Jump to content

Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona


Recommended Posts

"Apparently he bought it at a sports shop, which makes me question what kind of a background check they are required to do."

I have never quite understood the affection Americans have for guns. I wonder about the mindset of a nation that has a statement in its constitution that provides a right to bear arms.

" He wasn't a minor, though, so how much his parents could have actually done is questionable."

The parents could have sought an involuntary commitment.

"Did they know he had purchased a gun?."

That remains to be determined but it should be noted he lived with his parents. These people were obviously aware of the troubles their son was having.

Edited by pinko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 651
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest American Woman

"Apparently he bought it at a sports shop, which makes me question what kind of a background check they are required to do."

I have never quite understood the affection Americans have for guns. I wonder about the mindset of a nation that has a statement in its constitution that provides a right to bear arms.

This American has absolutely no affection for guns as you refer to it. Never had the desire to so much as shoot one, let alone own one, so it's not an "affection" that "Americans" have. Some, yes. Just as in any other nation. I do, however, have an affection for freedom and for people's rights.

As for the constitution, i believe it was the right of people to fight against tyranny that led to the right to bear arms. So one could also question the mentality of a nation that arms it's military/police but doesn't allow citizens the same right. Also, since criminals don't care about the law, it gives people the opportunity to protect themselves against criminals. So there are two different mindsets, both having some merit; and while one can have a definite opinion one way or the other, that doesn't make one right and one wrong. Just different.

I do, however, think there should be background checks on people buying guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/100071004/the-unseemly-rush-to-blame-sarah-palin-the-tea-party-and-republicans-for-murder-in-arizona/

Ben Smith sums up the current picture of Loughner pretty well:

Oh, and another former classmate said he was “left wing, quite liberal”. Naturally, this doesn’t stop Jacob Heilbrunn, pontificating that the shootings are evidence of that the “radical right is becoming even more radicalised and violent”. The obsession with the gold standard and the hostility to the federal government resonate with the far right, the burned American flag with the left, but the discussion of mind control and grammar sound more like mental illness than politics.

This is highly inconvenient for certain people on the Left so they ignore it. They would much prefer the shooter to have been a white male in his 50s, the description the sheriff gave of a second person of interest (we’ll see if such a person materialises) but they’ll still try to make hay with a weirdo like Loughner.

Giffords herself doesn’t quite fit the likely victim of an enraged Right-winger. She is a Blue Dog Democrat, a deficit hawk and voted to lift the ban on guns in DC and voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. On Thursday, she took part in the reading of the Constitution in the House, reading aloud the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, speech and peaceful assembly.

She’s certainly not the “progressive” that Hanoi Jane tweeted about and provoked as much anger on the Left as on the Right for her political stances. Just the other day, a blogger at DailyKos said that Giffords was “dead to me” for failing to back Pelosi.

A complete misrepresentation: those words were not attributable to Ben Smith but the writer of the piece.

These are Ben Smith's words:

The obsession with the gold standard and the hostility to the federal government resonate with the far right, the burned American flag with the left, but the discussion of mind control and grammar sound more like mental illness than politics.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have absolutely no proof of that. It's nothing but conjecture on your part.

There certainly is no proof, but one HAS to ask the question. Considering the climate of anger in the US and the fact that this was an overtly political act, there at least has to be a discussion about feeding the anger in the country and what effect it can have on mentally unbalanced individuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
" He wasn't a minor, though, so how much his parents could have actually done is questionable."

The parents could have sought an involuntary commitment.

That doesn't mean they would have been granted it. Furthermore, it's difficult to say how quickly his mental health deteriorated. The fact that they met with school administrators shows that they were aware that he had a problem and that they were interested enough to have met with the administrators. So perhaps they were looking into getting help for him, but of course they would have had no idea of the urgency. There are a few posters rambling on this board whose mental health I question, yet we don't see them as a "danger," and it's likely that his parents didn't see him as a danger. Being disturbed and being a danger are two different things. I know of schizophrenics who don't take their meds, and if that's the affliction that he had, his behavior up until the shooting spree was pretty much in line with the affliction.

"Did they know he had purchased a gun?."

That remains to be determined but it should be noted he lived with his parents. These people were obviously aware of the troubles their son was having.

Being aware of his troubles and being aware of his every action are two different things. Most parents are not aware of everything their 22 year olds are doing. Furthermore, plenty of parents are aware of their children's troubles, but "troubles" and "danger" are two different things. If they were aware that he had a gun, if that comes out, I'll have plenty of criticism for them. But knowing what I know, I can't see how we can blame and/or criticize the parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"That doesn't mean they would have been granted it."

Prudent parents would have taken every reasonable precaution to ensure the safety and well being of this obviously troubled individual. All the circumstances giving rise to such a request for commital were clearly available to the parents. If you have had anything to do with such cases you should know police assistance may be sought notwithstanding the age of this individual.

Edited by pinko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

"I do, however, have an affection for freedom and for people's rights."

Yes and I am sure you will agree that the individuals killed and maimed yesterday, by this man, had their rights violated.

I already said that I believe there should be a background check when guns are purchased. If there was no such check, then I believe there should be one required by law.

So I believe in the right to bear arms, but not without a background check. In other words, I don't believe it's an absolute right, and it's not stated as such in the Constitution. People have the right to get a driver's license too, but not without the proper qualifications. However, plenty of people do get behind the wheel of a car without meeting those qualifications -- yet if someone is hit by a car driven by such a person, we don't say the victim had their rights violated, and think that taking away people's right to drive a car is the solution.

I believe the same principle should apply to gun ownership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I already said that I believe there should be a background check when guns are purchased. If there was no such check, then I believe there should be one required by law.

So I believe in the right to bear arms, but not without a background check. In other words, I don't believe it's an absolute right, and it's not stated as such in the Constitution. People have the right to get a driver's license too, but not without the proper qualifications. However, plenty of people do get behind the wheel of a car without meeting those qualifications -- yet if someone is hit by a car driven by such a person, we don't say the victim had their rights violated, and think that taking away people's right to drive a car is the solution.

I believe the same principle should apply to gun ownership.

Rand Paul said today Arizona gun law had nothing to do with this. Some how I don't think that is true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"there is as much vitriol and hatred generated from the left as anywhere else."

You appear to have missed my point. Sarah Palin has made her mark in politics and the media by embracing a divisive message that appeals to the darker side of human nature. Partisanship is one thing as is the right to express one's views but with such a right comes the responsibility to discern the impact such speech has on others. Ms. Palin, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and many of the other hate infested talk radio types feed the anger which manifests itself on a daily basis. This latest incident is a result of such behaviour.

I dislike those you mention here, too: I think Palin is the sort of ignorant demagogue that politics throws up periodically; Rush Limbaugh is a windbag; and Glenn Beck! Well, he's a tear-stained moron who is openly urging his audience to read the rantings of a racist, far-right paranoid conspiracist.

But they're not responsible. That many people like them doesn't speak well for their admirers, but they aren't inciting anyone to murder.

I suspect we're going to see that this whole incident is more about mental illness than any other topic we could find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"So I believe in the right to bear arms, but not without a background check. In other words, I don't believe it's an absolute right, and it's not stated as such in the Constitution."

Recent USSC decisions, with dissenting views, give too much latitude to those wanting to acquire guns. That your law and regulatory process is inadequate should be obvious.

Edited by pinko
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dislike those you mention here, too: I think Palin is the sort of ignorant demagogue that politics throws up periodically; Rush Limbaugh is a windbag; and Glenn Beck! Well, he's a tear-stained moron who is openly urging his audience to read the rantings of a racist, far-right paranoid conspiracist.

But they're not responsible. That many people like them doesn't speak well for their admirers, but they aren't inciting anyone to murder.

I suspect we're going to see that this whole incident is more about mental illness than any other topic we could find.

I don't think they're inciting anyone to murder, but I do believe they're purposefully inciting people to widespread anger. Anger is what get's people out to their events and what eventually getting people to the ballot box. The divisive nature of the stuff they preach (let's be fair, people like Maddow and Olbermann do it as well and I find it just as distasteful despite being less successful) polarizes the country and really cheeses people off.

The question we have to be asking is this: what about the people who are unbalanced who take their anger to extreme levels. I don't know and I doubt if this is what we saw here, but it's a valid question. Lest we forget that democratic congressmen have had their offices were vandalized. One's office was shot at. Even if this isn't related, anger has been taken way too far already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if this isn't related, anger has been taken way too far already.

Do you think you're sane ? If so, do you think a web blog could incite you to murder 6 people ?

A discussion of the boundaries of civil discourse is in bounds, but any discussion that ties this event to individual political parties, or recognizable figures of those parties is finger-pointing and not in itself civil or fair IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

"So I believe in the right to bear arms, but not without a background check. In other words, I don't believe it's an absolute right, and it's not stated as such in the Constitution."

Recent USSC decisions, with dissenting views, give too much latitude to those wanting to acquire guns. That your law and regulatory process is inadequate should be obvious.

You seem to have a real knack for not responding directly to what I say; you always seem to be dancing around it. Do you understand my position? Do you agree with it? Do you think it's at odds with what you are saying?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if I had a co-worker who was a nut-job like the shooter, I'd like to think that I could tell that something was off about him and I'd not allow his type to be an influence on me, his thoughts on issues changing my opinions and the like.

They say that the web has become an outlet and a networking tool for such nutjobs. This particular one posted in different places. Which members on this forum who have expressed strident views on this thread or in this forum are nutjobs that if I could meet face to face I'd immediately know something was off? I don't want to rub shoulders with such people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, if I had a co-worker who was a nut-job like the shooter, I'd like to think that I could tell that something was off about him and I'd not allow his type to be an influence on me, his thoughts on issues changing my opinions and the like.

They say that the web has become an outlet and a networking tool for such nutjobs. This particular one posted in different places. Which members on this forum who have expressed strident views on this thread or in this forum are nutjobs that if I could meet face to face I'd immediately know something was off? I don't want to rub shoulders with such people.

I don't know if it would be easy to tell. I suspect that in most cases, it would not be so simple. A lot of people express themselves "stridently," as you say, on internet forums, but do not generally walk around town speaking the same way, obviously.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think you're sane ? If so, do you think a web blog could incite you to murder 6 people ?

A discussion of the boundaries of civil discourse is in bounds, but any discussion that ties this event to individual political parties, or recognizable figures of those parties is finger-pointing and not in itself civil or fair IMO.

I think when those parties leaders say things like "Don't retreat reload" or when they target the individual by putting them in a cross hairs it is fair. Also when the leaders of those parties say things like "If we don't win there will be second amendment remedies." If people in that party advocate for the use of weapons and the leadership does not say "that is over the line" they get a small portion of the blame.

Again it would one thing if this congresswomen was shot and it was because of her health care vote and the Republicans targeted her ridding because they did not like the way she voted. It is another thing when the Leadership and party member continue to use speech and imagery that suggested "second amendment remedies" are a part of American democracy.

Edited by punked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think you're sane ? If so, do you think a web blog could incite you to murder 6 people ?

A discussion of the boundaries of civil discourse is in bounds, but any discussion that ties this event to individual political parties, or recognizable figures of those parties is finger-pointing and not in itself civil or fair IMO.

I think Paul Krugman is sane and that he makes an excellent point: Assassination Attempt In Arizona

---------------------------------------

I don't know why, but why am I reminded by the crowd who blathers on endlessly about why they never hear the "moderate Muslim" crowd condemn yet another "Muslim" terrorist attack and yet we will never hear a Tea Partier/Republican condemn some of the sh!t they say which is clearly irresponsible.

Yeah, Phelps can be irresponsible - he is an individual (and probably a bit crazy).

A political party (and it's people) should have higher standards and yet none of them (including the Democrats) even pretend to strive for those standards.

That's what is tragic about this - and don't think Canada is all that much different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think when those parties leaders say things like "Don't retreat reload" or when they target the individual by putting them in a cross hairs it is fair. Also when the leaders of those parties say things like "If we don't win there will be second amendment remedies." If people in that party advocate for the use of weapons and the leadership does not say "that is over the line" they get a small portion of the blame.

It's fair to talk about that behavior, but not fair to tie actions of unbalanced people to them.

Again it would one thing if this congresswomen was shot and it was because of her health care vote and the Republicans targeted her ridding because did not like the way she voted. It is another thing when the Leadership and party member continue to use speech and imagery that suggested "second amendment remedies" are a part of American democracy.

If you're trying to say that the Republicans were issuing threats, I don't buy it. Furthermore, if you're not clear in what you're saying about these things, and whether or not you're tying it to recent events then discussing it in the context of those recent events is opportunistic and crass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Paul Krugman is sane and that he makes an excellent point: Assassination Attempt In Arizona

---------------------------------------

I don't know why, but why am I reminded by the crowd who blathers on endlessly about why they never hear the "moderate Muslim" crowd condemn yet another "Muslim" terrorist attack and yet we will never hear a Tea Partier/Republican condemn some of the sh!t they say which is clearly irresponsible.

Right. We tell these people they're unreasonable, which cuts off our ability to use the same flawed logic that they do. Your reward is the sleep of the just, and nothing more.

The Krugman link doesn't work, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. We tell these people they're unreasonable, which cuts off our ability to use the same flawed logic that they do. Your reward is the sleep of the just, and nothing more.

The Krugman link doesn't work, BTW.

Not sure about the link - I have tried it and it works just fine.

Too bad, it's pertinent to my argument so I'll just leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...