Congresswoman Gifford shot

[frankenbeemer]

Got a link to NYT story?

I'd be interested to read it.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/15/are-the-democrats-the-true-extremists/

[Massive Lee]

Laughably naive.

Exactly what I thought of the initial argument.

[frankenbeemer]

I must of missed the initial argument. Sum it up for me?

[HarryPotter]

Read it?

[joshh]

Oh hey look a DNC map with Targets on it!

[frankenbeemer]

Read it?

I was asking Lee, thanks. But if you can point me to the "original argument" in this thread I would appreciate it.

[HarryPotter]

The thread isn't that long read pages 2-4.

Joshh there are plenty of those maps from dems with targets on them. Palins more of a celebrity to me than anything else. She's running with it.

[frankenbeemer]

Yeah I read it originally and posted in those pages, and prompted by your astute observation of the manageable length of the thread, I concluded it was within my means to read it again, and so I did. Then I read it yet again, skipping your posts of course. I see several different arguments, maybe I'm dense. I'm asking: what is "the original argument" Lee was talking about. Please?

[ALYKZANDYR]

I been searching recent news articles on google, and i cant find much as of yet regarding the G and Mr O, planning to mount an attempt to reinstate the AWB because of the shooting. Even if they try i do not think they will be able to to pass it, one high profile shooting just wont give them enough leverage to do that. Hopefully im right.

Imo, if they want to make public figures feel safer, give them kevlar, and or a sidearm if they want, a local police presence/escort where they are speaking, also, have have a security perimeter and search those in the crowd before they are allowed to get near where the public figure is. Giving them more protection is a better alternative that taking our rights away. It dosen't matter how many or what kind of gun control laws you pass, people who want to use guns to commit crimes will still get them illegally. All gun control does is take away the means for law abiding citizens to defend themselves and gives the advantage to the criminals. And dont tell me i can only have 10rnd mags, no flash suppressors, no folding stocks and all that other AWB bullshit, i should be able to have whatever make, model, shape or form of firearm i want so long as my intent for its use is lawful.

the gun community will fight any attempt to limit the second, but any one who calls themselves American must oppose any limits to our first, because those freedoms are what our country was founded upon and stands for.

[mightywhitey]

No one has mentioned gun control except ANTI GUN CONTROL GROUPS.

[HarryPotter]

Yeah I read it originally and posted in those pages, and prompted by your astute observation of the manageable length of the thread, I concluded it was within my means to read it again, and so I did. Then I read it yet again, skipping your posts of course. I see several different arguments, maybe I'm dense. I'm asking: what is "the original argument" Lee was talking about. Please?

Fuck if I know, I don't read lee's posts just as such you do not read mine.

[hi its me alec]

I really don't give a shit about the left or the right, they are both insane. The fact is this kid was a wack job and lost his marbles and went and shot somebody at no fault but his own.

There shouldn't even be any argument about whose fault this is or who provoked who. Even the father of the little girl states that he feels no more of our freedoms should be taken away from this incident.

This whole thread is pretty pointless. It's always the same story in here. You could almost write a whole response in a paragraph and predict exactly what every ones going to say. I didn't read all the pages until a few minutes ago.

hah, look man, that's not the point (again.) There is no argument about whose fault it is, or who provoked who. Obviously it's the shooter's fault, exclusively. Everyone knew he was a hopeless nutjob the second he pulled the trigger. You're making the thread pointless because you're not understanding what people on the other side are saying. That's exactly what my point is all about. You're looking for reasons to disagree, as are most americans nowadays.

The point is, nobody on either side is responsible to apologize FOR what happened. But the people who created the hostile political environment are responsible to apologize BECAUSE of what happened. It's an issue of sensitivity, to a good woman who was just capped in the middle of a fundraiser by some nutjob. Whether the guy saw the 'target map' or 'shoot a gun with jesse kelly ad' is irrelevant. The fact is, both things are there, and they are certainly adding fuel to the fire. When confronted about it, everyone on the right just throws their hands up and lets out a hearty guffaw, then proclaiming dems to be fearmongering morons. That's not what it's about at all, and I'm really not going to let people get away with that mentality anymore without hearing a fucking earful from me. We are (well, we were) a country of at least a small amount of compassion. Seems like nobody gives a shit about their own brother anymore and it's truly sad. Where do you assign the blame to if it's not a hostile political environment? Gun control? The shooter's family and friends? The small amount of people who saw his whacked out videos on youtube before the shooting? The book store that sold the kid 'mein kampf'? IMO the answer is 'no' to all of those. Not saying the environment is 100% to blame either... but it's an undeniable factor at the very least

Again, I'm not saying that anyone other than the shooter is responsible FOR what happened. But a change in rhetoric (and IMO apology) is required BECAUSE of what happened. This includes numerous people from both sides, but the majority belongs to the far right. Capiche?

[frankenbeemer]

Fuck if I know, I don't read lee's posts just as such you do not read mine.

Maybe you should read Lee's posts. Agree with him or not, I believe he contributed more for thought to this thread than you have. Peace.

[z31maniac]

No one has mentioned gun control except ANTI GUN CONTROL GROUPS.

Go read around and check back.

The point is, nobody on either side is responsible to apologize FOR what happened. But the people who created the hostile political environment are responsible to apologize BECAUSE of what happened. It's an issue of sensitivity, to a good woman who was just capped in the middle of a fundraiser by some nutjob. Whether the guy saw the 'target map' or 'shoot a gun with jesse kelly ad' is irrelevant. The fact is, both things are there, and they are certainly adding fuel to the fire. When confronted about it, everyone on the right just throws their hands up and lets out a hearty guffaw, then proclaiming dems to be fearmongering morons. That's not what it's about at all, and I'm really not going to let people get away with that mentality anymore without hearing a fucking earful from me. We are (well, we were) a country of at least a small amount of compassion. Seems like nobody gives a shit about their own brother anymore and it's truly sad. Where do you assign the blame to if it's not a hostile political environment? Gun control? The shooter's family and friends? The small amount of people who saw his whacked out videos on youtube before the shooting? The book store that sold the kid 'mein kampf'? IMO the answer is 'no' to all of those. Not saying the environment is 100% to blame either... but it's an undeniable factor at the very least

Again, I'm not saying that anyone other than the shooter is responsible FOR what happened. But a change in rhetoric (and IMO apology) is required BECAUSE of what happened. This includes numerous people from both sides, but the majority belongs to the far right. Capiche?

You say the rhetoric isn't responsible for it, but that the people speaking it should apologize.

[Javier h]

Here's the deal.

You can't say the word "bomb" on an airplane.

And sure you really shouldn't use inflammatory words during of a speech for potential fanaticals. Example:

"The crossfire is intense, so penetrate through enemy territory by bombing through the press, and use your strong weapons - your Big Guns - to drive to the hole," Ms Palin wrote.

"Shoot with accuracy; aim high and remember it takes blood, sweat and tears to win."

"Don't retreat but reload".

These sentences however harmless to normal people are taken out of context but couple that with crosshairs and rifle icons, that just being stupid in the eyes of derange idoits. I say have more class and let Obama have it but be prudient enough to know that this language serves of no benefit.

Btw, the DMC targets look great. But there is a legend there explaining the 4 different colors. Without the rhetoric, the crossfire map would have loss all wacky merits from the liberals. Palin used it to promote her gun imagery.

The above was taken from this article.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225985807976