Len Colby Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite. Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 His middle name "Lee" jumped out at me and according to Jack White his last name sounds like the word "loner" ...On his utube there is mind control stuff....All this is starting to take on a deeper politcal meaning than just the tea party hate stuff... That’s right the CIA chooses its Manchurian candidates on the basis of their middle names Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) I posted the below elsewhere in the forum because I didn't see this thread. John pointed out this thread so I'm moving my post here. Bulleyes, Hit Lists, Responsibility and Consequences “I think it's important for all leaders... community leaders... to say we can't stand for this... People really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up--for example we're on Sarah Palin's 'Targeted List' but... the way she has it depicted is that she has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they've got to realize there are consequences to that action.” --US Representative Gabrielle Giffords on MSNBC March 25, 2010 US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head on January 8, 2011. In the same shooting rampage six people were shot dead and twelve were wounded. I don't know if it's big news world wide; it is big news in the US. One of the reasons it's big news is the fact that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin previously put the map, shown by Evan in this thread, since scrubbed from Palin's site, of Democratic targets on her website. The US map, put on Palin's website March 23, had images of cross hairs over targeted congressional districts, including Gabrielle Giffords' district. Accompanying text included the phrase “We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo....” Palin also tweeted, on March 23, “Commensense Conservatives & lovers of America: Don't Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Two days later Gabrielle Giffords spoke out against the bullseye map on MSNBC, quoted above. Eight months later Giffords was narrowly reelected. Of the 20 districts targeted by Palin, Giffords and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) were the only two candidates to win over her Palin's chosen Republicans. Palin sent this post election Tweet: “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)” Ten months later Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the head in a massacre. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo had the following to say on the January 8 episode of Countdown with Keith Olberman, also on MSNBC: “This is like the way an epidemic disease breaks out is a lot like the climate of incitement does. Because when an epidemic breaks out it's usually the weak, the old or the unhealthy are the people who are carried off. In a similar sense when you have a climate of incitement, a lot of violent political speech, it's always people who are pretty nutty who actually shoot someone. That's always how it is. It doesn't mean these two things [the Palin bullseye map and the Arizona massacre] are unrelated. That's in the nature of how these things work.” Finally, Arizona/Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had this to say, and it's my point as well: "All the vitriol we hear... That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences." Bulleyes and harassment lists and hit lists may be free speech, but it's not without consequences." Edited January 9, 2011 by Myra Bronstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is a horrible tragedy, but it is being portrayed by the mainstream media as all such tragedies inevitably are. I have never shot a gun in my life, and have no desire to own one. However, I recognize that the second amendment is important, and that citizens should have the right to arm themselves. I believe Jerry Brown once described this issue best, when he said he supported individuals having the right to bear arms "as long as the government and police can." There are a myriad of gun contol laws on the books everywhere, but the old argument about criminals not obeying laws, and thus being able to get guns easily, is a really good one, imho. Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." I have heard several references to his affinity for "conspiracy theories." He supposedly doesn't believe we went to the moon (or the space shuttle, either, evidently). Well, what would one expect an upstanding "lone nut" to stand for, anyhow? It's kind of amazing that no boring conventional liberal Democrat, or conservative Republican, is ever driven by their mental illness to open fire on politicians or anyone else, isn't it? I mean, surely mental illness is not the express province of political "extremists," is it? How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun? I have heard the ominous, between the lines warnings, in each report on this story, that "something must be done" about those like this "lone nut." Not about his act of violence, per se, but about those "extremist" beliefs that must have set him off. My own family member recited to me, like any good member of the sheeple should, the scary fact that THIS guy had access to youtube, and "was allowed" to post his rantings there. The message is- we need to control that youtube, and the internet at large, so that these things don't happen in the future. My sympathy goes out to the families of the victims, and I hope that Rep. Giffords makes a complete recovery. However, I do think we all need to be just a bit more skeptical about the way these events are manipulated, reported and "interpreted" by the lame, wildly overpaid establishment reporters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted January 10, 2011 Author Share Posted January 10, 2011 Don, If interested, would you like to start a thread on gun control? Considering what has happened, I think it might be a good subject for all members to air their views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite. Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer. Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 I posted the below elsewhere in the forum because I didn't see this thread. John pointed out this thread so I'm moving my post here. Bulleyes, Hit Lists, Responsibility and Consequences “I think it's important for all leaders... community leaders... to say we can't stand for this... People really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up--for example we're on Sarah Palin's 'Targeted List' but... the way she has it depicted is that she has the cross hairs of a gun sight over our district. When people do that they've got to realize there are consequences to that action.” --US Representative Gabrielle Giffords on MSNBC March 25, 2010 US Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head on January 8, 2011. In the same shooting rampage six people were shot dead and twelve were wounded. I don't know if it's big news world wide; it is big news in the US. One of the reasons it's big news is the fact that former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin previously put the map, shown by Evan in this thread, since scrubbed from Palin's site, of Democratic targets on her website. The US map, put on Palin's website March 23, had images of cross hairs over targeted congressional districts, including Gabrielle Giffords' district. Accompanying text included the phrase “We’ll aim for these races and many others. This is just the first salvo....” Palin also tweeted, on March 23, “Commensense Conservatives & lovers of America: Don't Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Two days later Gabrielle Giffords spoke out against the bullseye map on MSNBC, quoted above. Eight months later Giffords was narrowly reelected. Of the 20 districts targeted by Palin, Giffords and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-W.V.) were the only two candidates to win over her Palin's chosen Republicans. Palin sent this post election Tweet: “Remember months ago “bullseye” icon used 2 target the 20 Obamacare-lovin' incumbent seats? We won 18 out of 20 (90% success rate;T'aint bad)” Ten months later Gabrielle Giffords was shot through the head in a massacre. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo had the following to say on the January 8 episode of Countdown with Keith Olberman, also on MSNBC: “This is like the way an epidemic disease breaks out is a lot like the climate of incitement does. Because when an epidemic breaks out it's usually the weak, the old or the unhealthy are the people who are carried off. In a similar sense when you have a climate of incitement, a lot of violent political speech, it's always people who are pretty nutty who actually shoot someone. That's always how it is. It doesn't mean these two things [the Palin bullseye map and the Arizona massacre] are unrelated. That's in the nature of how these things work.” Finally, Arizona/Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik had this to say, and it's my point as well: "All the vitriol we hear... That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences." Bulleyes and harassment lists and hit lists may be free speech, but it's not without consequences." You do realize that the Dems also posted their own "hit list" complete with bullseyes and the Daily Kos did the same and included Giffords? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is a horrible tragedy, but it is being portrayed by the mainstream media as all such tragedies inevitably are. I have never shot a gun in my life, and have no desire to own one. However, I recognize that the second amendment is important, and that citizens should have the right to arm themselves. I believe Jerry Brown once described this issue best, when he said he supported individuals having the right to bear arms "as long as the government and police can." There are a myriad of gun contol laws on the books everywhere, but the old argument about criminals not obeying laws, and thus being able to get guns easily, is a really good one, imho. Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." I have heard several references to his affinity for "conspiracy theories." He supposedly doesn't believe we went to the moon (or the space shuttle, either, evidently). Well, what would one expect an upstanding "lone nut" to stand for, anyhow? It's kind of amazing that no boring conventional liberal Democrat, or conservative Republican, is ever driven by their mental illness to open fire on politicians or anyone else, isn't it? I mean, surely mental illness is not the express province of political "extremists," is it? How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun? I have heard the ominous, between the lines warnings, in each report on this story, that "something must be done" about those like this "lone nut." Not about his act of violence, per se, but about those "extremist" beliefs that must have set him off. My own family member recited to me, like any good member of the sheeple should, the scary fact that THIS guy had access to youtube, and "was allowed" to post his rantings there. The message is- we need to control that youtube, and the internet at large, so that these things don't happen in the future. My sympathy goes out to the families of the victims, and I hope that Rep. Giffords makes a complete recovery. However, I do think we all need to be just a bit more skeptical about the way these events are manipulated, reported and "interpreted" by the lame, wildly overpaid establishment reporters. Sorry, I just fell off my chair.... I was a victim of a gun crime in my youth. My drunk step father took a shot at me down hte basement stairs with a shotgun. Lucky for me he was drunk as a skunk and missed. Went many years with a huge dislike of guns until it finally dawned on me it was not the guns but the people. My wife and I are well trained and responsible gun owners. We both have carry permits but don't carry. We have one handgun loaded in the house for protection but it is locked in a secure location. The rest are locked and unloaded. We have no children in the house. We both enjoy spending time at the range shooting from our collection. We train often. Here's my point. There are ugly people out there who will not think twice about killing you. For the most part, law enforcement will only be along after the fact to clean up the mess. You have two choices, either be willing to try and protect your life or be willing to surrender it. I truly wish that were not the case. Sadly it is. My wife and I had many a conversation before buying our first gun and it seems after every trip to the range. The conversation and question is always the same. Could you actually do it...pull the trigger and send a potentially fatal piece of lead towards another human being? Neither of us can answer that one honestly. We have been well trained in personal protection and self defence using a handgun. We practice often. I have no doubts we could act properly in a hostile situation. But could we actually do it? Neither of us can answer...honestly. I don't see a thing wrong with being a legal and responsible gun owner. The bad guys are always going have guns and most will NOT have a problem making the decision on pulling the trigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 This is a horrible tragedy, but it is being portrayed by the mainstream media as all such tragedies inevitably are. I have never shot a gun in my life, and have no desire to own one. However, I recognize that the second amendment is important, and that citizens should have the right to arm themselves. I believe Jerry Brown once described this issue best, when he said he supported individuals having the right to bear arms "as long as the government and police can." There are a myriad of gun contol laws on the books everywhere, but the old argument about criminals not obeying laws, and thus being able to get guns easily, is a really good one, imho. I disagree Don “…the second amendment is important, and that citizens should have the right to arm themselves…” I think it was my Constitutional law professor who said the second amendment was the worst written part of the Constitution. Whoever said it is indubitably correct. It reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The second half indicates an absolute right but the first part indicates it is in the context of a “well regulated Militia”. Each side of the gun regulation debate only pays attention to phrase that supports their view. The meaning of “the security of a free State” is also unclear is it secure it from enemy invasion and civil unrest or from a tyrannical central government? I assume the later because of its association with “a well regulated Militia” “There are a myriad of gun contol laws on the books everywhere…” Despite them it is still easier to buy a gun and even an automatic or semi-automatic one easier that in any country with a functioning central government, the laws a insufficient. “the old argument about criminals not obeying laws, and thus being able to get guns easily, is a really good one” No it is an overly simplistic and poor one. Most illegal guns were obtained legally or semi-legally: "Stolen guns account for only about 10% to 15% of guns used in crimes," [ ‘ATF agent Jay’] Wachtel said… Wachtel says one of the most common ways criminals get guns is through straw purchase sales. A straw purchase occurs when someone who may not legally acquire a firearm, or who wants to do so anonymously, has a companion buy it on their behalf. According to a 1994 ATF study on "Sources of Crime Guns in Southern California," many straw purchases are conducted in an openly "suggestive" manner where two people walk into a gun store, one selects a firearm, and then the other uses identification for the purchase and pays for the gun… The next biggest source of illegal gun transactions where criminals get guns are sales made by legally licensed but corrupt at-home and commercial gun dealers. Several recent reports back up Wachtel's own studies about this, and make the case that illegal activity by those licensed to sell guns, known as Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), is a huge source of crime guns and greatly surpasses the sale of guns stolen from John Q. Citizen.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html The Associated Press Published: December 5, 2008 COLUMBIA, S.C. - Ten states are responsible for the bulk of illegal guns that are shipped across state lines for use in crimes, according to a report released Friday by a national coalition of mayors. About 30 percent of guns traced by federal agents in 2006 and 2007 during crime investigations were bought in a state other than where the crime occurred, said the report by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, which largely blamed the transport of illegal guns on states with lax gun laws . http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/dec/05/florida-among-top-states-where-illegal-guns-come/ The US’s lax gun laws even create problems for it neighbors: According to previously available statistics, an estimated two-thirds of the illicit guns seized in Canada come from the US, though the report’s authors conclude that the exact quantity is large but uncertain. This is illuminating, but unsurprising given the permissive nature of gun laws in the US. Due to its tolerant gun policy and the large number of guns in circulation within the country, the US is a low-cost supplier of handguns. When coupled with a high demand from criminal gangs in Canada, who do not have access to firearms from domestic dealers and must resort to the illicit import market, the criminal incentives for northbound gun smuggling are high. In Mexico, another natural export destination for illicit guns, roughly 90 to 95 percent of the gun supply comes from the US. The proximate result of the illicit trade, according to the study, is “a somewhat higher murder rate in Canada and a vast intensification of drug crime conflict near the Mexican border. http://www.portalfornorthamerica.org/spotlight/2009/07/gun-smuggling-canadian-security-concern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." I find it odd that Dawn, Jack, Bill and you seem to assume he wasn’t a lone nut when there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Giffords was not an especially important target, numerous people saw Jared Lee Loughner do the shooting and unlike the Robert Kennedy assassination the is no apparent discrepancy between the number of shots fired and the weapon Glock 19s hold clips of up to 33 bullets. I have heard several references to his affinity for "conspiracy theories." He supposedly doesn't believe we went to the moon (or the space shuttle, either, evidently). Well, what would one expect an upstanding "lone nut" to stand for, anyhow? It's kind of amazing that no boring conventional liberal Democrat, or conservative Republican, is ever driven by their mental illness to open fire on politicians or anyone else, isn't it? I mean, surely mental illness is not the express province of political "extremists," is it? You’re a smart guy so I’m sure if you think more calmly about this you can figure it out. Why are people with less extreme views political less likely to strikeout violently in political attacks? Obviously because they are less likely to be so alienated from the political process that violence seems like the only solution. And not that extreme views are inherently crazy but I imagine the mentally ill are more likely the support extreme politics. But that said I’m not even sure your complaint is true I have seen no evidence the following were involved in extreme politics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Byck http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Bremer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Jane_Moore http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_David_Chapman How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun? No obsessed fans driven to violence? Tell that to the loved ones of John Lennon, Selena, Rebecca Schaffer and Dimebag Darrell. No ex-aides driven to kill bitchy bosses? Google Lin.da Stein I have heard the ominous, between the lines warnings, in each report on this story, that "something must be done" about those like this "lone nut." Not about his act of violence, per se, but about those "extremist" beliefs that must have set him off. My own family member recited to me, like any good member of the sheeple should, the scary fact that THIS guy had access to youtube, and "was allowed" to post his rantings there. The message is- we need to control that youtube, and the internet at large, so that these things don't happen in the future. Please link to MSM commentators who have made such comments either overtly or “between the lines”. “member of the sheeple” Ironic that people who claim to have sympathy for “the common man” use a term indicative of disdain for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Already, the press is focusing on various hot button labels when describing this very predictable "lone nut." I find it odd that Dawn, Jack, Bill and you seem to assume he wasn't a lone nut when there is no evidence suggesting otherwise. Len, I haven't assumed anything yet. I posted two original news reports from within hours of the event, and subtitled it: Political Assassination Case Study # which Evan merged with the thread he started, that has a subtitle that tries to tie the shooting in with the Tea Party and has the wrong number of people killed. I also questioned Evan's tieing the shooter in with the Moon landings, though it does seem that he sounded off on that subject on line, and wonder what all that means. And though I don't assume he wasn't a lone nut case, how can you say that there is no evidence suggesting he was when they are still looking for an acomplice who apparently drove him to the scene, and have released a photo of the guy? Giffords was not an especially important target, No? Then why was she specifically targeted by Palen? And Jared Lee Loughner? And the Judge was killed. So that makes it an attempted political assassination and a political assassination however you want to look at it. I think this is a good case study of an American political assassination, and worty of study and analysis as it unfolds, but accusing others of making assumptions when you are the one who is doing that is not the way to go. Bill Kelly numerous people saw Jared Lee Loughner do the shooting and unlike the Robert Kennedy assassination the is no apparent discrepancy between the number of shots fired and the weapon Glock 19s hold clips of up to 33 bullets. I have heard several references to his affinity for "conspiracy theories." He supposedly doesn't believe we went to the moon (or the space shuttle, either, evidently). Well, what would one expect an upstanding "lone nut" to stand for, anyhow? It's kind of amazing that no boring conventional liberal Democrat, or conservative Republican, is ever driven by their mental illness to open fire on politicians or anyone else, isn't it? I mean, surely mental illness is not the express province of political "extremists," is it? You're a smart guy so I'm sure if you think more calmly about this you can figure it out. Why are people with less extreme views political less likely to strikeout violently in political attacks? Obviously because they are less likely to be so alienated from the political process that violence seems like the only solution. And not that extreme views are inherently crazy but I imagine the mentally ill are more likely the support extreme politics. But that said I'm not even sure your complaint is true I have seen no evidence the following were involved in extreme politics http://en.wikipedia....iki/Samuel_Byck http://en.wikipedia....i/Arthur_Bremer http://en.wikipedia....Sara_Jane_Moore http://en.wikipedia....k_David_Chapman How come none of Oprah's obsessed fans, or maybe one of Madonna's ex-aides, driven to madness by her bitchiness, ever goes crazy with a gun? No obsessed fans driven to violence? Tell that to the loved ones of John Lennon, Selena, Rebecca Schaffer and Dimebag Darrell. No ex-aides driven to kill bitchy bosses? Google Lin.da Stein I have heard the ominous, between the lines warnings, in each report on this story, that "something must be done" about those like this "lone nut." Not about his act of violence, per se, but about those "extremist" beliefs that must have set him off. My own family member recited to me, like any good member of the sheeple should, the scary fact that THIS guy had access to youtube, and "was allowed" to post his rantings there. The message is- we need to control that youtube, and the internet at large, so that these things don't happen in the future. Please link to MSM commentators who have made such comments either overtly or "between the lines". "member of the sheeple" Ironic that people who claim to have sympathy for "the common man" use a term indicative of disdain for them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Kelly Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 Okay, the guy of interest who drove the shooter ot the scene has been identified as a taxi driver who entered the store with JLL in order to get change for a twenty. And the gun was purchased at a sporting goods store. What sport do you use a Glock automatic? BK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 (edited) Okay, the guy of interest who drove the shooter ot the scene has been identified as a taxi driver who entered the store with JLL in order to get change for a twenty. And the gun was purchased at a sporting goods store. What sport do you use a Glock automatic? BK The glock was not an "auto". It was a semi auto from the factory. So far there is no indication it had been modified into a full auto. Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Practical_Shooting_Confederation Edited January 10, 2011 by Craig Lamson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 The state of New York has done a remarkable job reducing gun violence through strick gun control laws and no executions since 1963. Texas has done the exact opposite. Thought violence levels here far out strip those os the US, Brazil also saw a decline in its murder rate associated with stricter gun control laws, it seems like such an obvious step to it is hard to understand why the right opposes it. No one needs to own an assualt rifle or automatic pistol or to be able to buy guns and ammo more easily than beer. Whats an "assualt rifle"? And we can't purchase "automatic" pistols. Its not the GUNS that cause the problems, its PEOPLE. Yet people with guns kill other people much much much faster. Assassin boy was able to kill 5 or 6 people, and injure 12, in a matter of seconds. Explain how he could have done that with another weapon like a knife or a sling shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted January 10, 2011 Share Posted January 10, 2011 ... You do realize that the Dems also posted their own "hit list" complete with bullseyes and the Daily Kos did the same and included Giffords? Can you please point me to these other hit lists? Especially the Dem one you say has bulleseyes. Not that I'm a Dem. And not that this is a strictly Dem vs Rep issue. Its a broader issue than that. Even people outside of the one major US DemRep party should be aware of possible consequences from such lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now