Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by mosholu

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

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...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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!

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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??

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by mosholu

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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....

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"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.


[COLOR="Navy"]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.[/COLOR]

"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 Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.....

[Chesapeake Bill]

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...

[scottw]

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...


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".......

[buckman]

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.

[Fly Rod]

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

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.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[RIROCKHOUND]

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.

[RIJIMMY]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

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.

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

[Chesapeake Bill]

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.

[fishpoopoo]

Good read. The Hammer nails is on the head.

Charles Krauthammer - Massacre, followed by libel


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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[RIROCKHOUND]

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 in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

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.

[JohnR]

Score one for Brokenhammer

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

Politics has become the Spam Email of modern communications.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

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?