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.

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 think Ron Paul has refused the pension.

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

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)). 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.

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

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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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...

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!

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.

What was that you said yesterday??


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.

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....

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?

"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.

"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.

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.

I Agree, Very Very Crappy reporting

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. :)

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:)