2nd Amendment Remedies

[McQ]

A little early to start pointing fingers and placing blame when people should be showing concern for those who were murdered or injured. Let's not do this, ok? Please just nobody go forward with theories of conspiracy, or implicate people who may have had no role in this. As far as anyone knows, this was one individual, acting on his own.

Speculation is not productive, helpful, or warranted. I will lock the thread if the raw speculation doesn't cease immediately. It's just wrong.

Not sure what you mean, McQ. Naturally, I think everyone here is concerned.

The man who fired the gun has been caught (he's the one to blame). These aren't "conspiracy theories", this is addressing the problem of what has been obvious violent rhetoric from the Tea Party - it's a problem Gabrielle Giffords herself is talking about saysing “Sarah Palin has the crosshairs of a gun sight over our district and when people do that, they’ve gotta realize there are consequences to that action.” It couldn't have been more blatant from Sharron Angle, and it's becoming more noticeable from Sarah Palin. The fact of the matter is, there are a number of members from within the Tea Party who support the use of violence to "fix" their political problems. There was a recent shooting in Pittsburg where the shooter claimed he attacked because he was "afraid Obama would take his guns away". This isn't the first time this particular congresswoman has been attacked either. Her office was vandalized after voting yes on health care reform, and as mentioned above, she received threats from the Tea Party. It doesn't seem at all plausible to suggest that opening fire on a congressman, her staff and a federal judge was not a politically motivated action.

I asked that this exact thing not be done. PM me if you have a problem, but I'm locking the thread. You are extrapolating the action of one deranged person to an entire group (one that has as many disparate members as any large group). There are people on the left, right, center of all societies that use violence to achieve what they want. This is not the time to speculate, as I already said. Your actions are speculative, and I asked that you not do it.

[McQ]

Unlocking the thread after talking with Sophus and after considering this issue more. What follows are my thoughts on it. Most of this was also sent via PM to Sophus, who contacted me to clarify his concerns. Thanks for that.

I think I am possibly being very sensitive to the fact that this entire terrible crime is going to spark ridiculous levels of debate, anger, and hate among people. In my haste to avoid that starting up right away, I wanted to steer completely clear of anything that wasn't concern for the people involved. I still think that is the right thing to do right now, but I realize that by locking the thread, I have also stifled discussion and a way for you and others to speak out. So obviously there needs to be a way to allow discourse that helps us all get things said, and get things out of us that we feel.

I think we all have similar feelings of anger, disgust, and we also want to find the "whys" for this. I will unlock the thread, put this same message in it, and then see about possibly making another separate thread on the subject. Will and Whitney have suggested something like that, where we might be able to keep one thread to the simpler, or less volatile  parts of this situation, and one to discuss the political ramifications and to let loose.

I'm sorry for shutting this off so quickly and also apologize for the implication that Sophus was engaging in talk that was essentially conspiracy theorizing. I still don't like the escalation of speculation that has happened, in light of the fact that no one except the murderer knows why he did this, and I think it is unfair to use terms like "the entire Tea Party" etc. (no, I am not part of that group in any way, and never would be). However, I think I also misinterpreted some of the meaning in previous posts.

The thread is unlocked, and perhaps we can continue it without having it get ugly down the road. If anyone has questions, concerns, or other issues they'd like to bring up, please feel free to send me a PM.

[Recusant]

I think that your reasoning was sound, McQ.  I admit that I'm not particularly proud of my own previous contributions to this thread; maybe I've been spending too much time hanging around right wing websites, listening to the rancor and bile which is standard fare at such places.  It just seemed too likely that what happened was an expression of that element of US society.  After watching the videos on the shooter's youtube channel and reading what's known about him (not a lot), I came to regret some of what I'd written here.  He did express clearly anti-government ideas, some of which sounded remarkably similar to "tea party" rhetoric.  However, he definitely seems to have been mentally unstable.  One of his comments also suggested a possible anti-God element in his thinking. It would not surprise me to hear that brought out in the coming media feeding frenzy, and thrown up as another example of why "atheism is a terrible thing."  Also, one person who says they knew him in high school said that at that time he expressed a left-leaning political stance.  So it's not clear that he was motivated by the "2nd Amendment remedies" talk coming from the right.  That doesn't mean that that rhetoric has been harmless, nor that it might not still bear some horrible fruit. I actually had returned here to edit my contributions to this thread, but found that you'd already locked it.  Now that it's unlocked, I think it best to leave them as they are, so it's clear that Sophus was not the only one who was responsible for prompting your action.

  What I found interesting as I continued to read at the site from which the quotes in my last post were taken, is that there is a definite disconnect (not to mention a strong element of projection) which the members there seem completely oblivious to.  There is a lot of anger toward the left, and the common feeling seems to be that "violence, shootings and bombings and such" are things that the left is infamous for.  This ignores their own rhetoric, as seen in some of the quotes, but it also ignores the reality that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by a right wing extremist.  Another thing I would like to note  is that the contributors to that site seem to feel that they are the target of "extreme anger" coming from the left. Now I know that the left in the US was not at all happy with the way the country was being run under the last administration; probably at least as unhappy as the right is now under President Obama.  However, you didn't hear the barely veiled references to a violent means of getting their way which have been coming from prominent figures on the right in the past year or so.  It's not for nothing that members here saw the terrible violence which occurred in Arizona as most likely an actual manifestation of things that have been said.  And as is clear from a couple of the quotes in my last post in this thread, there are those on the right who saw the same thing, and seemed to actually condone it.

I don't know the way out of this, and it may get much worse before it gets better.  I think that President Obama has clearly shown himself to be a centrist, and the disenchantment felt by the more liberal citizens who voted for him seems to bear that out.  Yet the right continues to portray his position as just this side of communism.  There doesn't seem to be any willingness to acknowledge reality there; they had a recent taste of somebody who seemed to think like they do (President Bush), and now simply can't bear that the country is not still under a similar regime.  President Obama compromises and compromises, and still there is constant undertone of "violent means", and mutterings about secession, and so forth.  I think it's healthy for the country not to swing too far one way or another, but these people seem determined that their view will prevail, by whatever means necessary. I hope I'm wrong about that.

[KDbeads]

The sentiment out here over this is they got what they deserved and there needs to be more such atrocities to 'take back government'.  All of my neighbors seem excited over this massacre.  It's disgusting.  
I worry for the future if this is what's going on in small towns across the US.  People out here have stocked up, way up, on ammo due to some shortage they fear is coming because of the 'damn unamerican democrats' and some days I fear for the safety of the few little blue spots out here, including myself.
Unfortunately I don't think this is going to be an isolated incident, granted the guy was off his rocker and not a poster child for anyone, but it most likely will incite a few unstable extremists to action against more dems or supporters.

I'm almost glad I'm leaving TX.

[Sophus]

A gracious thanks to McQ and an apology to anyone whom I may have led to think I was implying the Tea Party was conspiring together to make this horrific event happen. Didn't think it would come across that way at all.  

This shooter appears to have acted completely alone. The most that can be said is that it's possible he had ties to the hate group, American Renaissance.

Personally, I think the rhetoric suggestive of violence (specifically gun violence) needs to change. Naturally there are those who disagree and have deemed the notion to be of "awesome stupidity". But would it be too much to ask that people not take guns to Tea Party rallies?

[Recusant]

A gracious thanks to McQ and an apology to anyone whom I may have led to think I was implying the Tea Party was conspiring together to make this horrific event happen. Didn't think it would come across that way at all.  

This shooter appears to have acted completely alone. The most that can be said is that it's possible he had ties to the hate group, American Renaissance.

Personally, I think the rhetoric suggestive of violence (specifically gun violence) needs to change. Naturally there are those who disagree and have deemed the notion to be of "awesome stupidity". But would it be too much to ask that people not take guns to Tea Party rallies?

To a certain extent I agree with the author of the Slate.com piece.  However, he fails to take into account the very real element on the right who have been taking the rhetoric to heart in a very literal way. They've been buying guns and stockpiling ammunition with the idea in mind that they may need to "defend themselves against the government" in the near future.  And while he writes of Sarah Palin's "targeting" trope, he ignores "Don't Retreat, RELOAD" which is much more explicit.  Not to mention the yammerings from Sharron Angle which produced the title for this thread. He lumps all of that under "other inflammatory outbursts," which seems to dodge the issue of the reflection in reality of the words spoken by leaders on the right.  So while I agree that free speech should not be impinged upon by forbidding the use of such imagery, I don't think that people who do use it can blandly claim that they don't mean for it to be taken literally, and expect to always get away with it without other people taking them to task when something like this happens.  It's not shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but it tends in that direction, whether it's acknowledged or not.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yeesh!  This thread is kinda depressing.  In the article from Slate, the phrase "gas music from Jupiter" is used.  That phrase originates from the Firesign Theatre's 1974 album Everything You Know Is Wrong.  For a little light relief, here's the first section of that album, in which the phrase is used in the first few minutes.

 [youtube:3mdc8ov3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtXGKqWz8nU[/youtube:3mdc8ov3]

[KDbeads]

So while I agree that free speech should not be impinged upon by forbidding the use of such imagery, I don't think that people who do use it can blandly claim that they don't mean for it to be taken literally, and expect to always get away with it without other people taking them to task when something like this happens.  It's not shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but it tends in that direction, whether it's acknowledged or not.

Agreed.  There are far too many gullible people out there that would take the political BS to be literal instructions on how to get their way.

[The Magic Pudding]

So while I agree that free speech should not be impinged upon by forbidding the use of such imagery, I don't think that people who do use it can blandly claim that they don't mean for it to be taken literally, and expect to always get away with it without other people taking them to task when something like this happens.  It's not shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater, but it tends in that direction, whether it's acknowledged or not.

I think you all have been quite restrained.
Producing a map with gun sights pointing at your political opponents?   :shake:  :shake:
When did stupidity become a virtue?

[KDbeads]

When did stupidity become a virtue?

Welcome to the Deep South.  And I can say that cause I'm from the deep south and let me tell ya, them peoples are messed up

[KDbeads]

[youtube:1azcg9w0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtXGKqWz8nU[/youtube:1azcg9w0]

 

[Sophus]

To a certain extent I agree with the author of the Slate.com piece.  However, he fails to take into account the very real element on the right who have been taking the rhetoric to heart in a very literal way.

From what I can tell, much of what has been said (such as by Sharron Angle) was meant in a literal way. Crosshairs on a map (and "reloading") I can see as metaphorical, but other rhetoric has consisted of real threats, and threats I don't think the author of this article would suggest are okay. Another congressman has just received a "you're next" threat (hopefully an idle one). Too recent an example to be included in this article, however, during the last election Allen West stated that they should make his opponent too afraid to leave his own home. How many decent folks can we find willing to run for an office with this type of language being wielded against them in a country where lunatics like Laughner can easily and legally purchase a gun? In the wake of what's happened it's ben stated by a few commentators that violence has no place in democracy but for the reason previously mentioned I would add that the threat of violence has no place in a democracy. Meaning we have a responsibility to avoid and condemn the use of this rhetoric. It's use will be taken more seriously after this but for how long, who knows?

On another note, one thing a fellow colleague of this author's at Slate would disagree with him on is the idea that we can write off Laughner's motives because he's insane.

[Tank]

When these sort of tragedies happen in the USA it does surprise me that some Americans act surprised. If one mixes approximately 300 million people with 300 million guns you are going to get nutters with guns and people are going to die. It's one of the results/costs of the 2nd amendment. Yet road deaths in the USA in 2009 were 33,963 or 93 a day! Now shooting somebody with malice aforethought is not the same thing as killing yourself and others while drunk although the results for the victims friends and family can not be a lot different.

If one wants to live in a country where there is, on average, 1 firearm per person this will be the result. And correct me if I'm wrong but the procedure for owning and using a gun is less stringent than owning and using a car?

I'm not having a pop at America. I don't live there I don't vote there. But I do find the reaction to this sort of thing by some Americans somewhat odd at times. I'm surprised it doesn't happen a lot more. Maybe that is the cause of the surprise?

[The Magic Pudding]

Looking at this graph things don't look to jolly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ted_States
Homicides by weapon type, 1976-2004


People die on the road, but at least road transport provides some benefit.
Not much benefit from guns as far as I can see.

[Recusant]

That's basically the attitude of many citizens of the US.  I think that mandatory gun safety courses, which some states have, and thorough background checks are reasonable.  Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens of the US isn't something that's going to happen in the foreseeable future.  So when people who live elsewhere point to statistics and incidents such as the one which prompted this thread while indirectly or directly suggesting that the US do something much more stringent about the ready availability of guns, they ignore the reality of the culture and politics of the US.  Personally, I only advocate the two measures I already mentioned.  Right now, anything beyond that is doomed to failure.  I do not advocate strong gun control such as practiced in the UK.  To try that in the US would be disastrous in my opinion.  Not only that, to proceed in that direction would require amending the Constitution, given recent Supreme Court decisions.  That's a difficult process, and it would garner less public support in the US than you might imagine.

 IN addition; I'm a gun owner myself.  

[Kylyssa]

When these sort of tragedies happen in the USA it does surprise me that some Americans act surprised. If one mixes approximately 300 million people with 300 million guns you are going to get nutters with guns and people are going to die. It's one of the results/costs of the 2nd amendment. Yet road deaths in the USA in 2009 were 33,963 or 93 a day! Now shooting somebody with malice aforethought is not the same thing as killing yourself and others while drunk although the results for the victims friends and family can not be a lot different.

If one wants to live in a country where there is, on average, 1 firearm per person this will be the result. And correct me if I'm wrong but the procedure for owning and using a gun is less stringent than owning and using a car?

I'm not having a pop at America. I don't live there I don't vote there. But I do find the reaction to this sort of thing by some Americans somewhat odd at times. I'm surprised it doesn't happen a lot more. Maybe that is the cause of the surprise?

We also have between 40,000 and 50,000 deaths per year due to lack of health insurance, not counting those who die due to loopholes that allow insured people to be denied treatment.  Maybe if health care and particularly mental health care were considered important in America, mentally ill people would get treatment and it would probably reduce the number of slayings by severely mentally ill people.

This guy's YouTube videos suggest schizophrenia to me.  While I think the violent rhetoric of the right doesn't help, I think this guy was severely mentally ill and was bound to fixate on someone.  In my opinion, the rhetoric only made it a little more likely he'd fixate on this particular person.

Oh, and I'm correcting you-it isn't any easier to get a gun than to get a car in the US, it's just much cheaper.  Cars have to be kept insured constantly and re-registered every year and guns do not.  But guns require fingerprinting and a run through the fingerprint database and cars do not.  I'm not terribly pro-gun myself but I thought I'd put that info out there.