House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

@Finn dAbuzz,

Quote:

McTag wrote:

Tea Party democracy:
I disagree with you, and if I cannot get enough of my fellow citizens to join with me and vote you out, I will shoot you dead.

Quote:

Absolute and utter tripe.

Not tripe at all. I left a link where "Angle said to that same effect yesterday.

Quote:

Angle: I feel that the Second Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms for our citizenry. This not for someone who's in the military. This not for law enforcement. This is for us. And in fact when you read that Constitution and the founding fathers, they intended this to stop tyranny. This is for us when our government becomes tyrannical...

Manders: If we needed it at any time in history, it might be right now.

Angle: Well it's to defend ourselves. And you know, I'm hoping that we're not getting to Second Amendment remedies. I hope the vote will be the cure for the Harry Reid problems.

source

One of the draw backs of the Internet is that you can tried to hide your words, but they are always there for someone to find.

1 Reply

Quote:

King noted that it already illegal to carry a weapon within 1000 feet of a school.

What happens to the gun when someone is just walking or even driving past a school?

It's also illegal to carry a weapon into any Federal Building.

1 Reply

@BillW,

Nah, I'm just a friend of his (online friend, that is). Smile

Do I agree with every single statement he's ever made in this forum? No. But, anyway, I do appreciate the humorous tone of your reply. I laughed out loud. And, by the way, I possibly might agree with you on certain issues. Either way you look at it, it's no big deal. Smile

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

Hey, I have never been able to walk away from a setup. Wink

1 Reply

@firefly,

I certainly understand the basis for the congresswoman's wanting to ban high power ammunition clips. I think there is a legitimate 2nd amendment argument to be made in opposition of such a ban, but I don't think I would oppose a ban, and certainly wouldn't feel all that put out if it were enacted.

It's interesting that you've referenced the LIRR Massacre. There's no reason to believe you are citing it in anyway other than its relation to gun control, but it does lead to interesting comparisons.

From what I can tell, Colin Ferguson was almost as insane as Jared Lee Loughner, and he was motivated in some way by racial paranoia.

Could incendiary comments made by black activists or liberal (of any race) politicians possibly have driven him over the edge?

His lawyers (left-wing stalwarts Kunstler and Kuby) even proposed to offer a "black rage" defense, which asserted that he had been rendered temporarily insane, not by the inflammatory rhetoric of public figures with whom he may have identified, but by racial prejudice, and therefore could not be held criminally liable for the murders.

Quote:

Kuby said the notes carried by Ferguson on the day of his arrest demonstrated that Ferguson was motivated by rage during the shootings.
SOURCE

From what I can discover, there was commentary, at the time, about how the LIRR Shooter may, himself, have been a victim, but nothing about inflammatory rhetoric.

I wonder why?

I guess there has never been such rhetoric used in the discussion of race issues...at least not by the left side of the argument.

1 Reply

Has this been posted before? Apparently Loughner was an "independent." One could speculate about that, but certainly not a conservative by any stretch of the imagination.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20028120-503544.html

"Jared Lee Loughner a Registered Independent; Didn't Vote in 2010
For what it's worth, the Washington Post reports that 22-year-old alleged Tucson shooter Jared Lee Loughner is a registered independent.
Six people were left dead and 14 injured, including Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, after a gunman believed to have been Loughner open fired at town hall-style meeting on Saturday at a grocery store in Tucson, Ariz.
Though the evidence seems to indicate Loughner lacks a fixed ideology (outside of anti-government sentiment) and may be mentally unstable, many have drawn conclusions about his political leanings. Some have cast him as a conservative and blamed Sarah Palin and Tea Party influences for his actions, while others have cast him as a "lunatic liberal."
Loughner himself isn't talking. But the record shows that he registered as an independent in 2006, according to the Pima County Registrar of Voters, and did not vote in 2010.
Bryce Tierney, a friend of Loughner's, told Mother Jones magazine that Loughner doesn't have any specific political or ideological bent. "It wasn't like he was in a certain party or went to rallies," he said. "It's not like he'd go on political rants.""

0 Replies

There you go again..................

0 Replies

@revelette,

One of the drawbacks of ideological blinders is that you tend to over generalize and attribute the stupid comment of one individual to the principles of an entire movement.

No one is The Voice of the Tea Party; least of all Sharon Angle.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

i always viewed them as a complete satire of political discourse, not actual discourse, in that capacity the right wing is miles ahead of the left, who seem to have no sense of humour, and when they attempt it they fall flat

of course it helps not to have a horse in the race to begin with, that way, any mockery makes no difference

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

For your information, my good friend, David and I have corresponded frequently via PM for some time. I've even confided in him about a personal matter. As far as David defending me is concerned, you didn't mention (or possibly weren't aware) that when another member of this forum attacked the memory of my deceased father and my daughter's academic achievement at a leading university in Texas, David came to their defense, which was most appreciated (needless to say). So, as far as online relationships go, I guess you could say that he and I are friends.

As far as my "constant whining attitude regarding sports" is concerned, I'm sorry that disturbs you. Verboten, I assume? You really know nothing about me. We possibly might agree on some issues (I guess). I would have been glad to discuss any objection you had with me via PM. If you want to speak to me on the phone, I'd be delighted to give you my home phone or cell phone number. Why wouldn't I? I understand you live in Berkeley, CA. My sister lives just north of you in Sonoma County. I, my wife, and our two daughters visit her every summer. (We live half a continent away; otherwise, we'd visit her more often.) If you'd like, I'd be glad to meet you next summer so we can have an amicable discussion in person. In the meantime, I hope the following will suffice for my impertinent comments: Forgive me, for I have sinned. Good day. Smile

2 Replies

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

If it weren't true, why is the entire righty nation so paranoid about it? Where there is smoke there is fire.......

This bit of illogic has been repeated often enough in this thread to be worth refuting specifically:

No, an angry response to an accusation does not make it true.

2 Replies

@BillW,

I like the idea of being a sock puppet. Laughing

To tell you the truth, there have been a few times when I could have objected to at least two statements David made. But because he's such a nice guy, I just couldn't do it. Sad

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Woops...

I don't know why I thought you joined some of your liberal friends on the peter jeffrey cobb "apology" thread with gracious comments like:

Ceili wrote:

I don't have a college degree and I started a thread on how bad my spelling is, so we have that in common.
No apologies necessary. Sorry you're not feeling well, hope you can find some happiness, I really do.
I hope you'll stick around too, cause I think we are all a wee bit off, wildly in all directions. It's all good.

Farmerman wrote:

Yeh, Dave and I are the poster kids of bad spelling. SO dont feel like you need to apologize. AS far as arguments, Ive always felt that college often interefers with an education. elax and

WHOA, there goes some more monkey ****!

Tsarspan wrote:

It's sentiment and tone that count not the ability to spell and ones credentials that matter most here.

There is no need to apologize, especially for things one can not control. Here at a2k there is a lot of great people who are supportive and are great listeners to boot.

You are welcome here at a2k even during the stormiest of days.

JPB wrote:

Hi Peter. Welcome to a2k. I think you'll find all sorts of people here with all sorts of abilities and issues. Yes, there are some who care less about what you say than how you say it, but for the most part we're a friendly enough group. It's up to you if you allow yourself to become embroiled with those who get their jollies by taunting others, or if you ignore them. The ignore user button works wonders for those who prefer the later but find themselves getting sucked in.

Of course you didn't.

I should have known.

My apologies to Ceili, JPB, Tsarspan and Farmerman if you believe I have mischaracterized you as either a liberal or a friend of Cyclo.

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

Bravo wmwcjr

1 Reply

I'm thinking this was a failure of procedure (read: security), not policy. I can't think of a policy that could have been in place to prevent this, I can think of plenty of procedural things that could have been done to better ensure the safety of an event like this.

For starters, most meet-the-public town hall events have entrance and exit control. The way this event has been described, it seems like it did not. That's fine, but what this should have meant to whoever was in charge is that this (if ever) is when someone will try to attack because they have the greatest opportunity. I'd say that having the meet-and greet area in a controlled entry/exit space would havee prevented the person from getting the gun in (or a knife depending on what kind of inspection they did), and would have still allowed for residents to approach the Rep Giffords and discuss things (as was the objective of the event).

I think back to during the HCR debate and Al Franken would go to pubic crowds and discuss face to face with people. This was a wonderful thing. An example...

I worry that this sort of thing will discourage elected officials from having this kind of proximity with the public. As described above, their may still be ways to do it and maintain security situational awareness. I hope they continue.

A
R
T

1 Reply

@failures art,

Some will curtail their connection to the public because of a sense of anxiety or fear. Some will do the same thing because they always wanted to and this will give them cover. Some will not change and some will increase their connection as a response.

We'll see.

1 Reply

@BillW,

BillW wrote:

Quote:
King noted that it already illegal to carry a weapon within 1000 feet of a school.

What happens to the gun when someone is just walking or even driving past a school?

There is a county high school a mile or so up the road from me. Maybe 1200 students. The 1000 ft thing is more reactive rather than proactive; giving authorities the opportunity to press additional charges in the event of an incident.
The school, as I understand it, requires students (many of whom are from rural parts of the county) to get a parking permit. As part of that process, the kids agree to allow random searches of their cars while parked on school grounds. That is done perhaps once a year and typically is the result of some spike in drug activity.
At least once a year a rifle is found in some kid's car, usually during hunting season. If the gun is "properly secured" (I don't know what the proper method is), the kid will get suspended for a couple of days.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

BillW wrote:
If it weren't true, why is the entire righty nation so paranoid about it? Where there is smoke there is fire......
This bit of illogic has been repeated often enough in this thread to be worth refuting specifically: No, an angry response to an accusation does not make it true. /quote]

Good observation, Robert, and I strongly agree if I understand your point, and I think I do. I think you refer to the fact that conservatives have so strongly denounced suggestions that the crazy guy in Arizona was motivated by conservative politicians and commentators, which was a case of jumping to conclusions by liberals, based upon their own preconceived notions. By the way, those notions are well on the way to being proven false, and probably will be further proven false as more information emerges.

0 Replies

Irrational, knee-jerk reactions have consequences.

The left has dug themselves into a big deep hole by jumping the gun to lay blame on all things conservative.

I predict the backlash from what the left has done and continues to do in response
to this shooting will damage the Democrat party in a big way for a very long time.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Some will do the same thing because they always wanted to and this will give them cover.

Oh damn! Isn't that the truth! I think you've stumbled on to something here. Very few in congress have been rewarded with praise for their courage to face the public. I imagine that most do it as little as possible.

A
R
T

0 Replies

House of Reps. member Giffords shot in Arizona today

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know