"We just have to acknowledge that there's some mentally unstable people in this country," Sen Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) said on Face the Nation yesterday.
Teachers and classmates of the man accused of in the Arizona shootings over the weekend seem to have done that part already. "I was getting concerned about the safety of the students and the school," community college professor Ben McGahee tells the NYT. "I was afraid he was going to pull out a weapon."
You can argue that violent political rhetoric played a role here and you can argue that it didn't. What's harder to answer is why no one was able to prevent Saturday's massacre. Jared Loughner showed plenty of signs that he was a scary guy. And still, Jared Loughner got a gun.
As the Arizona State Legislature returns to business today, among the bills to be considered are two that would allow guns on campus, which the Campus Carry folks argue would be good for us..
Whatever we're doing, as hard as it is to get anything done about gun safety in this country, it's tragically, awfully not enough. It wasn't enough in Tucson this weekend, where a mentally unstable guy came armed with a Glock. And it wasn't enough in Baltimore, where violence broke out at a nightclub. It hasn't been enough in Los Angeles. It hasn't been enough in New Orleans. It's really, truly not enough.
Leave a Comment:
Amen, Laura!
So Say We All ...
Yes, we have to acknowledge that. And then, as Ohio Rep. Driehaus. pointed out, we have to acknowledge that what really matters isn't how John Boehner intends a statement like "He may be a dead man" to be taken, nor how the subject of the statement interprets it, but how the most unhinged person living in the subject's district takes it.
It reminds me somewhat of when Dr. Tiller was shot. When Rachel and Keith would mention how many times Bill O. referred to him as "Tiller the Killer." Bill didn't pull the trigger, but those statements can influence whack jobs and further encourage them to do the unthinkable.
Making casual statements about shooting, reloading, second amendment remedies most rational, sane people see them as just stupid statements. But when your words reach millions, odds are there are a tiny number of people listening who may read into it literally. Perhaps what happened here wasn't related, but it brings attention to a very important issue. Words can have consequences, intentional or not. When people have positions of power and influence, their words have an even greater effect. We can discuss our views and disagreements without using words that can incite hate and violence. If nothing is learned from this, then it's only a matter of time somebody else gets hurt, or even worse.
When our society is resorting to violence, vandalism, threats (intended or not) to voice our beliefs, something is obscenely wrong. What does this teach our kids? Grow up, let's be a civilized society. We gain nothing by resorting to acting like jackasses. The GOP and Tea Partiers have to tone it down....this isn't about politics, it's about ensuring nobody else gets hurt or killed.
I think his heavy marijuana use may have influenced him more than any 'political rhetoric'... as far as obtaining a gun, do you think it would be difficult for someone perpetually high on illegal drugs to obtain an illegal weapon? Seriously? Oh, don't worry... the right to bear arms is still as alive and well as the right to free speech; two things left wing dingbats would LOVE to revoke.
@ Mr. Browning. Beginning in 1993 and going until 2001, spanning 5 different rental residences in the Atlanta metro area, there were five incidents where bullets hit my building. May it happen to you.
Thanks for your well-wishing, Mr. Wonder Ferret. Alas, it's stupid to presume that I haven't been shot, shot at, or threatened. It's also stupid to assume my title is "Mr."
"his heavy marijuana use"...
yeah, that's EXACTLY what makes people violent...or even physical.
I think you have a collect call from Earth...
Oh..and nobody is talking about taking away "rights", even the sucidial ones.
But we need to make sure the crazies have limited access to both.
I'm not going to say that you are completely ignorant of the lasting effects of prolonged marijuana or other psychotropic drug abuse, but it is a polite nothing.
As for taking "either" right away, I suggest you start perusing the backlash from the left... from the prohibition of any communication that can be construed, however remotely, to "incendiary vitriol"... to the continuing effort to ignore the plain language of the Second Amendment... that's the one right after the First Amendment, if you care to check or need a map.
Maybe this is what we want. Wild west justice and no order. It may be fitting that True Grit is the highest grossing movie currently playing this past weekend. Let's no longer worry about who is right or wrong and discuss our differences civilly. Let's let our caliber, aim, and quickness of draw determine it for us.
The Constitution (Second Amendment) was adopted in a time when we all had guns. They needed to eat, so they used guns. This is 2010, folks. We have to look at things in context of the times. C'mon people, do we really want to all carry guns. This problem is getting a lot worse, and until we do something about the chronological context of the Second Amendment, more will die. I thought we were a civilized nation. Obviously NOT.
At the time of the constitution people had front loading muskets, not semi-automatic rifles. I say you can have all the front loading muskets you want to since that's what's in the constitution.
Would you apply the same "technology available at the time of the Constitution's ratification" standard to the First Amendment? It's a slippery slope.
By the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the earliest prototypes of both the repeating rifle and the automatic rifle/musket had already been invented. But the electrical telegraph was still about twenty years away. '
So which were the founding fathers more likely to have envisioned--an AK-47 with a 30-round magazine or an iPad capable of downloading streaming porn from a peak in the Rocky Mountains?
I don't think the Constitution guarantees us the right to have any gun anywhere, at any time, but I think we have to be careful about claiming that it only guarantees the right to own an eighteenth-century musket.
The fact that the Second Amendment specifically states that the right to bear arms is based on the need for a well-regulated militia would logically indicate that citizens possessing firearms should be part of a militia. The Founding Fathers had a strong antipathy toward a standing military, and indeed, the US in its early years relied almost exclusively on citizen militias for much of its military manpower. The only branch of the military that had any sort of support for continued existence was the Navy, due to the fact that the Navy could not be used to oppress the citizenry due to its very nature, as well as the fact that you couldn't just dash together a frigate or ship of the line at a moment's notice.
While the Constitution couldn't specify the right to own a specific gun, it certainly seems to specify that the purpose of gun ownership was for national defense in lieu of a large standing army.
I guess we could debate the original intent of the framers or get into a discussion about the definition of "militia" and the unorganized militia/Militia Act of 1903 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29) and other such minutia, but I always tell gun rights advocates that if they can't win a gun rights debate without citing the Second Amendment, they've already lost.
Any gun rights advocate who believes that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms is arguing FOR the Second Amendment every time he or she argues for gun rights. Therefore, to cite the Second Amendment in an argument for gun rights is to cite the Second Amendment in defense of the Second Amendment--it's circular reasoning.
Rather than waste our time, I'm going to leave the Second Amendment debates to the Constitutional scholars and the attorneys trying cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.
When the second amendment was written, we had black powder and muskets (not even a gatlain yet. All these people that say to look for the "intent" of our founding fathers seem to overlook the fact that the arms, they spoke about were not nearly as fatal as what we have now.
Above and beyond, there were other circumstances that made people feel that it was necessary to protect themselves with guns. Understandable if law enforcement is about 3 hours away by horse having no roads but today that doesn't really happen. Perhaps this is another section of our constitution that should evolve.
Agreed. These people think they can protect themselves against the government with their pop guns as well. That is always their excuse, but since they can't own howitzers, submarines, F-16s, nukes, their guns become an excuse for a love of something other or an excuse for something other. They are delusional and have bought into the right wing rhetoric sold by the NRA. I have no issue with hunting. That has its place when used properly and with reserve, but guns just to have guns is foolishness. Guns just to protect yourself against a military that is vastly outgunning you is just a delusional excuse to be paranoid and, by extension, dangerous.
I'm not a gun person either. I don't understand owning a gun for the sake of owning it. Then again, I don't understand why people drive somewhere that is less than a mile from their starting point.
I will however make one exception and that is for the coming onslaught of undead breaking down door and through windows to eat my still thriving brain!! (aim for the head!!) The Zombie Apocolypse is coming you've been warned!! lol
following the assheaded hypocritical logic of some, michael moore is to blame for ft. hood.
right?
I don't particularly care for Mr. Moore, but I would never accuse him of inciting people to violence. Where in any of his productions, did Mr. Moore ever jokingly refer to the use of violence as an answer to a political problem?
You, sir, do not know what you are talking about. Like the rest of your simple-minded brethren, you confuse disagreement with disloyalty. You weaken us as a nation with every uninformed notion that you spread.
Hmmmm... and some may confuse disloyalty with disagreement. I can't help but notice the lack of reverence of dissent that most of the Maddow fans exhibit. Personally, I don't know of Michael Moore ever inciting violence per se... but he's not the only one on the left. I think that promoting Che is an implicit adoption of his political ideology and methods... unless you really like his face.
gdkzen,
who says "jokingly refer to the use of violence" is the one and only way to incite? are you adding one silly assumption to the existing sillier assumption?
and what part of "assheaded hypocritical logic" is lost on you?
I don't think either palin or moore are to blame for the actions of an insane person with a gun. but the extreme left is so utterly obsessed with palin (a nitwit, for sure) it seems they will disgrace any tragedy further by making political hay out of it by piling on her again. if you don't understand how that, in and of itself, is tasteless and insensitive, you're completely hopeless.
my family has been through the tragedy of senseless gun violence, so take it from me, giffords' family is NOT pleased with the politicization of their awful situation.
of course you probably won't take it from me because like most extreme leftists, you're certain you know more about everything that anyone else who might disagree with you on a few things, no matter the difference in experience. it's always binary with the crazies on both sides of the aisle. all or nothing.
someone with a gun killes and the answer is to put more guns on campus?come on people these are our children!
Not really. We should probably stop referring to people in college as "our children." If they're in college, odds are, unless they're some kind of savant, they're adults. I'm not saying letting them carry weapons to class is a good idea (as a community college professor in NYC, I'd say I do not want my students coming armed to class), just that they certainly aren't children.
I'm a college undergraduate.
I have a full-time job.
I'm also married.
And I'll be 31 years old next month.
I am somebody's son, but I am nobody's child.
The "campus carry" bills pending before the Arizona Legislature, the Texas Legislature, the Oklahoma Legislature, etc., would only allow concealed carry (of handguns) by trained, licensed, carefully screened adults age 21 and above (with the exception of military personnel in Texas, who can obtain a concealed handgun license at the age of 18).
Nobody who meets any legal definition of a "child" would be allowed to carry a gun on campus. And with the exception of a small handful of Texas soldiers between the ages of 18 and 21 who've gone through the process to obtain a CHL, nobody who meets any legal definition a "minor" would be allowed to carry a gun on campus. Nobody who hasn't passed both a training course and a background check would be allowed to carry a gun on campus.
Licensed concealed carry is already allowed on all 30 public college campuses in Utah, on 40 public college campuses in Colorado, and on one public college campus in Virginia. 33 of those campuses have allowed concealed carry for an average of over five and a half years. The other 38 began allowing it at the beginning of the 2010 fall semester. So far, none of these 71 campuses has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single resulting gun accident, or a single resulting gun theft.
Every peer-reviewed study on the subject, including studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, has concluded that there is no evidence that licensed concealed carry leads to an increase in either violent crime or gun deaths.
In light of those facts, why am I allowed the means to protect myself when studying late at the city library but not when studying late at the campus library? What does state law say that I'm allowed the means to defend myself at a movie theater on Saturday and in a church on Sunday but not in a college lecture hall on Monday?
For more information, check out these sites:
CampusCarry.com
TexasStudentsCarry.com (check out the "If you're new to this issue" documents)
ConcealedCampus.com
Arming the populace gives some a false sense of security, but would most likely cause even more casualties should a shooting incident occur. For example, after the most recent incident, a couple of congressmen have said they will consider being armed when out with constituents. Do they honestly think that if Rep. Giffords had been armed, she would not only not have been shot, but would have ended the rampage earlier and with less loss of life? To think so is to be as delusional as militia members who believe that their AK-47s and designer camo gear would be a threat to a government that could bomb them out of existence with one Predator drone strike. More likely, there would have been even more casualties, with gunfire from multiple sources zipping through a panicked crowd in an attempt to stop the original shooter.
Allowing some students to carry guns on campus is precisely the wrong answer to the violence we have seen in the past few years. We don't need to return to the days of the OK Corral to feel "safe". We need fewer guns on the streets, and criminals who commit a crime need to face tougher mandatory sentences, even if the gun is not fired during the commission of their crime.
For a nation that prides itself on being "civilized", or even "exceptional", according to the right, we certainly work very hard to disprove that every single day. We have more gun violence and deaths than any nation in the world. I guess we ARE "exceptional": exceptionally violent, exceptionally murderous, and exceptionally unwilling to put an end to any of it.
Uffdaguy, it's interesting that you mention the gunfight at the O.K. Coral, since that gun fight, which involved nine armed participants and was viewed by a number of bystanders, lasted only about 30 seconds and resulted in only three fatalities (no bystanders were injured).
By comparison, the Norris Hall massacre at Virginia Tech lasted 10-12 minutes and resulted in 30 fatalities.
So, the scenario with one armed individual lasted twenty times as long and resulted in ten times as many fatalities as the scenario with nine armed individuals.
Realistically, it's absurd to think that a shootout is likely to result in greater loss of life than a massacre. Those who run around saying, "more people with guns would just make the situation worse," are simply reciting an empty platitude, with no understanding of what they're actually saying. If anything, they've watched the train station scene from the Untouchables one too many times.
Contrary to what the movies would have us believe, most real-world shootouts don't involve 10 minutes of people diving over desks and ducking behind doorways to reload. According to a 1997 FBI study, most real-world shootouts last less than 10 seconds. In what far-fetched imaginary scenario do you see 10 seconds of exchanged gunfire between an armed assailant and an armed citizen leading to greater loss of life than a 10-minute, uncontested execution-style massacre, like we saw at Virginia Tech? How do you see it leading to greater loss of life than a much shorter massacre, like we saw on Saturday.
More information: http://www.campuscarry.com/pdf/the_case_for_campus_carry_in_texas.pdf
It takes little imagination to think of scenarios where a shooting would occur on a college campus, a classroom perhaps, where the shooter enters the room and begins shooting. An armed student responds, but in an enclosed space with perhaps two dozen panicked students, it is very likely that some of the students would be caught in the crossfire.
I own guns, and I would definitely never even seek a permit to conceal and carry, although it is legal in my state. Why? Because it is far more likely the gun would be either useless in a shooting situation or actually make the situation worse. Years ago, my infant daughter and I were almost accidentally shot in a crowded mall. The "shooter"? An off duty cop who accidentally dropped his weapon, which then discharged. We were an arms length away when it went off, and we and the rest of the mall patrons were extremely fortunate that no one was hit. If a trained professional can be subject to such a careless accident, how much more likely is it that such incidents could occur with civilians with far less training and experience?
You are welcome to carry as many guns as you like. It is, unfortunately, your right, at least as currently defined by the courts. However, you are misguided if you believe for one second that it will give you any real protection from the threats you imagine to surround you. The heavily-armed populace you seem to seek will do little more than thin out its ranks, and that of those around them, as gunfire, intentional or not, riddles our communities.
So you're saying that in 10 seconds I would accidentally kill more people than uncontested gunman would deliberately kill in the course of an execution-style massacre (possibly lasting as long as 10 minutes)?
You're saying that the people in my peripheral would be in greater danger than the people in the shooter's cross-hairs?
Interesting theory.
I'd be interested to know when the accidental/negligent discharge involving the off-duty officer occurred and why his gun wasn't holstered. Modern firearms are designed not to discharge if dropped, so this was either 20+ years ago, or the officer's gun was an antique, or it wasn't properly maintained.
Here is an excerpt from some SCCC literature (the full document is at TexasStudentsCarry.com):
Fears about gun accidents are simply not supported by the facts. A quick glance at CDC data[i] from 2007 (the last year for which records are available) reveals that individuals between the ages of 21 and 24, the age group most likely to carry concealed handguns on a college campus, accounted for fewer than 70 fatal gun accidents that year, nationwide. And based on consistent trends[ii], it’s fair to assume that most (approximately 80%) of those were either hunting accidents or incidents of someone mishandling a firearm in the home. It’s highly doubtful that even one of those incidents was related to licensed concealed carry.
From 1996-2007, the State of Texas had 1,754 convictions[iii] for "discharge of a firearm." Only three of those convictions, during that eleven-year span, were of CHL holders. And it’s not certain how many (if any) of those three incidents were related to concealed carry.
Because license holders must keep their firearms concealed at all times (or face legal prosecution); because the trigger of a properly concealed, holstered firearm is not exposed; because modern firearms are designed not to discharge if dropped; and because an applicant for a CHL must pass a training course covering handgun safety, accidental discharges among concealed handgun license holder are extremely rare and represent, at worst, a threat so negligible as to be statistically imperceptible.
[i] http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html
[ii] http://lfsv2.securesites.net/issues/articles/34hunting_safety.html
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=177061
http://journals.lww.com/amjforensicmedicine/Abstract/2001/09000/A_Novel_Hunting_Accident__Discharge_of_a_Firearm.17.aspx
[iii] http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm
The majority of the fatalities and injuries at the Fort Hood shootout died or were injured because of friendly fire. Granted that's a rare circumstance and it's even rarer that any person (whether armed or unarmed) would actually be in a scenario where they needed to use a weapon for self-defense. There is also the realization that a person who is shot in a civilian-to-civilian conflict may have been saved in a police-to-civilian situation. But that is a moral argument and whether or not it bothers you will depend on your personal morality. For me I would rather a police officer deal with a situation involving a robber, but I would find it reasonable if someone tried to carry out another school shooting to end that person's life as an act of self-defense. It's a very tough argument that, in my opinion, operates situationally and perhaps in a way the law is unable to respond to realistically.
Scott, the incident I spoke of happened in 1992 in Charleston, WV. The officer was off-duty, out of uniform (obviously), and had the gun out of his holster for some unknown reason. I confronted him when the incident occured, and he gave me at least 3 different cock and bull stories about why he had the gun and what happened. He begged me not to report it and to just let him go about as if nothing had happened. I got his name and reported him as soon as I got home. The result? Soothing words from the chief of police, no action, and the guy got promoted a few months later.
I'm impressed with your assessment of your shooting prowess. You apparently feel that you are as good a marksman as a member of the police or military. That is unlikely to be true, but nevertheless, you simply cannot argue that all those who carry guns now have that same level of proficiency. More guns = more dead innocent bystanders. PERIOD.
Mickey Mouser, I don't know where you heard that most of the victims of the Fort Hood shooting were hit by friendly fire, but that's total nonsense.
On November 7, 2009, CNN reported, "Army Criminal Investigation Command spokesman Chris Grey said authorities did not believe that any of those killed or wounded were shot by anyone other than the suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan."
Full Story: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-11-07/justice/fort.hood.shootings_1_nidal-malik-hasan-fort-hood-intensive-care?_s=PM:CRIME
Similar (and equally untrue) rumors have spread about other mass shootings, most notably the 1991 Killeen Luby's massacre, which occurred just a few miles from Fort Hood:
http://www.campuscarry.com/2010/11/22/texas-college-president-insults-survivors-of-mass-shooting/#content
Uffdaguy, I'm not sure how my shooting prowess came into this; though, I think you underestimate how often most law enforcement officers and military personnel train. But that's neither here nor there.
The point is that ANYBODY could engage an assailant and still not increase the body count, because whatever amount of time the defender and the assailant spend shooting at each other is time the assailant doesn't have to spend shooting victims in the head at pointblank range.
Something like 85% of people shot with a handgun survive. But only about 5% of people shot in the head survive. So I could indiscriminately spray bullets around the classroom for a full minute and not kill as many people as the assailant would likely kill if left to his own devices for 10 seconds.
The trial for the Fort Hood shooting is establishing what killings and injuries are actually due to Nidal and what ones are due to friendly fire. Several soldiers immediately reported that they had been shot by friendly fire before the Army ordered a black out. It was deemed by the Army that, that would be an instance of bad PR. Both of my cousins are LTCs in the Army and they were stationed at Fort Hood and present when Nidal opened fire at that graduation assembly. They have both since been re-assigned, but at the time my cousin was interviewed by various networks including this one confirming that she believed many of the injuries were due to friendly fire. Shortly after she issued a statement correcting herself, saying that this was her perception and that the Army would have to investigate the issue further. She then was moved off the PR circuit and re-assigned. You can't believe everything that you are told on television, especially when it involves instances like Ft. Hood and our nation's military. The point that I was trying to get at though is that friendly fire does happen and it stands to reason that if we're talking about an issue involving a school shoot out that eventually friendly fire will play a part. You can't just rule out friendly fire and as a gun owner myself I find your inability to realistically discuss gun regulation quite irritating. The now infamous instance of an Apache helicopter mistakenly shooting at unarmed civilians is evidence of friendly fire. There was another instance where US Special Forces opened fire on a group of unarmed civilians and then desecrated the bodies in an attempt to cover up their mistake. Didn't we just finish this conversation about Oscar Grant only yesterday? Friendly fire happens- it happens by professionals, it happens by amateurs. One cannot argue that friendly fire is the only reason to stop guns from being brought onto something like a college campus, but likewise one cannot argue that a school massacre shooting is the reason to carry a gun around. Sometimes people get killed who don't have to die because civilians don't know how to react properly to those situations. Sometimes people get killed who don't have to die because professionals don't know how to react properly to those situations. It happens. To belittle the argument and pretend like there is no evidence of friendly fire is just beyond dishonest.
Mickey Mouser, who do you think shot everybody? The soldiers were unarmed. The only people who were armed were MPs and civilian police officers.
In the United States you have the right to be crazy.... as long as you don't harm yourself or someone else. The mental health system is full of catch 22's. In my opinion a better discription is a revolving door.
This young man like many fell through the cracks .... he had no record, which may have prevented him from purchasing a gun..
ah, but he did have a record... the sheriff of Pima County stated that "since he turned 18" he had gotten into a dust-up where he pulled a gun with an extended magazine. We can extrapolate here to wonder if he'd had incidents BEFORE he turned 18 when juvenile records get sealed from the public. Hmmmm... we have a broken system of justice which unfortunately nut jobs fall into with their own brand of twisted logic or thinking.
Loughner used a high capacity magazine, one that holds 33 rounds of ammunition, to commit this horrible shooting. This type of magazine used to be illegal, but when Congress allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004 these large capacity magazines became cheap and readily available.
All the mass shootings since 2004 have used high capacity magazines or clips.
Congress need to reinstate the ban on these magazines and clips and also prohibit their transfer.
good luck with Congress even taking this on as a discussion. They are so constipated right now they can't even vote to consider anything.
When Americans take gun ownership out of the constitution as a right, only then will this senseless violence stop. So many other countries have gun restrictions and violent crimes involving guns are rare. You are what you sow.
Name a few countries that have significantly lowered their homicide rates (more significantly than the U.S. during the same time period) by enacting strict gun control laws.
A commenter on another blog pointed out that the 2nd Amendment calls for a well-regulated militia. The Arizona tragedy, and all the others, makes it pretty clear we're failing on the regulation part.
While I do agree with you, and the historical context as well as the text of the Constitution support that interpretation, the literal reading of the amendment does not require that arms be restricted to militias. The Supreme Court has therefore consistently ruled in favor of the gun nuts.
Yes, y'all, we have to deal with the gun issue but the Giffords shooting WASN'T about guns. It was about the poisonous rhetoric of VIOLENCE toward anyone in this country who isn't male and white, promulgated by the old white males who are terrified of losing their hold on power.
This has been the case ever since Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination for President. It crescendoed last October and November in the midterm elections, when we heard wackos like Sharron Angel mouthing off about "2nd Amendment Solutions" which is GOBP/TeaParty code speak for taking up arms if they don't get their way at the ballot box.
FOXNoise bears huge culpability for fostering this vicious political climate: Rupert Murdoch's political contributions were just the tip of the iceberg. FOX commentators endorsing conservative/right-wing/TP candidates and raising money for them ON THE AIR was a red flag we should not have ignored. BUT their constant repitition of GOP talking points as FACT; their continuous subtext of violent imagery toward women, gays, muslims, immigrants, blacks...everyone who is "other" is exactly the kind of dogwhistle unbalanced crazies hear before the rest of us can take appropriate action.
No, it's not about guns this time. It's about everything else.
The shooting was not about guns, but it was most certainly carried out with a gun. All these shootings with legal guns, boil down to gun laws. If gun possession would be persecuted like marijuana possession , this shooting would have not happened.
thinking of wallstreet... you may have just hit the nail on the head.
or In the way that most young people think of being sport stars
"Let my GOD GIVEN TALENT decide who is right and wrong"...
yes, that is what the 2nd amendment says... it says not one word about an individual's "right" to own a semi-auto glock which is only used against other humans. No hunter in his/her sport uses this kind of weapon agains a deer, moose, bear, etc.
I'm also pretty sure the founders did not take "militia" to mean these nuts in cammo running around planning insurrection against the government. In those days a militia was a government armed force that extended to private citizens for purposes of emergency conscription.
The closest example of how the militias were to operate, the militias talked about in the constitution I mean, would probably be today's National Guard and Coast Guard. They were civilian volunteers who were to have arms training to be deployed in emergency situations and to be the first draft should the country go to war.
#amdt2_hd2
It is a full sentence, meaning it is a fully thought-out statement with an introductory clause which is vital to the understanding of this statement.
The GOp has been called on their rhectoric for a long time- The signs at the TP rallies may have been ignored by some but many of us listened- Listened to what the message- Bachmann- Palin, TP- members of congress who got on the floor of and accused this President of not be legit- The rantings of this murderer are very familiar- using gold and silver are not an idea of a insane person- The TP Reps had it on the ballet to use only gold and silver for payment of taxes- Beck has been pushing gold for two yrs at least- This comes from the fear that the Right promotes about how dangerous this admin is- Telling people to be afraid 24/7 has consequences- When we are in a tough economy people are looking for leadership or they are angry- The right has stoked their anger- They knew what they were doing- It should be a crime-
It's all made frighteningly clear with the 111 cases from this website:
Think about that. 111 reported cases of insinuations-of-violence since June, 2008. 31 months, or 3.5 calls-to-arms per month, almost one a week.
For two-and-a-half years.
And it only took one person to injure or kill about 20.
I think our problem with political violence goes much deeper than recent political speech. Why is such rhetoric tolerated and even celebrated? Our culture, our society as a whole practices and praises violence, punishment, and execution. I think Obama's execution orders are at least as much to blame, but I have witnessed assassinations all my life, and of course our national policy seems to be that war is always a last resort, which means we resort to war when we don't get our way. We are teaching a lesson, and that lesson is being learned.
I think another contributing factor is a political system that is far more responsive to the needs and concerns of big money and big business than it is to the people. The vote is simply a commodity to be bought. As JFK said, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." We need a political system again that works for the voter, not for the dollar. (And, of course, the concentration of wealth only makes this worse.)
One response I am beginning to hear from the right is "what about personal responsibility?" I don't believe that anything we on the left have been saying negates personal responsibility. On the other hand, we share some responsibility when we "egg on" the most irresponsible members of our society. Figures such as Palin are just testing to see how close they can come to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater.
I think that the gun laws have little to do with this. The state of Vermont has similar gun laws. I would have no problem with living in Vermont (about 50 miles from where I live) under those laws. The problem is the political climate, the cultural milieu.
Congratulations America! We have now joined the club with such august members as Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and a whole passel of Latin American nations where political discourse is carried out with bullets and bombs because words aren't enough to silence those with whom we disagree. This is a proud day indeed!
This young man carried out an assassination, (his own words), and the people whose violent rhetoric inspired him are predictably saying that while they feel sympathy and shock at what has transpired, they don't feel they share any blame in the matter. Even more predictably, they then say that both sides are equally guilty. Excuse me, but WHO was bringing weapons to rallies against healthcare? WHO was bringing weapons to town hall meetings with the President and Democratic members of Congress? WHO was saying "Don't retreat...reload!"? WHO was saying that if government kept on doing what it was doing, that "Second Amendment remedies might have to be taken? WHO was saying on the steps of the US Capitol that perhaps it was time to heed Jefferson's words about watering the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants? WHO was printing a map on their PAC sites showing crosshairs on dems that needed to be defeated, including Rep. Giffords? It is disingenuous and cowardly to pretend that the left is just as guilty as the right. While both may use strong rhetoric, only the right has been advocating violence.
Now the question is "What next?". Although it is possible that both sides will step back from the brink, and that deep divisions will miraculously be healed, early signs are not promising. The head of the AZ Tea Party is refusing to tone down their rhetoric, and right wing apologists are thicker than ants at a picnic. I have spoken of my fear of this happening since the healthcare town hall debacles, and I am so very sorry to see that I was right. Now I fear that after an all too brief cooling off period, this event may prove to be the match that sets off the powder keg. 2011 may see the economy begin to recover, but what will it matter if the nation is on its way to becoming Somalia writ large?
Well said.
OK. Let's do the "right thing" and not jump to conclusions that this @!$%# might have been influenced by Sarah Palin, Tea Party, Fox News, et al...but why hasn't anyone considered this to be a terrorist act? Maybe if his name was Mohammad?
That's a fair question, isn't it? Even if you can't proclaim that this was politically motivated, certainly this fits the criteria of a terrorist act.
It is certainly an act of domestic terrorism, so you have a valid point. If the shooter had a muslim name, you could bet your bottom dollar that the far right would be absolutely apoplectic. Instead, they are working overtime to somehow say that the guy was a violent lefty, a la Jonah Goldberg and his thesis that the Nazis were actually left wing. It's an Orwellian nation we live in today.
I've spoken several times about this before and this post represents my concern. People need to understand what terrorism actually is. You are correct that if the kid was brown skinned and had a funny name he'd be shipped off to Gitmo and labeled a terrorist. This is because our rhetoric regarding terrorism has expanded since 9/11 and we are now accusing people of terrorism or acts as being terrorism when in fact those people/acts are not. By allowing the government to extend laws to cover acts that aren't actually terrorist related, we have given the government power over ourselves in a very scary way. Remember terrorism is a motivational crime- terrorism charges get tacked on to mass murder, mass destruction, or the attempt to commit either. Unless this kid was specifically motivated by a political agenda he did not commit a terrorist act, he just committed mass murder. It is very important that we, as citizens, are able to distinguish between the two.
Uffdaguy,
"It's an Orwellian nation we live in today."
Ain't it, though? To wit...
leftist=liberal=progressive!
illegal alien=undocumented worker!
global cooling=global warming=climate change!
mosque at ground zero=cultural center in lower manhattan!
maintain current tax rates=tax cut!
btw, my point isn't one-sided. both sides do this crap ALL THE TIME. this echo chamber needs reminding of that just as much as FOX news does.
both partis suck and extremists from both sides suck.
Some day these politicians will realize it is not a game.
While they can sit in their well-funded bubble and wax philosiphcial about policies and laws in a academic or hypothetical manner...they must understand that families are hitting their desperation points. Perfectly sane and regular people are contemplating crazy things.
This is ALL of our fault. ALL of us.
Politicians: Beside the obvious tea-party hate flood and the usual republican Klan strategy, we must put a spot light on all the others, republican and democrat, who decided to stay silent. Everytime a congressperson said something hateful or incendiary all others should have shouted them down; instead they encouraged it. The blood of 20 people is on their hands.
News: You are almost more at fault. Instead of doing your jobs you did your shareholder's bidding. Instead of calling out these animals and liars and refusing to continue and play the game you dove right in: spreading the vilest, most evil virulent garbage you could get away with under the impotent FCC. The blood of 20 people (and millions of others) are on your hands.
US: Instead of engaging our neighbor with intelligent conversation, we have played full force into to prevailing myth that we should not discuss politics, its rude or something stupid. Whenever some clown spouts off some off the wall nonsense what do we do? Do we shun him/her? Denounce their "opinion" as little more than some recycled Rush rant? No! We elect the clown into office!
We have a long way to go. I'm doing my part from now on.
There was a time when civil discourse was taught.
That day has passed, and because we have the ability to spread our thoughts so easily, our narcissistic society believes that the "I'm right, you're just stupid." clap-trap it spews.
I count myself. I don't even have an idea how many times I've said to someone, "What are they thinking??? Oh- wait-- they're not!"
Aside from the times when folks make things up-- they do, we know that-- disagreement is part of the deal. We may be citizens of one country, but we are not the same. Simple, but not easy. If our civilization is at the point where compromise has become a dirty word, then, indeed we have reached the point where the only solutions left are belligerent.
Where do we hear "no compromise"???? HHMMMMMMMM?
The fact that Laughner is a loon... anybody that does this... takes a weapon to prove himself/herself as, well, whatever the kid was thinkin... is a loon. They are not in their right mind. Remember Night Court? The episode where the judge meets his step-father and berates his mother for leaving him?? " Why would any woman in her right mind walk away from her son?" Harry ranted.
"Ding-ding-ding. You got it!! She wasn't in her right mind."
But let us remember, when the cost of mental health care was growing... when we began to see how many drugs, how many visits, how much support these folk with issues required, WHAT DID WE AS A SOCIETY DO???? We pulled the plug on mental health care, and sent them out on the street with no support.
Rogue, you have a valid series of points. Let us begin with the premise that how we care for the least of our citizens represents our value more than the number of 'things' we acquire. Had Laughner received medical and psychological assistance and support when folks first noticed he wasn't making logical connections, well- nothing is certain, but might we have had fewer dead? Might we have had a verbal outburst or physical confrontation that wouldn't have spilled over on innocents?
I teach middle school-- so, I don't do politics in the classroom-- not specifically.
However, I am getting into letter writing with my students, and we did a lot of looking at vocabulary so when we write to our congress persons or senators, we can write with some knowledge of what we speak. If I can get students to do it, we can make our Rep's do it, too. We are the first to hold them accountable. Which means letter writing and phone callin. It really is up to me.
There is a science of organizational communication that studies and demonstrates the effective use of the kind of communiation strategies we have experienced in this country's political discourse. It provides an explanation of how this kind of tragedy can and does happen.
It takes more than a single comment to incite even the most irrational elements of our society. What we are witnessing is the byproduct of a radical right-wing political tactic: the repeated use of violent metaphors in political discourse.
The intent of the Tea Party astroturf organizations, and the GOP as well, was to energize voters in the conservative base by using language intended to excite them. The fact that conservatives tend to respond positively to violent terminology is frightening, yet probably a topic best reserved for another discussion.
With regards to this incident, we are witnessing a byproduct of the aforementioned political tactic. Certain elements of society are not simply being energized by this rhetoric. They are being incited to violence by it. The American Right may not engage in this rhetoric for the purpose of inciting violence, but their unwillingness to change tactics would indicate that they either have no sense of responsibility for its effects, or lack the requisite insight to understand its effects.
this must be what that "nut job" sharron angle meant by second ammendment remedies...and sarah palin and her cross hairs on congress. those two women among others that inspire violence should be barred from public speaking again...shame on them all!
I would also add that the way of dealing with violent rhetoric is not to limit free speech, but to expand it. In too many instances, violent rhetoric is allowed to go unanswered. It is incumbent upon all of us as beings of good conscience to do our very best to render the use of violent rhetoric taboo.
How do we do this? We use OUR right of free speech. We contact every sponsor of every program whose host uses or allows the use of violent rhetoric, and make known to them that we will not use their products/services. When confronted personally with violent rhetoric, we do not back down. We continue to make our point, even if we must shout down our opponent.
A boycott of products produced by these sponsors would let them also know the people have had enough. No sponsors=no show Sadly we cannot depend on the congress for action of any kind. They can't even decide how to vote.
10-year-olds can get guns.
Uffdaguy's comments are certainly well written, especially the comment about the effect if his name had been Mohammed. I am still not convinced this IS a gun issue. If tackling this guy did not work, maybe another gun toter would have been needed to stop him. I think it is a mental health issue, and as an adult his parents would have had no "responsibility" nor would the school where he took individual classes, but someone should have tried to get this guy to a mental health counselor. What did the educated professors do to help?
There's a great post up at Huffpo that addresses your point, mlerc.
www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-shearer/why-so-many-mentally-ill_b_806725.html
When so many of the state funded institutions were shut down - as well some of them should have been - there was a lack of follow through to fund and create community based support systems and services for those being deinstitutionalized.
There was also resistance from community members to having more integrated services, because of the stigma and negative stereotypes attached to those struggling with mental health issues.
We see this lack of funding and continued stigma today. It is harder to garner support - both fiscal and social, for those who are "othered" by calling them "lunatics" and "nutjobs". It becomes easier to write them off and suggest they be locked up (in prison) rather than finding a place of compassion and community/societal responsibility to offer and fund the help they need.
The only really surprising thing is, that it took that long.
I expected something like this in the heated summer of 2009, remember all those hostile town hall meetings.
Mr. Boehner, Mr. Beck, Mr. Limbaugh et al, you have blood on your hands.
JuergenH, I'm in full agreement and Boehner, Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, Angle, Bachman, etc., can deny it all they want but it will forever remain in their consciousness. They will go to sleep at night and wake up in the morning knowing the harm they caused.
I expect the burden of guilt will weight so heavy on some that we'll hear about a few of them committing suicide.