waldo Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 No it does not force everyone to walk around with a gun. The right to bear arms does not mean you are forced to carry, it simply gives you the option. But it puts the notion in the would be criminal's mind that he has no idea who around him is packing and how many people are packing. When a criminal starts to think of that, then the likeyness of the incident happening is severly reduced. huh! Here I thought it meant an unreserved, without abandon, predilection towards getting off the first shot... since you don't know who is packing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 Yep...garden variety tin foil hat brigade. Conspiracy theories, NAU etc etc That fits the teaparty pretty nicely... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 10, 2011 Report Share Posted January 10, 2011 huh! Here I thought it meant an unreserved, without abandon, predilection towards getting off the first shot... since you don't know who is packing! First rule of street fighting. If you know you will have to fight, never let the other guy take the first punch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 First rule of street fighting. If you know you will have to fight, never let the other guy take the first punch Bet you meant "throw".....not take. Cuz I like the other guy taking a punch mucg better Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Bet you meant "throw".....not take. Cuz I like the other guy taking a punch mucg better Yup, me to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 The left's response to this mass murder has been to attack conservatives with targets or gun sights on maps in their literature(and smear those who have none), and to ignore anyone from the left with the same type of imagery, such as the Daily Kos and a Dem congressman who actually picked up a rifle and shot it at "Obamcare" in his last campaign. Let's step back from that for a minute. I have long been part of the school of thought that was concerned about violence and sex appearing more and more in TV shows from the late 80's onward. The MSM and the left's standard response has always been to suggest that such media have no effect on people and us conservatives should just change the channel. The same response came when the movie Death of a President came out. This was a movie that specifically targeted Bush, not some fictional president. It is actually pathetic to see the left now take the hypocritical position that mere ad copy can affect one to grab a gun and start shooting. If this is the best they can do, attack the conservatives they hate most when a left wing nutjob shoots somebody, then they are out of touch with reality and will not serve their base well in the next election season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonJowett Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) It is actually pathetic to see the left now take the hypocritical position that mere ad copy can affect one to grab a gun and start shooting. If this is the best they can do, attack the conservatives they hate most when a left wing nutjob shoots somebody, then they are out of touch with reality and will not serve their base well in the next election season. Wow. You actually think the left is one individual consciousness, don't you? Do you also think they use grammar to control our minds? Edited January 11, 2011 by LonJowett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) The left's response to this mass murder has been to attack conservatives with targets or gun sights on maps in their literature(and smear those who have none), and to ignore anyone from the left with the same type of imagery, such as the Daily Kos and a Dem congressman who actually picked up a rifle and shot it at "Obamcare" in his last campaign. No one ignored it. Only a right wing nut job would say such a thing. In fact the poster of that article on the Daily Kos apologized yesterday for using the words his "Congresswomen was dead to him" after she voted against the Democrats. I however haven't seem similar attempts from the crazy crazy right. Where is Palins apology? Yeah that is what I thought. Stop playing the victim. Edited January 11, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 What is wrong with saying that your congressperson is dead to you? It is simply a statement of how a person feels. You can not expect that a nut job is going to read it and act on it. This one didn't. Fact is, he'd been following the congresswoman since at least 2007, the sherif discovered a letter from the congresswoman's office thanking Loughner for attending. So it's quite obvious that Palin, Daily Kos and everybody else had nothing to do with this nutjob. That is because nutjobs have their own internal fuse that can't be predicted. Blaming such documents is silly. Palin doesn't need to apologize for anything, and neither do you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LonJowett Posted January 11, 2011 Author Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 So it's quite obvious that Palin, Daily Kos and everybody else had nothing to do with this nutjob. It's quite obvious that you and no one else except the nutjob himself really know what his motivations were, and all of you who claim to know where hes coming from are all full of crap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 If there was a well armed public, someone would have taken that person out right away, perhaps more lives could have been saved. Hats off to the heroes that took him down. So, everybody should be armed, so they can start shooting whenever someone hears a gun go off? This sounds similar to Archie Bunker's solution to hijacking airplanes on an All In The Family episode back in the 70's:"all we need to do is hand out guns to all of the passengers before they board the plane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Relative merits of the arguments aside, isn't it just as intrusive on the part of government to require people to be armed in the name of public safety as it is to require them to be unarmed? A gun lobby that says everyone should be armed is no less disrespectful of a citizen's freedoms than a government that says no one should be armed. Except that the gun lobby has a financial interest in creating a climate where everyone has to own a gun. This is also part of the logic of rightwing libertarians and anarchists, who think that, instead of having police, all we need is an armed citizenry. What kind of freedom do you have if you have to worry about being shot every time you go to the store or step out in public? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Except that the gun lobby has a financial interest in creating a climate where everyone has to own a gun. This is also part of the logic of rightwing libertarians and anarchists, who think that, instead of having police, all we need is an armed citizenry. What kind of freedom do you have if you have to worry about being shot every time you go to the store or step out in public? Anarchists and libertarians are not the same thing. Most libertarians believe that police is one of the few proper roles of government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 The left's response to this mass murder has been to attack conservatives with targets or gun sights on maps in their literature(and smear those who have none), Palin won't even admit now that the symbol was of a gunsight. Her aides are claiming it is just a generic symbol, that is also used by surveyors....although I don't know what significance "don't retreat, reload" would have to a surveyor! and to ignore anyone from the left with the same type of imagery, such as the Daily Kos and a Dem congressman who actually picked up a rifle and shot it at "Obamcare" in his last campaign. Do you have a source for Dem congressman shooting at Obamacare? All I can find is Democrats who stated that they would vote against it. Let's step back from that for a minute. I have long been part of the school of thought that was concerned about violence and sex appearing more and more in TV shows from the late 80's onward. The MSM and the left's standard response has always been to suggest that such media have no effect on people and us conservatives should just change the channel. The same response came when the movie Death of a President came out. This was a movie that specifically targeted Bush, not some fictional president. And, it was just one movie...that I never heard of, and I wonder how many people actually saw it! Maybe it could have inspired assassination attempts if anyone actually paid attention to it. But, when it comes to a whole host of rightwing activists and media, we're talking about a steady onslaught of dehumanizing and violent rhetoric. Before this congresswoman was shot, along with the six others that were killed, there have been a number of violent assaults and murders that have been inspired by rightwing rhetoric. It was inevitable that this sort of incident would occur. It is actually pathetic to see the left now take the hypocritical position that mere ad copy can affect one to grab a gun and start shooting. If this is the best they can do, attack the conservatives they hate most when a left wing nutjob shoots somebody, then they are out of touch with reality and will not serve their base well in the next election season. And, I've made the point before and I'll say it again, the right has the added burden here that they have taken upon themselves by chipping away at responsible gun control laws. Even if you believe that private citizens should have the right to own handguns (which I don't even agree with from the outset), some of the modest reforms, such as bans on assault weapons, and most crucial for this incident: a ban on gun magazines that carry more than 10 bullets, was allowed to sunset during the Bush Years. So, whovever or whatever inspired this guy to walk up to that event and start shooting -- he would not have been able to fire off more than 30 shots if that modest reform had either been extended, or signed into law permanently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 .....Even if you believe that private citizens should have the right to own handguns (which I don't even agree with from the outset).... Irrelevant....American citizens have this right no matter who believes what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Anarchists and libertarians are not the same thing. Most libertarians believe that police is one of the few proper roles of government. Yes, but many libertarians seem to be comfortable with reducing the numbers of police, along with all of the other government services they deem as unnecessary. In some stories I've been hearing lately on budget-cutting issues; many southern and mid-western towns and cities have been laying off police, along with teachers, disbanding transit service etc. The response from the right is just to have a gun in your home to provide your own protection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Irrelevant....American citizens have this right no matter who believes what. Didn't you notice that was in brackets? Why not deal with the points instead? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 .... In some stories I've been hearing lately on budget-cutting issues; many southern and mid-western towns and cities have been laying off police, along with teachers, disbanding transit service etc. ...but not northern or western or eastern towns and cities? The "stories" of budget cutting are nationwide in the USA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Didn't you notice that was in brackets? Why not deal with the points instead? I did...your presumption is DOA. Americans have this right. America would not exist without firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 And, I've made the point before and I'll say it again, the right has the added burden here that they have taken upon themselves by chipping away at responsible gun control laws. Even if you believe that private citizens should have the right to own handguns (which I don't even agree with from the outset), some of the modest reforms, such as bans on assault weapons, and most crucial for this incident: a ban on gun magazines that carry more than 10 bullets, was allowed to sunset during the Bush Years. So, whovever or whatever inspired this guy to walk up to that event and start shooting -- he would not have been able to fire off more than 30 shots if that modest reform had either been extended, or signed into law permanently. The reason the right to bear arms exists in the US is that it is "necessary to the security of a free State" (that's from the US constitution). Hand guns with limited magazines hardly would help to protect the security of a state in the modern day. Citizens must be allowed access to modern weaponry, including assault weapons, in order to have any chance at being effective in carrying out their purpose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 The reason the right to bear arms exists in the US is that it is "necessary to the security of a free State" (that's from the US constitution). Hand guns with limited magazines hardly would help to protect the security of a state in the modern day. Citizens must be allowed access to modern weaponry, including assault weapons, in order to have any chance at being effective in carrying out their purpose. Gun nuts seem to infest the American right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Gun nuts seem to infest the American right. Of course....guns are very very American...nuts or not. Ever heard of the Simbionese Liberation Army? They liked guns too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army Edited January 11, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pinko Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 Of course....guns are very very American...nuts or not. Ever heard of the Simbionese Liberation Army? They liked guns too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbionese_Liberation_Army Interesting to note that you liken yourself to fellow lunatics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 (edited) Interesting to note that you liken yourself to fellow lunatics. That's OK....I always welcome the opportunity to disabuse anyone concerning false notions about guns and violence in America. Guns and the language of guns are integral to American history and culture. Firearms are the quintessential example and instrument of American individualism and power. It matters not that you agree or disagree...it just is...and has always been thus. Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition. Edited January 11, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted January 11, 2011 Report Share Posted January 11, 2011 I did...your presumption is DOA. Americans have this right. America would not exist without firearms. So, tell me again why it was so important for the Bush Administration to allow that Clinton Era bill limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds, to sunset, so that we could end up with incidents like this one on Saturday? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.