knee jerk reaction is to look for an object to villify and it rarely includes the guilty party, he's dismissed as a nut(only after it shown he wasn't a tea party member) and his motivations are assigned to, in this case, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush, Conservatives, Republicans, Talk Radio, Tea Party, Gun Lobby, anti-illegal immigrant hate( essentially, anyone who is a strong voice against the left and their agenda) ....or maybe it's the fact that you can buy a 33 round clip for your gun...of course!....that's why he did it....if we could just ban those clips, these things would never occur :uhuh:

Peter King is supposed to submit legislation banning guns from 1000 feet of a Public Official....that would have certainly stopped this...right?...hey Peter, make it 10,000 feet while you are at it also, ban radical jihadists with bombs or flying airplanes from coming within 1000 feet of any building or gathering.... OK?

hey...what about Hollywood and the graphic violence portrayed there, what about music (nope, big democratic donors) and what about video games? this guy is a 22 year old recluse with creepy skull things in his yard.....not your typical Talk Radio demographic....

but the left and their media accomplices assign and continue to blame all of their "enemies" without a shread of evidence...........

and then there's this:

Dem Congressman who called for GOP Gov. to be put against a wall and shot now pleads for civility

01/11/11 1:15 PM
Ex-Rep. Paul Kanjorski, D-Pa., pens an op-ed in the New York Times today about the proper political response to this weekend's tragedy. I wholeheartedly support the former Congressman (Kanjorski lost his seat in November) when he argues that, following this weekend's shooting, Congressman need to remain open and accessible to the public. However, Kanjorski is rather hypocritical when he climbs up on his soapbox:

We all lose an element of freedom when security considerations distance public officials from the people. Therefore, it is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation.

Incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect? Congressman heal thyself! Yesterday, I noted that, according to the Scranton Times, Kanjorski said this about Florida's new Republican Governor Rick Scott on October 23:

"That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

I'll give Kanjorski the benefit of the doubt that he did not literally mean Scott schould be killed. Regardless, Kanjorski's way over the rhetorical line compared to the kinds of statements liberals are pointing to as evidence that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh are creating a "climate of hate," to borrow Paul Krugman's phrase. And somehow I doubt that there would have been crickets from the national media if a Republican politician called for a Democratic candidate to be shot barely a week before the election.
...................
I rarely see the Morning Joke but I did catch a clip from this morning or yesterday where the guy who I think is Joke Scarborough went on a very extended, detailed rant about the rhetoric spewed by Glenn Beck and the damage that he's doing and the people that he is inciting to which the little twit next to him added.."this should be a wake up call for the republicans"...Joke continued to rant and was interrupeted briefly by another head sitting there who asked him a question about Beck to which Joke replied "I don't know, I don't watch or listen to Beck"
he savaged Beck repeatedly very sure of his accusations only to admit later that he hever listens...?????

Joke is obviously incredibly jealous of Glenn Beck and Joke appears to be seething with hate...


this is a wake up call all right...

and lets not forget -
"But they're going to be paying attention to this election, and if Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, "We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us ."If they don't see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it's gonna be harder. And that's why I think it is so important that people focus on voting on November 2.

direct quote from our President.
Who is inciting violence?

Great post, right on point, and it absolutely refutes the notion that only right-wingers use hate speech. Of course, the fact that you have proven that claim to be false, will not stop some (not all, but too manu) on the left from continuing to make that claim. See, there's that mental disorder thing.

Here is a quote from an editorial in today's Hartford Courant, where the editors essentially think right wing discussion is an accessory to these mass murders...

"“But the left is not the location of extremism today. Radical political disaffection, racism, separatism and the rhetoric of violence are now the currency of the extreme right”

This was not a letter to the editor...it was an editorial. Unbelievable. I know I have caught flak for saying liberalism is a mental disorder. But if you genuinely believe that people like Limbaugh and Palin are even remotely responsible for this tragedy, you are not right in the head. If you genuinely believe that hate speech doesn't exist on the left, you have a screw loose.

Great post, right on point, and it absolutely refutes the notion that only right-wingers use hate speech. Of course, the fact that you have proven that claim to be false, will not stop some (not all, but too manu) on the left from continuing to make that claim. See, there's that mental disorder thing.

Here is a quote from an editorial in today's Hartford Courant, where the editors essentially think right wing discussion is an accessory to these mass murders...

"“But the left is not the location of extremism today. Radical political disaffection, racism, separatism and the rhetoric of violence are now the currency of the extreme right”

This was not a letter to the editor...it was an editorial. Unbelievable. I know I have caught flak for saying liberalism is a mental disorder. But if you genuinely believe that people like Limbaugh and Palin are even remotely responsible for this tragedy, you are not right in the head. If you genuinely believe that hate speech doesn't exist on the left, you have a screw loose.

look at the looney "hate bush" speak prior to the last 2 years, the attacks at the Repub convention, the police state security required at the repub events. Talk about extremism!

look at the looney "hate bush" speak prior to the last 2 years, the attacks at the Repub convention, the police state security required at the repub events. Talk about extremism!

Didn't you get the memo? That kind of "hate" is ok. The conservatives are the bad guys.

On a more positive note, Representative Giffords is making improvements and is now breathing on her own. Hopefully, she makes a full recovery.

Great post, right on point, and it absolutely refutes the notion that only right-wingers use hate speech. Of course, the fact that you have proven that claim to be false, will not stop some (not all, but too manu) on the left from continuing to make that claim. See, there's that mental disorder thing.

What was that you said yesterday??

If the "public", and you, wants to define an entire group by the actions of its most extreme members, that's their (and your) problem, and it's stupid. Rational, thoughtful people (and I am arrogant enough to include myself in that group) do not do that.


Right, but rational thoughtful people don't define an entire group by the action of some, yet you want lump every liberal into this based on the actions of some of the media and talking heads. I'm as liberal as they come, but see no blame to ONE side or the other on this topic. is there a lot of political rhetoric and hateful speach being used? Absolutely. from both sides. Absolutely! Does that make it right? No.

Was this political;y motivated? for some reason, in this whack-job's head, yes. If he was just out to kill people, I find it awfully coincidental that he walked up to a congresswoman and shot her in the back of the head at point blank range before turning the gun on the crowd. Was it because he was a tea-partier? Or a communist? or a liberal? or a republican? who the #^&#^&#^&#^& knows.

But then again, I'm a liberal, he should be released from prison tomorrow, given 10 grand and maybe even a house, since I'm one of those mentally diffective liberals, right Jim?

Right, here in lies the danger with lumping us togethor since I am pro-death penatly in some cases, this included.

Scott you are right in saying there is no way to really effectively limit what a committed crazy person will do to get where he wants to be. But in all political issues things work on a stimulus/response basis. So now that this tragedy has occurred is it wrong to look at whether extended magazines have any place being freely available in our society. While we may not stop these nuts should we do nothing to make it harder? I do not know that much about guns but I have a hard time thinking of a legitimate reason why someone would need a 33 shot clip in a pistol. There should at least be a debate about it at an appropriate time.

This point of view, while sounding very reasonable, is the result of how we have been viewing law over the past 75 years or so. Before that, we would have wondered if there was a legitimate reason why someone should not be allowed to have a 33 shot clip in a pistol. We have come to accept limitations on individual rights as equal to or more important than limitations on government. Rather than embracing individual freedom and the responsibilities of that freedom (responsible gun ownership, responsible behavior regardless of what others say no matter how "inflamatory" it might be), we react with fear to isolated incidents and believe that we can dispense with another "extravagant freedom" that some lunatic has used to kill by being "inflamed." All responsible citizens can, in our current view, shed an "unecessary" freedom and allow a government, that used to be prevented from doing so, dictate what arms or words we can possess.

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

i have to drop from this thread, too emotional. I've been really surprised by some of the posts on this thread and the other thread. Too reminiscent of the looney anti Bush days for me. people have killed over sports teams to movies to video games. lets hope this is not used to stifle free speech. its a fact that the only free speech, talk radio THAT MAKES MONEY is conservative talk radio, so that will be the first target.

oh and Bry, you're not as lefty as you think. The force is strong in this one....

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

Right. and that m-16 is just for squirell hunting.

Right. and that m-16 is just for squirell hunting.

I don't own a gun. There are times in some of the places I go that I think having a gun handy would be good. If some one wants to hunt squirrels with an M-16, it doesn't offend me--don't really care. What is your point?

Right, but rational thoughtful people don't define an entire group by the action of some, yet you want lump every liberal into this based on the actions of some of the media and talking heads. I'm as liberal as they come, but see no blame to ONE side or the other on this topic. is there a lot of political rhetoric and hateful speach being used? Absolutely. from both sides. Absolutely! Does that make it right? No.

Was this political;y motivated? for some reason, in this whack-job's head, yes. If he was just out to kill people, I find it awfully coincidental that he walked up to a congresswoman and shot her in the back of the head at point blank range before turning the gun on the crowd. Was it because he was a tea-partier? Or a communist? or a liberal? or a republican? who the #^&#^&#^&#^& knows.

But then again, I'm a liberal, he should be released from prison tomorrow, given 10 grand and maybe even a house, since I'm one of those mentally diffective liberals, right Jim?

Right, here in lies the danger with lumping us togethor since I am pro-death penatly in some cases, this included.

"yet you want lump every liberal into this based on the actions of some of the media and talking heads."

No, that's not what I want to do...look at what I said...what I said was, if you agree with the talking heads that Palin/Foxnews caused this, you are crazy. That's what I said, and I stand by it. Reasonable people can debate things like immigration and entitlements. There is no rational way to suggest only the conservatives spew hate.

Rockhound, let's assume (despite no supoprting evidence yet) that this guy was a tea partier. Let's say he did it because he thought Palin would want him to. Even if he thought that, Palin is no more responsible than Jodie Foster was for Hinkley shooting Reagan. You cannot hold someone responsible for how a lunatic responds to what they say. You can only hold Palin responsible if a REASONABLE PERSON would infer that she was trying to incite murder.

"But then again, I'm a liberal, he should be released from prison tomorrow, given 10 grand and maybe even a house, since I'm one of those mentally diffective liberals, right Jim?"

I didn't say that. I'm just commenting on what liberals have actually said, and too many of them are using this as an accuse to silence conservatives. Too many (though not all liberals) are doing it, and too few (though not zero) liberals are speaking against it.

And yes, I can think of legitimate reasons why one can own a 33 shot clip. If a handgun is owned for sport, it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one. If it is a collector item, various clips complete the collection. If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. Legitimately, until there is a "legitimate" law that says you can't own the clip, it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it.

"Legitimate"? I'm not sure...

"it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one."

Fun does not trump public safety. Some people would have fun driving 150 mph on the highway, but we outlaw it anyway, for reasons of public safety. Pedophiles think it's "fun" to be with little kids, but we outlaw that too. "Fun" is not the litmus test for what's right and what's wrong. That is a very, very weak argument.

"If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. "

How many situations do you know of where a private citizen needed a 33 shot clip to defend himself, where a 12-shot clip would have been inadequate? If you say that self-protection is a "legitimate" use for a 33-shot clip, then it stands to reason there ought to be historical precedent for that need.

"it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it"

Tell that to the parents of that beautiful 9 year old girl. If the rampage was only stopped after he took the time to reload, then it stands to reason that if he had run out of bullets sooner, he would have been stopped before he was able to fire as many bullets.

I'm a reasonable guy, and I'm no liberal. I am a former Marine. I have no problem with responsible folks having reasonable access to firearms, as guaranteed in the constitution. But I'm not brainwashed by the NRA either, I dropped my membership long ago, because as far as the NRA is concerned, more availability is always better then less availability.

the media - news headline
Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Patrick Leahy issued a stern warning Tuesday on toning down the rhetoric that many say led to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

"The seething rhetoric has gone too far. The demonizing of opponents, of government, of public service has gone too far," the Vermont Democrat said at an event the Newseum in Washington. "Our politics have become incendiary and we all share the responsibility for lowering the temperature. That is the responsibility we all have to keep our democracy strong and thriving."

many? Many? many what? Many speculators? Many people that knew the shooter? many experts? many kindergarteners?
Lousy, lousy, lousy reporting. The author should be ashamed. There is zero proof any rhetoric led to this.

"Legitimate"? I'm not sure...

"it can be as much "fun" to rip off 33 shots as it is to shoot one."

Fun does not trump public safety. Some people would have fun driving 150 mph on the highway, but we outlaw it anyway, for reasons of public safety. Pedophiles think it's "fun" to be with little kids, but we outlaw that too. "Fun" is not the litmus test for what's right and what's wrong. That is a very, very weak argument.


Need context here. Context here is if the gun was used for sport--for example a firing range. There are those who legitimately drive 150 miles per hour and much more--on legitimate race tracks. Crowds watch for the "fun" of it. Pedophiles--geeze--can't think of any legitimate pedophilial fun. Yeah, illegal fun is outlawed, but let's not outlaw legal fun. As far as the argument being weak, it wasn't meant to be strong. The serious (hopefully strong)portion was the first paragraph which RIROCKHOUND ignored and picked on the throw-in demo of some offhand possibilities of why someone might want a 33 shot clip. I'm not more frightened by the idea that someone can kill 33 people instead of 12. One person stabbed 90 times is chillling enough. I probably should have left the second paragraph out.

"If it is used for protection, 33 shots can protect you better than a lesser number--this is especially true in high crime, gang infested areas. "

How many situations do you know of where a private citizen needed a 33 shot clip to defend himself, where a 12-shot clip would have been inadequate? If you say that self-protection is a "legitimate" use for a 33-shot clip, then it stands to reason there ought to be historical precedent for that need.

Again, this was just conjecture. I can't remember, offhand, the many situations (I live in Detroit) where 33 shots were "needed" instead of 12. I know there are a lot of high powered illegal guns in my neighborhood. It sounds like a war zone at 12AM January 1, and on the Fourth of July. The chatter of automatic weapons rattling off several rounds as well as thunderous sounds go an for a good half hour and more. We have Latino gangs and white trash gangs and black gangs that still manage to do some bad chit, though not as bad as it was a few years ago. There have been incidents where they have even had standoffs with the police. I don't know if there is a "historical precedent" where a private citizen needed a 33 round clip, or even a 12 round clip. I just conjectured that there could be situations where 33 rounds would be better protection than 12.

"it's not your business to wonder why someone else should own it"

Tell that to the parents of that beautiful 9 year old girl. If the rampage was only stopped after he took the time to reload, then it stands to reason that if he had run out of bullets sooner, he would have been stopped before he was able to fire as many bullets.

I was responding to Moshulu, not the parents of the beautiful 9 year old girl. Her death was the greatest tragedy in the lunatic's massacre. The death of children at the hands of lunatics, rapists, pedophiles, murderers of any stripe are tragedies that I have no answer for. Not those caused by 33 rounds or 12 rounds or one round or knife, or hands. Don't ask me to tell the parents of that girl anything. I have nothing to offer but sadness and grief. Nor do I have a solution to stop the killing of children by madmen. If you think my previous argument is weak, it is at least as weak to argue that outlawing 33 round clips will stop or diminish the mad killing of children. I don't know which number bullet killed the girl and I feel queasy even thinking in those terms.

I'm a reasonable guy, and I'm no liberal. I am a former Marine. I have no problem with responsible folks having reasonable access to firearms, as guaranteed in the constitution. But I'm not brainwashed by the NRA either, I dropped my membership long ago, because as far as the NRA is concerned, more availability is always better then less availability.

Again, the main point of my response to Moshulu was not the so-called "legitimate" reasons for someone to own a 33 round clip. I was pointing out that we are prone in current times to place the burden of "legitmacy" on the individual rather than on the government.

the media - news headline
Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Patrick Leahy issued a stern warning Tuesday on toning down the rhetoric that many say led to the shootings in Tucson, Arizona.

many? Many? many what? Many speculators? Many people that knew the shooter? many experts? many kindergarteners?
Lousy, lousy, lousy reporting. The author should be ashamed. There is zero proof any rhetoric led to this

I Agree, Very Very Crappy reporting

"The seething rhetoric has gone too far. The demonizing of opponents, of government, of public service has gone too far," the Vermont Democrat said at an event the Newseum in Washington. "Our politics have become incendiary and we all share the responsibility for lowering the temperature. That is the responsibility we all have to keep our democracy strong and thriving."

Very Very good Sentiment lost in it too.....

Jim,

I apologized for appearing to stereoype you with others I expect the same in return. As a responsible gun owner, including an AR-15 (M16 is such a cliche) and numerous hgandguns with large magazines I do not appreciate being "lumped" into the same sentence with pedophiles. Put your stones away, my friend, less the glass house come crashing...

never waste a good crisis...is this a new low?...fundraising on the backs of the victims of a shooting? Maybe Patrick Leahy should talk to his friend...:uhuh:


Sanders Fundraises Off Arizona Murders
3:20 PM, Jan 11, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
There has been no shortage of individuals and institutions that have sought to capitalize on the shootings in Tucson. Add Vermont senator Bernie Sanders to that list.

This afternoon Sanders sent out a fundraising appeal, seeking to raise money to fight Republicans and other “right-wing reactionaries” responsible for the climate that led to the shooting.
....................
Leahy must be referring to things like this :

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy accused Republicans Sunday of playing the race card on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

“You have one leader of the Republican Party call her the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Another leader of the Republican Party called her a bigot,” the Vermont Democrat(Leahy) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Leahy should wash his own mouth out with soap before climbling on his soapbox....

..................

atta boy Patches.........


Patrick Kennedy: Blame Palin, Tea Partyers
Tuesday, 11 Jan 2011 05:53 PM

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, whose uncles John and Robert Kennedy both fell to assassins’ bullets, says there is a direct connection between Sarah Palin and the shooting rampage in Arizona that killed six people and wounded 14 others, including critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Kennedy indicated that he also blames the tea parties for the tragedy.

In an interview published on Politico Tuesday, Kennedy states:" When the vitriol and the rhetoric is so violent, we have to connect consequences to that.”

In the Politico interview, an animated Kennedy appeared to come to Loughner’s defense, saying he and others had been unfairly stigmatized.
“When I hear terms about the alleged shooter in this case, pejorative terms like psycho, lunatic, or they say ‘He’s crazy.’ These are terms we use to describe someone’s mental health?

“This is a rare opportunity to take all the stigma and stereotyping,” Kennedy said, “and take the terms like crazy and psycho, that are being bandied about by reputable people who should know better, and use this as an opportunity to have some enlightened debate about better public policy that can help respond to the real need."



WOW!

I get it now.... you sink to the lowest depth of depravity to villify your "enemy" and then race to call for "civility".......

Using the death of a 9 year old to push a political agenda speaks volumes of the class of people we still have in office. This will push people more to the right of center.

In Massachusetts I would say that a large marjority of permitted gun holders have the large capacity pistol permit, I most cerntainly do. There is 30,000 people in my city, a six shooter just won't do it. :)

Jim,

I apologized for appearing to stereoype you with others I expect the same in return. As a responsible gun owner, including an AR-15 (M16 is such a cliche) and numerous hgandguns with large magazines I do not appreciate being "lumped" into the same sentence with pedophiles. Put your stones away, my friend, less the glass house come crashing...

Bill, I didn't lump you in with pedophiles. What I said was, if something is "fun", that does not mean it's good public policy. In my opinion, and I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with this, our society would have less blood on its hands if we outlawed these things. Pistols for target shooting, fine. Hunting rifles, fine. I don't like assault rifles, which are designed for one, and only one, purpose - to kill as many human beings as possible in a short time. No one other than the police and the military have any need for such things.

You want to get your rocks off shooting assault rifles, do what I did and serve a hitch in the service..

I just don't see the appeal of that stuff, no more than I would own a rattlesnake or tiger for a pet. Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. When ownership of those things reduces the life expectancy of innocent people living around you, we need to have a mature conversation about what's more important.

That's my opinion. I think it's very reasonable.

Bill, I didn't lump you in with pedophiles. What I said was, if something is "fun", that does not mean it's good public policy. In my opinion, and I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with this, our society would have less blood on its hands if we outlawed these things. Pistols for target shooting, fine. Hunting rifles, fine. I don't like assault rifles, which are designed for one, and only one, purpose - to kill as many human beings as possible in a short time. No one other than the police and the military have any need for such things.

You want to get your rocks off shooting assault rifles, do what I did and serve a hitch in the service..

I just don't see the appeal of that stuff, no more than I would own a rattlesnake or tiger for a pet. Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. When ownership of those things reduces the life expectancy of innocent people living around you, we need to have a mature conversation about what's more important.

That's my opinion. I think it's very reasonable.

It's not.. Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others. It's been proven over and over again.

You are basing your opinion on emotion "Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. "
Very liberal of you:)

Jim: I commend your position on this. There is hope for you yet.

I wonder how much is from seeing the injuries these weapons can cause at close hand. You have a perspective many of us dont have.

no comments on Scotts posts? The liberal reaction to this is disgusting (not ALL liberals Johnny D, just the ones being published/quoted).
reminds me of Katrina, libs could care less about the people living there, they just wanted another reason to vilify Bush. I really cant believe this.

no comments on Scotts posts? The liberal reaction to this is disgusting (not ALL liberals Johnny D, just the ones being published/quoted).
reminds me of Katrina, libs could care less about the people living there, they just wanted another reason to vilify Bush. I really cant believe this.

Its actually a good thing nobody is commenting on it....means they can't find fault with it. :hihi:

It is disgusting using this for furthering ones agenda.

Patrick Kennedy's comments are idiotic.....what else are you going to call the guy but a psycho

Jim,

Assumptions are a dangerous thing. I did serve. In fact, I will carry the card with me until the day that I pass from this world. The card is a reminder of the duty...and friends lost to maintain the freedom of opinion that you enjoy.

I always enjoy when others want to tell me what I need. Thanks. I am now more educated because of your information.

Good read. The Hammer nails is on the head.


Charles Krauthammer - Massacre, followed by libel (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/11/AR2011011106068_pf.html)


Massacre, followed by libel

By Charles Krauthammer
Wednesday, January 12, 2011;

The charge: The Tucson massacre is a consequence of the "climate of hate" created by Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Glenn Beck, Obamacare opponents and sundry other liberal betes noires.

The verdict: Rarely in American political discourse has there been a charge so reckless, so scurrilous and so unsupported by evidence.

As killers go, Jared Loughner is not reticent. Yet among all his writings, postings, videos and other ravings - and in all the testimony from all the people who knew him - there is not a single reference to any of these supposed accessories to murder.

Not only is there no evidence that Loughner was impelled to violence by any of those upon whom Paul Krugman, Keith Olbermann, the New York Times, the Tucson sheriff and other rabid partisans are fixated. There is no evidence that he was responding to anything, political or otherwise, outside of his own head.

A climate of hate? This man lived within his very own private climate. "His thoughts were unrelated to anything in our world," said the teacher of Loughner's philosophy class at Pima Community College. "He was very disconnected from reality," said classmate Lydian Ali. "You know how it is when you talk to someone who's mentally ill and they're just not there?" said neighbor Jason Johnson. "It was like he was in his own world."

His ravings, said one high school classmate, were interspersed with "unnerving, long stupors of silence" during which he would "stare fixedly at his buddies," reported the Wall Street Journal. His own writings are confused, incoherent, punctuated with private numerology and inscrutable taxonomy. He warns of government brainwashing and thought control through "grammar." He was obsessed with "conscious dreaming," a fairly good synonym for hallucinations.

This is not political behavior. These are the signs of a clinical thought disorder - ideas disconnected from each other, incoherent, delusional, detached from reality.

These are all the hallmarks of a paranoid schizophrenic. And a dangerous one. A classmate found him so terrifyingly mentally disturbed that, she e-mailed friends and family, she expected to find his picture on TV after his perpetrating a mass murder. This was no idle speculation: In class "I sit by the door with my purse handy" so that she could get out fast when the shooting began.

Furthermore, the available evidence dates Loughner's fixation on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords to at least 2007, when he attended a town hall of hers and felt slighted by her response. In 2007, no one had heard of Sarah Palin. Glenn Beck was still toiling on Headline News. There was no Tea Party or health-care reform. The only climate of hate was the pervasive post-Iraq campaign of vilification of George W. Bush, nicely captured by a New Republic editor who had begun an article thus: "I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it."

Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun," he was hardly inciting violence.

Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power - military conquest. That's why the language persists. That's why we say without any self-consciousness such things as "battleground states" or "targeting" opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest - "campaign" - is an appropriation from warfare.

When profiles of Obama's first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, noted that he once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him, a characteristically subtle statement carrying more than a whiff of malice and murder, it was considered a charming example of excessive - and creative - political enthusiasm. When Senate candidate Joe Manchin dispensed with metaphor and simply fired a bullet through the cap-and-trade bill - while intoning, "I'll take dead aim at [it]" - he was hardly assailed with complaints about violations of civil discourse or invitations to murder.

Did Manchin push Loughner over the top? Did Emanuel's little Mafia imitation create a climate for political violence? The very questions are absurd - unless you're the New York Times and you substitute the name Sarah Palin.

The origins of Loughner's delusions are clear: mental illness. What are the origins of Krugman's?

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Jim: I commend your position on this. There is hope for you yet.

I wonder how much is from seeing the injuries these weapons can cause at close hand. You have a perspective many of us dont have.

Any "weapon" will cause injury. That's why they call them weapons.
We have all kinds of restrictions on guns and ammo. They don't help or work.
The NRA has always been for the toughest enforcement of criminal laws. Commit a crime with a gun and go away for life. I'm all for it. Try that for a change.

I have ZERO issue w/ gun ownership for law-abiding citizens.
Want some pistols for target/personal protection, fine.
Want hunting rifles? fine Shotguns? Fine.

Seriously, a 33round mag for a pistol? Fully automatic weapons.
Not needed for the average citizen IMHO.

Jim: I commend your position on this. There is hope for you yet.

I wonder how much is from seeing the injuries these weapons can cause at close hand. You have a perspective many of us dont have.


Rockhound, if I'm not mistaken, we're finding some common ground here, on what I think is a serious issue.

I've been opposed to private ownership of assault weapons (and things like armor piercing bullets) since before I was in the service. Maybe my time in, and my knowledge of what these things do up close, has solidified my opinion, but not by much. There were 2 occasions when I was awfully glad I had my weapons with me, so I do believe they have their place. But not in the hands of any private citizen.

Score one for Brokenhammer :btu:

Ooops, that may be taken out of context in order to incite violence :devil2:

Politics has become the Spam Email of modern communications.

It's not.. Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others. It's been proven over and over again.

You are basing your opinion on emotion "Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. "
Very liberal of you:)

"Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others."

Very few things bother me as much as what you just did. I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns. That may make it easier for you to refute me, but it has zero intellectual honesty, because that's not even close to what I said. See if you can respond to what I actually say, OK? I said explicitly that I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles.

"Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people"

Wow, that's deep. EARTH TO BUCKMAN. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who is law abiding and who is sociopathic. Therefore, do we make the tools of mass murder readily available to everyone, including the secretly deranged, so that some would-be tough guys can live out their fantasies by dressing up like Rambo in front of the mirror?

I agree, if we ban extended magazines and assault rifles, shooting sprees will still occur. But they will be harder to carry out, and the body counts will be less. That's irrefutable. You can't kill as many people with a revolver as you can with an automatic weapon, you just can't. There is a reason why this kook did not bring a muzzle loader to that supermarket. So how many beautiful 9 year old gilrs are you willing to sacrifice, so that a bunch of guys with small wee-wees can get their jollies by owning an Uzi?

I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns.

Welcome to the Political Forum.......thats pretty standard fair here

"Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others."

Very few things bother me as much as what you just did. I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns. That may make it easier for you to refute me, but it has zero intellectual honesty, because that's not even close to what I said. See if you can respond to what I actually say, OK? I said explicitly that I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles.

"Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people"


Wow, that's deep. EARTH TO BUCKMAN. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who is law abiding and who is sociopathic. Therefore, do we make the tools of mass murder readily available to everyone, including the secretly deranged, so that some would-be tough guys can live out their fantasies by dressing up like Rambo in front of the mirror?

I agree, if we ban extended magazines and assault rifles, shooting sprees will still occur. But they will be harder to carry out, and the body counts will be less. That's irrefutable. You can't kill as many people with a revolver as you can with an automatic weapon, you just can't. There is a reason why this kook did not bring a muzzle loader to that supermarket. So how many beautiful 9 year old gilrs are you willing to sacrifice, so that a bunch of guys with small wee-wees can get their jollies by owning an Uzi?

I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.

I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.

"I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist ."

I said I was in favor of handguns and hunting rifles. You responded directky to my post by saying that banning all guns doesn't end gun violence. What other way can we take your reply, other than to infer that you think that my position is that all guns should be banned? To me, that's a radical position, and it's not even close to what I said.

"Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing"

Again, it seems like you are putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that banning these weapons would not eliminate these killing sprees. I did say this, see if you can respond to what I'm ACTUALLY SAYING...

Banning assault rifles and extended magazines will not put an end to these killing sprees. They will make them less deadly, however. Because the more frequently a would-be mass murderer has to stop and re-load, the better the opportunity for potential victims to get away or subdue the attacker.

If banning extended magazines meant one less person in AZ would have been hurt or killed, to me it would be worth it. I can only assume you disagree (please say if I'm wrong).

Cars kill people, but I wouldn't say ban cars, because cars add so much utility and value to our lives. I don't see how you can say the same thing about assault rifles and extended magazines. I have never, not once, heard of a person successfully defending themselves with these tools, in a situation where a normal firearm would not have sufficed. From what I can see, the only benefit is that some people get a kick out of owning them. And I have to say I can see why, they are fun to shoot. But I don't think that thrill is worth a single human life.

Jim, you pointed out that guys with small "weewee's" may contibute to the death of more 9 year olds. Now I know your trying to be funny, but that's the sort of extreme BS that hurts your cause.

Every gun I own is used for hunting so banning assault type weapons won't hurt me. It does however lead down a slippery slope. The problem wasn't the gun.

Cars are a bad example unless you want to say fast cars. That would be a proper analogy. How many HP would Jim allow. How about beer? Kills more 9 year olds then assault weapons. We have tough drunk driving laws to hep prevent more deaths. How about tougher gun crime laws? Not tougher gun laws.

"If banning extended magazines meant one less person in AZ would have been hurt or killed, to me it would be worth it. I can only assume you disagree (please say if I'm wrong).




We can make all sorts of thing illegal and save many lifes. Make a list for me.

I have ZERO issue w/ gun ownership for law-abiding citizens.
Want some pistols for target/personal protection, fine.
Want hunting rifles? fine Shotguns? Fine.

Seriously, a 33round mag for a pistol? Fully automatic weapons.
Not needed for the average citizen IMHO.

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

We can make all sorts of thing illegal and save many lifes. Make a list for me.

Buckman, I keep answering your questions directly, and you keep dodging mine. It's not fair, and it's really tiresome.

As to your beer reference. My favorite meal in the world is beer and wings, I love it. That being the case, I feel that alcohol does way more harm than good for our society, and if there was a vote, I would support banning alcohol. Since I never abuse alcohol (no time for that), I would miss the occasional ice cold beer, but that's a small price to pay for saving many innocent lives.

Did I answer your question? Will you show me the same courtesy for once? I have a 2-part question.

(1) do you agree that extended magazines and assault rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people in a shooting spree, compared to a pistol with a standfard magazine?

(2) if your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If the families of all the victims of the Arizona massacre asked you why we shouldn't ban extended magazines, what would you say to them?

It's the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs.

Ben:
We should have the right to bear arms, 100%. There should be a limit though, IMHO

(1) do you agree that extended magazines and assault rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people in a shooting spree, compared to a pistol with a standfard magazine?

(2) if your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If the families of all the victims of the Arizona massacre asked you why we shouldn't ban extended magazines, what would you say to them?

(1) Do you agree that a pistol with a standard magazine would have made it easier to kill three or four people in the Arizona shooting than using a knife?

(2) If your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If a pistol with a standard magazine had been used, and if the families of victims in such an Arizona shooting asked you why we shouldn't ban pistols with standard magazines, what would you say to them?

No one can sway anyone on these boards. It's a complete waste of energy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whut?

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/6/27jun42-pool-hottie.jpg

:hihi:

Ben:
We should have the right to bear arms, 100%. There should be a limit though, IMHO

2A is not about duck hunting or any other "sporting purpose."

It is first and foremost an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to enable citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government.

If the occasion calls for it ... I'd rather be rebelling with 30 round (standard capacity mags) rather than 10 rounders. :grins:

The Kentucky rifle, instrumental in helping colonialists prevail over those nasty Brits, was the assault weapon of its day.

The founding fathers today wouldn't blink at the private ownership of polymer frame striker-fired semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines or repeating rifles with detachable magazines.

My favorite meal in the world is beer and wings, I love it. That being the case, I feel that alcohol does way more harm than good for our society, and if there was a vote, I would support banning alcohol. Since I never abuse alcohol (no time for that), I would miss the occasional ice cold beer, but that's a small price to pay for saving many innocent lives.



Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too.
Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........

It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people.

whut?

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/6/27jun42-pool-hottie.jpg

:hihi:

THANK YOU!!! :want:

Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too.
Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........

It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people.

"Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too."

Apples and oranges. If I die from eating wings, I'm not taking out a room full of kids.

"Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........"

Again, apples and oranges. Before prohibition, not every family owned 2 cars, so there weren't nearly as many deaths from drunk driving. Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?

"It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people"

Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people? Can one of you please answer that simple question? Am I going too fast for you?

If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to trhe Safeway.

Buckman, I keep answering your questions directly, and you keep dodging mine. It's not fair, and it's really tiresome.

As to your beer reference. My favorite meal in the world is beer and wings, I love it. That being the case, I feel that alcohol does way more harm than good for our society, and if there was a vote, I would support banning alcohol. Since I never abuse alcohol (no time for that), I would miss the occasional ice cold beer, but that's a small price to pay for saving many innocent lives.

Did I answer your question? Will you show me the same courtesy for once? I have a 2-part question.

(1) do you agree that extended magazines and assault rifles make it easier to kill large numbers of people in a shooting spree, compared to a pistol with a standfard magazine?

(2) if your answer to #1 is "no", forget it, we have nothing to discuss. However, if you answer "yes" to #1, here is #2. If the families of all the victims of the Arizona massacre asked you why we shouldn't ban extended magazines, what would you say to them?

We are both tired so here ya go.
1) Hypothetical, but yes it could. 2 "standard" guns could kill as many. 2 shooters x 2 guns even more etc. etc. get my point????

2) TTYL. Stupid question

whut?

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/6/27jun42-pool-hottie.jpg

:hihi:

What the hell were we talking about????:drool:

We could start by removing terms like Moonbat, Wingnut, Obamorons, Nazi, Tea-Baggers, and other derogatory names from the conversation.

Pretty sure that name calling doesn't lead to the free expression of ideas and open dialogue between people.

I'll second this. These guys on both sides calling each other names is childish. I guess there is no respect either? these are our leaders?

Like I always say - what the heck are voting for? they all get in office
and do what they want, not what we want.

2A is not about duck hunting or any other "sporting purpose."

It is first and foremost an individual right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to enable citizens to rebel against a tyrannical government.

If the occasion calls for it ... I'd rather be rebelling with 30 round (standard capacity mags) rather than 10 rounders. :grins:

The Kentucky rifle, instrumental in helping colonialists prevail over those nasty Brits, was the assault weapon of its day.

The founding fathers today wouldn't blink at the private ownership of polymer frame striker-fired semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines or repeating rifles with detachable magazines.

I think you're spot on. The arguments about "legitimate" uses and "needs" for private citizens owning a gun rarely discuss this point (except by those who are referred to as "anti-government"), and these arguments are diversions from the true intentions of the Second Ammendment. The greatest fear of those that rebelled against British rule and created a free society with a Constitution to guarantee that freedom--their greatest fear was a tyrannical government that would take away that freedom. The creation of this country was precisely so that its individual citizens would have that freedom. And the Constitution which took over a dozen years to evolve from the First Continental Congress to ratification, and was hotly debated, wasn't about wasting precious words over hunting and sport issues. The Second Amendment stands out, like the other Amendments, and the brief enumerations of power, as as one of the rights that protected the people from tyranny, not some minor right to personal pleasure.

And you are exactly right--the founders meant by "Arms" weapons that matched the militias and the government troops of the Revolution. How else would they be of use to defend against tyrannical enemies, foreign or domestic. And for those who think the Constitution should change with evolution of technology, that's true not in regard to the Constitutional principle but in applications--such as weaponry. As weapons of military personnel become more deadly, so too must the private citizen have a right to match them.

And gun rights people, and tea partiers, and Sarah Palins, and right wing talk radio, are not anti-government. They are portrayed that way as talking points to paint them as radical and dangerous. They are all pro-goverment, not anti-government. They are pro good, Constitutional government. And that is not radical. And it is only dangerous to those who are against the Constitution as it was written.

As weapons of military personnel become more deadly, so too must the private citizen have a right to match them..

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

The household cleaner and medicine aisles...but the directions are on another board... :rotf2:

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

Aisle 6 in Newport, next to the 30/06, 367, 22 m and the 3000 boxes of 12 gauge #2 buckshot.
But behind the anti-personnel frags.

whut?

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/6/27jun42-pool-hottie.jpg

:hihi:

Somebody say something about extended?

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

To begin with, the milita and government troops of revolutionary time did not have, as individual soldiers, individual canons, howitzers, battleships, or any other outsized armor that an individual could carry. Neither do the modern day soldiers have their individual tanks, nor carry chemical weapons, nor any such other ridiculous etceteras. I suppose, if you were the incredible hulk, you might be able to keep and bear some monstrous weapon. I suppose, if you could manage to drive a tank on public roads without destroying the pavement or obstructing traffic, it might be OK. Various public ordinances against hazardous materials and property destroying vehicles might restrict your ownership to some underground bunker. As you say, availability would severly, if not completely deter you from not only finding such goodies, but very few could afford them. I don't fear law abiding citizens who believe in Constitutional goverment possessing big, bad weapons. Why do you? A criminal, a psycho, on the other hand, with a simple knife, is a terrifying prospect.

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

but then how would you remain carbon neutral and envionmentally friendly ?

"Wings aren't healthy either, maybe you should vote to ban those too."Apples and oranges. If I die from eating wings, I'm not taking out a room full of kids."Do you honest think banning alcohol would make things better? Didn't seem to work during prohibition........"Again, apples and oranges. Before prohibition, not every family owned 2 cars, so there weren't nearly as many deaths from drunk driving. Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?"It's not the gun, its the idiot who is killing people"Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people? Can one of you please answer that simple question? Am I going too fast for you?If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to trhe Safeway.

“Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?”

If we banned alcohol, Yes, I would agree that it would most likely reduce the amount of people killed from illegal booze. I’m in agreement with you but I don’t believe based off that that it should be banned. You have to look at the whole picture. In your argument, it sounds like you are saying that Alcohol is the common denominator and if it was removed from society the number of drunk driving accidents would be reduced (I agree). Distracted drivers (cell phone use/texting) is the number one cause of auto accidents in the US followed by speeding, DUI is third. So, if we make all possession and use of alcohol (even in a private home) illegal, we reduce the third leading cause of auto accident which reduces the number of deaths. Based off of that theory we should also make all possession and use of all cell phones (even in a private home) illegal. That would reduce the number one cause of auto accident since nobody would ever be in the situation of texting while driving. Again, base off that theory, the government should require all auto manufacturers to add governors to cars so they have a maximum speed limit. That would eliminate the number 2 cause of auto accidents, speeding. It’s not that I disagree with you, I just don’t think a very small number of the population’s actions should change the very large number of law abiding citizens.

“Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. “

I’m not regurgitating anything. Those are my own thoughts and it’s how I personally feel. I’m not a member of the NRA and do not own a gun but feel strongly that that right shouldn’t be taken from me.

"You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people?"

Yea, they do. I never said they didn’t. I’m still not sure they should be banned completely. I have a friend (retired cop) that fishes Alaska every other year and gets dropped in the wilderness by a bush plane and fishes for a week before they come to pick him up. He brings an extended magazine pistol as well as a 50 caliber to protect himself from an attacking bear. Why should his right be taken away? I’d be interested to know what the percentage is of people that own these things that commit a crime with them. I honestly don’t know the answer. If it’s very high, maybe you have a point, if is very low then the law abiding citizens should not be stripped of the right to own. (again, these are my own thoughts, not “regurgitation”)

"Am I going too fast for you?"

No, not at all but thanks for your concern. That’s a kind of question that brings no value at all to your points. It’s counterproductive and comes across as elitist IMO. Why degrade your posts with that?

"If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to Safeway."

I never said it doesn’t make it easier. But he could have hurt even more people if he drove a car straight through the crowd. We are normal level thinking people and can’t understand what went this lunatic’s head.

"Am I going too fast for you?"

No, not at all but thanks for your concern. That’s a kind of question that brings no value at all to your points. It’s counterproductive and comes across as elitist IMO. Why degrade your posts with that?
He pulled that line again? That's twice in two days.

I don't know why anyone needs 30 cans of Budweiser in one box....

banning alcohol worked out great for the Kennedys..........

I don't know why anyone needs 30 cans of Budweiser in one box....

banning alcohol worked out great for the Kennedys..........

Somehow I knew this thread would hit rock bottom if I just stayed away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

whut?

http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/2007/6/27jun42-pool-hottie.jpg

:hihi:

yes, rock bottom and big guns :uhuh:

That doesn't absolve you...well, perhaps just a bit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

we need more politicians like President Obama, he of the famous middle finger who refers to his opponents as "hostage takers" and "enemies" who need to be "punished", who accuses the Cambridge Police of acting stupidly and then thanks the Sherrif in Arizona who is acting stupidly, who vows to bring a gun to the fight and implores his followers to get in people's faces and yell at them, who's former chief of staff once stabbed a table with a steak knife repeatedly, listing the names of his political enemies and shouting "dead...dead...dead" ....yes, we need more people like this to assume the high ground and call for civility and common decency...they've built so much credability along the way....I'm guessing the call for calm won't last long because Barry doesn't like it when he doesn't get his way and he can't resist a cheap shot or an opportunity to lob a (rhetorical)bomb....:)

Right.
I need a tank, a rocket propelled grenade, and an AR15 or 6, plus the latest in non-lethal weapons. Oh and chemical weapons. What aisle at Walmart has Mustard Gas again?

You know, during the good old days, private ownership of artillery and warships was encouraged. :uhuh:

big guns :uhuh:

:devil2:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc10/fishweewee/bigguns.jpg

what Obama should have done/said....

the problem with a lecture from a habitual offender is that is often met with appropriate skeptecism....

btw...the behaviour of the crowd at this "memorial" was really questionable from what I've read...Obama gave a stirring speech to a crowd that didn't quite know how to act appropriately in the moment...reminds me of the Paul Wellstone memorial which was turned into an exuberant political rally....ewwwww :uhuh:

anyway, if Obama truly wanted to set a better course for the next two years and recognizing that it may be a rocky road and needing to, as president, assume the mantle of leader going forward he should have begun with himself...

" recognizing that this event was not necessarily the result of heated political discourse but also acknowledging that the aftermath has been a sort of "wake up call" and has shown a level of tension exists that is not at all healthy for a great nation in difficult times and also realizing that I myself, have contributed to the degradation of the political debate though language and action that does not serve to further the conversation, as President, I pledge to, for the next two years, chose my words more carefully and use only language that reflects positively on the Office of the President of the United States and I will seek to lead by example and be accountable to the people that I am fortunate to serve, , I will ask those that I have influence over to do the same and I implore the members of Congress, media and the American public to do so for the good of our Nation."

always good to start with yourself...then work out :uhuh: one occasion, given the point being made..that "I" would have been appropriate, appreciated and probably brilliant...

I'd have a lot of respect for someone that said "I'm guilty too, but watch me lead by example"

oh, Spence...be gentle..I don't have a speech writer or a teleprompter from which to read

:devil2:

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc10/fishweewee/bigguns.jpg


OOPS! Almost did not notice the gun. :rotf2: :rotf2:

on second thought...maybe the speech that I wish Obama had given would have been more appropriate on say....Sunday night... to quickly squelch the tirades....then the "memorial" could and would have properly and exclusively been about the victims and void of any political statements or lecturing...:uhuh:
I think that's what a leader would have done...

“Instead of asking these meaningless "gotcha" questions, how about answering one of my own? Do you really think, if we banned alcohol, that more people would be killed from illegal booze trade, then are saved by lack of drunk drivers? Do you really believe that?”

If we banned alcohol, Yes, I would agree that it would most likely reduce the amount of people killed from illegal booze. I’m in agreement with you but I don’t believe based off that that it should be banned. You have to look at the whole picture. In your argument, it sounds like you are saying that Alcohol is the common denominator and if it was removed from society the number of drunk driving accidents would be reduced (I agree). Distracted drivers (cell phone use/texting) is the number one cause of auto accidents in the US followed by speeding, DUI is third. So, if we make all possession and use of alcohol (even in a private home) illegal, we reduce the third leading cause of auto accident which reduces the number of deaths. Based off of that theory we should also make all possession and use of all cell phones (even in a private home) illegal. That would reduce the number one cause of auto accident since nobody would ever be in the situation of texting while driving. Again, base off that theory, the government should require all auto manufacturers to add governors to cars so they have a maximum speed limit. That would eliminate the number 2 cause of auto accidents, speeding. It’s not that I disagree with you, I just don’t think a very small number of the population’s actions should change the very large number of law abiding citizens.

“Once again, you regurgitate the NRA line without answering the question I'm asking. “

I’m not regurgitating anything. Those are my own thoughts and it’s how I personally feel. I’m not a member of the NRA and do not own a gun but feel strongly that that right shouldn’t be taken from me.

"You are right, guns are an inanimate object, and can't hurt people on their own. However, don't extended magazines and assault rifles make it EASIER to kill MORE people?"

Yea, they do. I never said they didn’t. I’m still not sure they should be banned completely. I have a friend (retired cop) that fishes Alaska every other year and gets dropped in the wilderness by a bush plane and fishes for a week before they come to pick him up. He brings an extended magazine pistol as well as a 50 caliber to protect himself from an attacking bear. Why should his right be taken away? I’d be interested to know what the percentage is of people that own these things that commit a crime with them. I honestly don’t know the answer. If it’s very high, maybe you have a point, if is very low then the law abiding citizens should not be stripped of the right to own. (again, these are my own thoughts, not “regurgitation”)

"Am I going too fast for you?"

No, not at all but thanks for your concern. That’s a kind of question that brings no value at all to your points. It’s counterproductive and comes across as elitist IMO. Why degrade your posts with that?

"If automatic weapons and extended magazines don't make it easier to kill more people, I wonder why this guy didn't bring a muzzle loader to Safeway."

I never said it doesn’t make it easier. But he could have hurt even more people if he drove a car straight through the crowd. We are normal level thinking people and can’t understand what went this lunatic’s head.

Jim in CT.......................no response to my post????????