Happy Atheist Forum

Is the Tea Party happy now? A Democrat congresswoman from Arizona has been shot and killed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?_r=1&hp).

Quote from: "Sharron Angle"I hope that’s not where we’re going, but, you know, if this Congress keeps going the way it is, people are really looking to those Second Amendment remedies and saying my goodness what can we do to turn this country around?

Sarah Palin should probably lose her analogy too...

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alan.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2Fsarahpac_0.jpg&hash=ea1cb6380cacb1ecbcc75d61303350976374b88f)

Wait, I don't get it. Are you arguing that we should make amendments to the Second Amendment or are you arguing against it?

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Wait, I don't get it. Are you arguing that we should make amendments to the Second Amendment or are you arguing against it?

I'm saying members in the Tea Party, such as Sharron Angle, have been suggesting their followers use guns against politicians they don't like. And now it has finally happened.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Wait, I don't get it. Are you arguing that we should make amendments to the Second Amendment or are you arguing against it?

I'm saying members in the Tea Party, such as Sharron Angle, have been suggesting their followers use guns against politicians they don't like. And now it has finally happened.

Ahhhhh.
Well, that's immensely stupid, and she should be charged as an indirect cause of murder.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"Wait, I don't get it. Are you arguing that we should make amendments to the Second Amendment or are you arguing against it?

I'm saying members in the Tea Party, such as Sharron Angle, have been suggesting their followers use guns against politicians they don't like. And now it has finally happened.

Ahhhhh.
Well, that's immensely stupid, and she should be charged as an indirect cause of murder.

Well, not exactly. The entire Tea Party has been contributing to this level of anger and hostility. She has been receiving threats from the Tea Party (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/ariz_congresswoman_shot_in_head_YFTvsurRHy5OWGSRKnuK8J) for a while.

Quote from: "NY Post"Her father Spencer Giffords, 75, was rushing to the hospital when asked if his 40-year-old daughter had any enemies.
"Yeah," he told The Post. "The whole tea party."
He added that politicians constantly faced danger.
"They always get threat[ened]," Giffords cried. "We don’t really have any information. The Police department was supposed to call us but they didn't."

Quote from: "Sophus"Is the Tea Party happy now? A Democrat congresswoman from Arizona has been shot and killed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?_r=1&hp).

Actually, she's in surgery. That's what I read.

These tea party people remind me of Hitler's brown shirts. Damned them.

Quote from: "Cecilie"

Quote from: "Sophus"Is the Tea Party happy now? A Democrat congresswoman from Arizona has been shot and killed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09giffords.html?_r=1&hp).

Actually, she's in surgery. That's what I read.

That's what I'm hearing now, among other conflicting reports.

It would not surprise me at all to learn that the shooter considers himself a patriot who was standing up to tyranny.  If this is the case, then Palin, with her "target list" rhetoric (which has been purposely left ambiguous),
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg713.imageshack.us%2Fimg713%2F5486%2Fpalintargetimage.png&hash=4f8d5c152c2556e389101adbda1d1b7fcfe1596b)
and other prominent figures on the right who've used similar rhetoric will be splashed with the blood of the victims, whether they acknowledge it or not (http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=485459383434).

I think that anyone who's been paying attention to the noises coming from the right, including the "tea party"  tools, saw this coming.  I hang out on right-wing forums occasionally, and there has been a lot of talk about, "stocking up on ammo" and, "the second amendment is there for a reason" etc. as these fine patriots egg each other on.  It will be interesting to watch their reaction to this, if it turns out that the shooter is one of their own.

And yes, the latest updates have Giffords in surgery now, in critical condition.  At least one of her aides seems to have been killed, and possibly a judge as well.

Quote from: "Recusant"It will be interesting to watch their reaction to this, if it turns out that the shooter is one of their own.

Considering she has received threats before from the Tea Party I have little doubt that it is. The one good thing that may come from all of this is it could potentially quell much of the anger on the far right once they see that buying into all the indignant propaganda and fear mongering has real consequences. One can hope. Of course it won't help that cause if Palin continues to say nonsense like this....

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAo81W.png&hash=035a9a76cd12ced1f7ff37eca224ac0630f7189f)


__________________________________

Also, I have no idea what this image means (http://yfrog.com/h5p7wp), but it's being circulated. Would seem to be photoshopped or something since the shooter has been identified as Jared Laughner.


__________________________________


Reports coming in that a 9 year old was shot dead.  

Unfortunately not altogether surprising.

A few of the comments from one of my favorite wing-nut forums:

Quote"Things are starting to change."

"Arizona? Hope it was an illegal."

"Here is her voting record. A big time lib.

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=28507"

"To the RATS in DC....are you listening?? People are at their breaking points."

"Now that one of Washington's own has been killed, here comes the gun control legislation."

"'The suspect ran off and was tackled by a bystander. He was taken into custody. Witnesses described him as in his late teens or early 20s.'

What is the friggin apparent NATIONALITY and/or RACE of the PERP!?!?! We have GOT to get past this PC bullstuff!"

"Now lets see who gets the blame. If its blamed on the Tea Party or patriots in general, this sort of thing has been predicted in a black ops sort of way to undermine the conservative movement. I sincerely pray that's not the case.

Things like this shouldn't happen in our country. My prayers go out to the families of all the victims."

"Sorry, dude. It's way past time for this sort of stuff to be happening in this country.
I don't know this congresswoman, don't have anything against her personally, but she represents the government. The crooked, corrupt govt in this nation. Who else will people lash out against if not congress?"

"Trouble is, it ain't "our" country anymore."

"We're teetering at the abyss, now."

"Well the shooters are getting better atleast.
Been expecting this for awhile now.. the .gov will use to for gun control and as much control over everything they can "Never let a crisis goto waste"

Will be more interesting to see how they spin this... and WHO spins it then finding out some useless waiste of space poltician has died."

...And so on and so forth.  There is an occasional mention of "prayers go out to the families" but that's far outnumbered by more political takes on the topic, as seen above.

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.

No speculation/conspiracy/etc I promise....
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns ... ?gt1=43001 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/politics/?gt1=43001)

In custody, 22 year old wack job with this to say on his myspace:

Quote"I know who's listening: Government Officials, and the People," Loughner wrote. "Nearly all the people, who don't know this accurate information of a new currency, aren't aware of mind control and brainwash methods. If I have my civil rights, then this message wouldn't have happen (sic)."

He seems a bit delusional to me.

A federal judge and a 9 year old among others......  Horrible.....  

Quote from: "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 (http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the) 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 (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/was-pittsburgh-shooter-driven-right-) 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 (http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_eb24e4fe-35dc-11df-ad88-001cc4c03286.html) 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.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "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 (http://kateoplis.tumblr.com/post/2655554409/msnbc-talks-to-rep-gabrielle-gifford-about-the) 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 (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/was-pittsburgh-shooter-driven-right-) 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 (http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/article_eb24e4fe-35dc-11df-ad88-001cc4c03286.html) 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.

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.

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 (http://www.youtube.com/user/Classitup10#p/a/u/1/nHoaZaLbqB4) 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.

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.

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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-youtube-videos-_n_806370.html) he had ties to the hate group, American Renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Renaissance_(magazine)).

Personally, I think the rhetoric suggestive of violence (specifically gun violence) needs to change. Naturally there are those who disagree (http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/) 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?

Quote from: "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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/09/jared-loughner-youtube-videos-_n_806370.html) he had ties to the hate group, American Renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Renaissance_(magazine)).

Personally, I think the rhetoric suggestive of violence (specifically gun violence) needs to change. Naturally there are those who disagree (http://www.slate.com/id/2280616/) 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]

Quote from: "Recusant"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.

Quote from: "Recusant"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?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"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

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

 

Quote from: "Recusant"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 (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/politics/danny-davis-threat-giffords-113177769.html) 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 (http://www.slate.com/id/2280619/) is the idea that we can write off Laughner's motives because he's insane.

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 (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/recession-leads-drop-in-road-deaths-us-study-3992400) 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?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violen ... ted_States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)
Homicides by weapon type, 1976-2004
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F20%2FUshomicidesbyweapon.svg%2F325px-Ushomicidesbyweapon.svg.png&hash=0914e894ee46230992f3aac0782106263ae88793)

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

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg207.imageshack.us%2Fimg207%2F3251%2Fdeadfingers.jpg&hash=b7794194fafcbc1baeb0cdfb7cc47e36849b6fd1)

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.  (https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg830.imageshack.us%2Fimg830%2F860%2Fsmilew.gif&hash=8238eab24d16418eb1c8cd60d971239ab1363c74)

Quote from: "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 (http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/recession-leads-drop-in-road-deaths-us-study-3992400) 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.

Quote from: "Recusant"IN addition; I'm a gun owner myself. :yay:
After all, I plan on farm life

Oh, and I forgot to disagree with the impact of a death by murder and a death by accident having the same effect on friends and family.  I lost a friend to murder and I have much more pent up anger and negative feelings regarding his death than I do about the accidental deaths of another friend.  I do, however have almost as much negativity and pent up anger about the deaths of a family member and another close friend due to medical negligence.

Perhaps the heated rhetoric lately really has been a mere coincidence, because as noted Loughner is really off his rocker and may not even be capable of understanding political rhetoric. And unfortunately, mass shootings aren't that uncommon in America.

This is an old Democrat chart from 2004 not too unlike Sarah's. Though it's been suggested it looks more like a dart board than gunsights, and it also doesn't target any specific names.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fi%2FMSNBC%2FSections%2FTVNews%2FMSNBC%2520TV%2FLastWord%2FBlog%2F2004_map_rev.jpg&hash=b6ca43acfa4e34c8d2c03b7a1d37bc00b63ccd72)

Like I said, I don't think Sarah's chart was the worst of rhetoric coming from the Tea Party, nor is it likely to be directly related to this shooting.

Does this related story (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/?hpt=Mid) deserve its own thread? Arizona is likely to outlaw Westboro Baptist Church from protesting within 300 yards of the funerals for the victims. About time!

Quote from: "Sophus"Does this related story (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/?hpt=Mid) deserve its own thread? Arizona is likely to outlaw Westboro Baptist Church from protesting within 300 yards of the funerals for the victims. About time!

Taking away freedom of speech and expression is not the right way to deal with these trolls.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Sophus"Does this related story (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/?hpt=Mid) deserve its own thread? Arizona is likely to outlaw Westboro Baptist Church from protesting within 300 yards of the funerals for the victims. About time!

Taking away freedom of speech and expression is not the right way to deal with these trolls.

You see, I disagree. It's not taking away their freedom of speech; they can still yell all the absurd epithets they want 300 ft away from the funeral. You can't bring hate speech into the work place so why on earth would we allow them to crash a funeral?

Also, troll is too kind a word.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Sophus"Does this related story (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/?hpt=Mid) deserve its own thread? Arizona is likely to outlaw Westboro Baptist Church from protesting within 300 yards of the funerals for the victims. About time!

Taking away freedom of speech and expression is not the right way to deal with these trolls.

There's a not so fine a line between harassment and freedom of speech in my view. I think it's pretty clear that telling families of soldiers and victims that their son/daughter/father/mother died because of gays in America while they're burying them is harassment. Just like a dude constantly following a girl calling her a slut, whore, bitch and/or many other things all the time can be deemed as harassment.

More back to the original topic, I wonder if it's only a matter of time until atheists and nihilists start falling under verbal attack. Loughner was described by friends (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12loughner.html?_r=1&hp) as a nihilist and Nietzsche reader.

Apparently she's breathing on her own now and was able to recognize her husband. Not bad for being shot in the head.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Sophus"Does this related story (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/01/11/arizona.funeral.westboro/?hpt=Mid) deserve its own thread? Arizona is likely to outlaw Westboro Baptist Church from protesting within 300 yards of the funerals for the victims. About time!

Taking away freedom of speech and expression is not the right way to deal with these trolls.

They are not taking away freedom of speech or expression at all. They are simply acknowledging the fact that the timing or placement of free speech and expression can impact on the safety/security/well-being of others.

In the UK there was a Muslim group that wanted to protest about UK military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. They wanted to hold their march on the same day as the funerals of dead soldiers. The local authorities said they could have their march, but not on the day of the funeral as there was the likelihood that there could be a 'breach of the peace'. Needless to say the Muslims squealed like stuck pigs about the decision and could not be arsed to have their protest on a day when a funeral was not being held. Go figure their motives. The local magistrate was spot on.

Denial of free speech or expression is when one is never allowed to say or show what one feels. A sensible society has every right to defend itself from shit disturbing arseholes out for publicity at the expense of others.

I agree with Legendary Sandwich. Cant speak for other countries, but in the U.S., even though we may not like what WBC is doing, their speech is protected under our constitution. I am not in favor of suppressing their right to do it, because someday my right to stand at the foot of the steps of the U.S. Capitol and protest might then be suppressed.

Best thing to do is what others have done and place peaceful counterprotestors between them and their targets. It works great and makes WBC essentially go away. It's a method proven to work to nullify them and makes their presence unnoticed by those who would have been affected.

Quote from: "McQ"I agree with Legendary Sandwich. Cant speak for other countries, but in the U.S., even though we may not like what WBC is doing, their speech is protected under our constitution. I am not in favor of suppressing their right to do it, because someday my right to stand at the foot of the steps of the U.S. Capitol and protest might then be suppressed.

Are you saying you're opposed to state laws preventing demonstrations at funerals?

OK maybe if someone feels the need demonstrate at the funeral of a gay soldier I'll spit on them, but a nine year old girl I'm lost, why can't we just point at these people and name them a disgrace to humanity and everyone see this as true?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"

Quote from: "McQ"I agree with Legendary Sandwich. Cant speak for other countries, but in the U.S., even though we may not like what WBC is doing, their speech is protected under our constitution. I am not in favor of suppressing their right to do it, because someday my right to stand at the foot of the steps of the U.S. Capitol and protest might then be suppressed.

Are you saying you're opposed to state laws preventing demonstrations at funerals?

OK maybe if someone feels the need demonstrate at the funeral of a gay soldier I'll spit on them, but a nine year old girl I'm lost, why can't we just point at these people and name them a disgrace to humanity and everyone see this as true?

I'm against prohibiting free speech in the U.S. as defined by the Constitution and upheld by our Supreme Court. That's all. I don't think of this as some black and white matter. It is extremely difficult, and emotional. Do I want WBC demonstrating at funerals of anyone? Of course not. I think those people are as fucked up as people can be. But they are guaranteed that right to do the shit they do, just like I would be if I decided to demonstrate at their funerals. In the U.S., even the Nazis and KKK can have a rally or demonstration. I don't like that they DO IT, but they have the right. I believe in that right for all U.S. Citizens; that's one of the benefits of citizenship in this country.

I can stand on the Capitol steps and yell that Congress is full of crap. I can protest freely. There are already limits to what is considered free speech in this country, and I hope it continues to be refined.

You can do all the things you mentioned already, without any new laws. You can point these people out and call them names, make people aware of them, etc. But what has worked well at funerals in the past has been to completely minimize their presence by human walls of peaceful counterprotestors. It serves the purpose of shielding family and friends from these assholes, and making them look pathetic. It also causes them to waste their own time and money to travel to funerals, because in the end, they are not getting what they want out of it. Since that works, and puts a financial strain on WBC, I think that's the best way to go. They can't do this forever. Hell, their whole "church" is really just the extended family of their demented founder. They'll run out of true believers fast after he's gone.

That's what I'm saying.

Quote from: "McQ"I don't like that they DO IT, but they have the right.

They don't have that right in Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Illinois, at any National Cemetery, and now they don't have it at Arizona. Freedom of speech has always had limits, and there is, as Davin said, an enormous difference between protests versus harassment and hate speech. As a nation there are penalties for similar behavior in the workplace or for kids at school. Why would a mother just trying to bury her 9 year-old not have at least the same right to a peaceful environment? Westboro is provoking people, plain and simple.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "McQ"I don't like that they DO IT, but they have the right.

They don't have that right in Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Illinois, at any National Cemetery, and now they don't have it at Arizona. Freedom of speech has always had limits, and there is, as Davin said, an enormous difference between protests versus harassment and hate speech. As a nation there are penalties for similar behavior in the workplace or for kids at school. Why would a mother just trying to bury her 9 year-old not have at least the same right to a peaceful environment? Westboro is provoking people, plain and simple.

Sophus, I hear you. Don't mistake what I said as support for WBC. I was careful to make it clear that I am against what they do. I never addressed a State's right to enact legislation. I also already acknowledged that there are limits to free speech and that I hope they continue to be refined (a la Arizona). Of course I don't want these clowns anywhere near a funeral. But they were allowed to be, and will be allowed to (elsewhere) until the government gets a handle on what "hate speech" is. And that is a slippery slope, by the way. Who gets to define it? What will the social norms today allow vs. ten years or fifty years from now? Limiting speech is limiting speech. Ask anyone in living in a theocracy. It ain't cut and dry.

Separate issue: Where were all the lawmakers before now?  Shame on anyone who was silent on this while members of the armed services have been vilified by WBC all these years. It took a Democratic Congresswoman to be shot, a Federal Judge to be murdered, and some civilians to be murdered for so many people to speak up and act.

Quote from: "McQ"

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "McQ"I don't like that they DO IT, but they have the right.

They don't have that right in Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Illinois, at any National Cemetery, and now they don't have it at Arizona. Freedom of speech has always had limits, and there is, as Davin said, an enormous difference between protests versus harassment and hate speech. As a nation there are penalties for similar behavior in the workplace or for kids at school. Why would a mother just trying to bury her 9 year-old not have at least the same right to a peaceful environment? Westboro is provoking people, plain and simple.

Sophus, I hear you. Don't mistake what I said as support for WBC. I was careful to make it clear that I am against what they do. I never addressed a State's right to enact legislation. I also already acknowledged that there are limits to free speech and that I hope they continue to be refined (a la Arizona). Of course I don't want these clowns anywhere near a funeral. But they were allowed to be, and will be allowed to (elsewhere) until the government gets a handle on what "hate speech" is. And that is a slippery slope, by the way. Who gets to define it? What will the social norms today allow vs. ten years or fifty years from now? Limiting speech is limiting speech. Ask anyone in living in a theocracy. It ain't cut and dry.

I don't have a problem with hate speech. I think the issue is harassment. I don't think that protests held at a funeral is a freedom worth protecting. Protect their and our rights to say what we want by not allowing hate speech to be legally defined and discriminated against.

I also don't think that the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire, should be protected. I also don't think that the right to incite violence should be protected. I think preventing protests at funerals falls right in line with those. Not because of the "hate speech", but because it's harassment. I'm more willing to delve into the argument of what harassment is why it should not be allowed in some instances than to try to come up with even a rough definition of "hate speech".

There will always be "rights" that will be sacrificed for the sake of living in a society (what about my right to kill people?), I think the consideration is what freedoms and who do we protect? Is the right to free speech really trampled on by not allowing a protest at a funeral? Is that a right that needs to be protected for the sake of not causing undue emotional stress on people that are probably in a very extreme emotional state already? I don't think it is. Keep in mind that they can still protest at the cemetery, just not during a funeral.

I don't feel like even addressing the other issue you brought up.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "McQ"I don't like that they DO IT, but they have the right.

They don't have that right in Indiana, Michigan, South Dakota, Illinois, at any National Cemetery, and now they don't have it at Arizona. Freedom of speech has always had limits, and there is, as Davin said, an enormous difference between protests versus harassment and hate speech. As a nation there are penalties for similar behavior in the workplace or for kids at school. Why would a mother just trying to bury her 9 year-old not have at least the same right to a peaceful environment? Westboro is provoking people, plain and simple.

The only limitations I feel we should have on free speech and expression are those that prevent material harm to people.

If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

Quote from: "Davin"I also don't think that the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire, should be protected. I also don't think that the right to incite violence should be protected. I think preventing protests at funerals falls right in line with those.

This is a false equivocation.  The demonstrations are not in and of themselves a hazard to life or property, nor an incitement to violence.  They are not urging anyone to take up arms against the military, the mourners, the city officials, or anyone else at all.  If you are arguing that they should not be permitted to demonstrate within legal limits because those viewing the demonstration may be incited to violence, there are laws already in place that ban assault and battery, or worse.  Arguing that WBC should be stripped of their right to demonstrate freely on public property because they might get attacked strikes me much like telling someone to shut up before they get hit.

I'm sorry, but I must disagree.  The First Amendment was crafted most of all to protect speech that the majority find repugnant.

Quote from: "Tank"Denial of free speech or expression is when one is never allowed to say or show what one feels.

This is not so.  The much criticized "free-speech" zones of Bush are a perfect example of how a political opposition is silenced by the manipulation of circumstances.  From the Wiki:

QuoteThe Supreme Court has developed a four-part analysis to evaluate the constitutionality of time, place and manner (TPM) restrictions. To pass muster under the First Amendment, TPM restrictions must be neutral with respect to content, narrowly drawn, serve a significant government interest, and leave open alternative channels of communication. Application of this four-part analysis varies with the circumstances of each case, and typically requires lower standards for the restriction of obscenity and fighting words.

Free speech zones have been used at a variety of political gatherings. The stated purpose of free speech zones is to protect the safety of those attending the political gathering, or for the safety of the protesters themselves. Critics, however, suggest that such zones are "Orwellian",[1][2] and that authorities use them in a heavy-handed manner to censor protesters by putting them literally out of sight of the mass media, hence the public, as well as visiting dignitaries.

Constitutional?  The Supreme Court says so.  Free speech?  Only as free as "shout into your pillow so no one can hear you -- or else" is free.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

However they stalk funerals. But, what if we look at it this way: funerals are expensive one time events. What right do they have to crash an event for the grieving of a death and celebration of a life that is being paid for by a party other than themselves?

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

However they stalk funerals. But, what if we look at it this way: funerals are expensive one time events. What right do they have to crash an event for the grieving of a death and celebration of a life that is being paid for by a party other than themselves?

I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

If it is a private funeral you have no right to even be there if not invited.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

If it is a private funeral you have no right to even be there if not invited.

I agree.  I don't think a law saying they can't be there should be made, though.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"I didn't realize that the amount of money that goes into an event is relevant to the limits on peoples' rights.

If it is a private funeral you have no right to even be there if not invited.

You're ignoring the fact that they aren't at the funeral, but several hundred feet away, and on public property, not private.  

I'm disappointed at the number of freethinkers who would limit the free expression of admittedly odious thoughts.  the old saw about "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" comes to mind.  These laws that protect these idiots protect us, another despised minority.  You would throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"You're ignoring the fact that they aren't at the funeral, but several hundred feet away, and on public property, not private.  

I'm disappointed at the number of freethinkers who would limit the free expression of admittedly odious thoughts.  the old saw about "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" comes to mind.  These laws that protect these idiots protect us, another despised minority.  You would throw out the baby with the bathwater here.

The cemetery is public, but funeral service can very well be private. Either way I don't think that's really what's at the heart of the issue but it is approaching it all from a different perspective. There is no way I can convince myself these people have the right to yell and protest at anyone's funeral regardless of their message. The message, you'll notice, is stupid but it's not what troubles most of those who are opposed to Westboro's "rights" (which, as pointed out, in many cases they don't have). What is uncalled for is doing what they're doing in the context they are doing it in. If we can't guarantee a mother the right to bury her 9 year-old daughter without these assholes making the worse time of her life that much worse what kind of a country are we? The intentional infliction of emotional distress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_infliction_of_emotional_distress) is illegal, it is not protected by the First Amendment, and it is their only aim.

Hmm. A man has been arrested for threatening a Congressman (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/12/charles-turner-habermann-jim-mcdermott_n_808114.html) from Seattle. I wonder if these sorts of threats are really anything new or if Tucson is causing law enforcement to take this stuff more seriously.

I'm rather worried for Rep. Bob Filner after one of the Tea Party members he faced in this aggressive crowd (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zO66Z3Fj7ME) has posted this odious comment online in reaction to Loughner:

Quote from: "Aurick"“Who knows maybe this guy was just fed up too, whatever his motive I’m sure he was justified and I am enjoying this moment because this is how a revolution begins people, and it’s funny. I’m going to celebrate!”

I mean, Jesus Christ, that's not a direct threat but they shouldn't let this guy anywhere near Filner if he feels assassinations of Democrats in Congress is justified.

Quote from: "McQ"Separate issue: Where were all the lawmakers before now?  Shame on anyone who was silent on this while members of the armed services have been vilified by WBC all these years. It took a Democratic Congresswoman to be shot, a Federal Judge to be murdered, and some civilians to be murdered for so many people to speak up and act.

It's often 'the last straw' syndrome. People can bury their heads in the sand about things for a long time until one thing pushes them over the edge. When one looks back one can see the pressure building but it's not until a tipping point is reached that acting appears to be better than remaining quiescent. Society has hysteresis just as many systems do. The reverse situation would be knee jerk reaction to everything and that's possibly worse as laws made in haste are often bad laws. One has to hope that now laws are being made to acknowledge the rights of grieving people not to be used as a publicity stunt that the laws created just deal with that issue. And I agree with the slippery slope issue it could be a problem but the history of the USA, it's creation and development, place so much emphasis on the rights of the individual to express themselves that I slope will be very shallow and the people pushing back many and vigilant.

Quote from: "McQ"Separate issue: Where were all the lawmakers before now?  Shame on anyone who was silent on this while members of the armed services have been vilified by WBC all these years. It took a Democratic Congresswoman to be shot, a Federal Judge to be murdered, and some civilians to be murdered for so many people to speak up and act.

Each state has had to act on its own. I don't know if Westboro had been to Arizona to picket funerals before.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If the protesters are standing on public property, legislating their ability to speak based on the content of their speech is prima facie unConstitutional. To argue that "it's not what they're saying, it's that it's harassment" is disingenuous, because this demonstration is a one-time affair, whereas a major component of "harassment", legally, is that it be ongoing and chronic.  This obviously doesn't meet that criterion; a funeral is a one-time thing.

I think the several hours they do this for is "ongoing" enough. For legal definitions it depends on the state, for AZ this (http://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/02921.htm) is the legal definition. I think this kind of thing falls under "1. Anonymously or otherwise contacts, communicates or causes a communication with another person by verbal, electronic, mechanical, telegraphic, telephonic or written means in a manner that harasses." and "3. Repeatedly commits an act or acts that harass another person." However until this new restriction, it would have been allowed under "D. This section does not apply to an otherwise lawful demonstration, assembly or picketing."

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"

Quote from: "Davin"I also don't think that the right to yell "fire" in a crowded room when there is no fire, should be protected. I also don't think that the right to incite violence should be protected. I think preventing protests at funerals falls right in line with those.

This is a false equivocation.  The demonstrations are not in and of themselves a hazard to life or property, nor an incitement to violence.  They are not urging anyone to take up arms against the military, the mourners, the city officials, or anyone else at all.

The reason I chose two examples that are so varied is to show that it wasn't false equivocation, I had failed. I did not mean that it was similar in protecting the safety of others, but that it is similar that it can be clearly defined. Which means that it can't be used to stop people from demonstrating anywhere else or even at a cemetery.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"If you are arguing that they should not be permitted to demonstrate within legal limits because those viewing the demonstration may be incited to violence, there are laws already in place that ban assault and battery, or worse.

Nope, not arguing that.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Arguing that WBC should be stripped of their right to demonstrate freely on public property because they might get attacked strikes me much like telling someone to shut up before they get hit.[/quote[Not arguing that either.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"I'm sorry, but I must disagree.  The First Amendment was crafted most of all to protect speech that the majority find repugnant.

I have no problem with what anyone says, nor am I trying to take away their right to say it. I'm saying that the right to protest at a funeral does not need to be protected.

Another Democrat had a gun pointed at them (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/16/edward-acevedo-illinois-s_n_809781.html). Doesn't sound political this time.

QuoteIllinois State Representative Edward Acevedo had a gun pointed at him Friday night on Chicago's Lower West Side, but the gunman took off when he realized who Acevedo was.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that the representative was standing on the sidewalk in the 2500 block of South Oakley Avenue when a van pulled up alongside him and an occupant pointed a gun in his direction.

Acevedo then "announced his office" to the gunman and the van sped off.

Aside from being the Illinois House's assistant majority leader and a representative since 1997, Acevedo has been a Chicago police officer since 1995, the Chicago Tribune reports. It is unclear which office Acevedo announced.

Police have released few details on the incident, and no arrests have been made.

This can probably be moved to Politics as it's no longer current. But there is new information surfacing....

Quote from: "url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110218/ap_on_re_us/us_congresswoman_shot_firefighter_call]Yahoo News[/url]"]A veteran firefighter refused to respond to last month's deadly shooting spree that left Rep. Gabrielle Giffords wounded because he had different political views than his colleagues and "did not want to be part of it," according to internal city memos.
Mark Ekstrum's insubordination may have delayed his unit's response because firefighters had to stop at another station to pick up a replacement for him, the Arizona Daily Star reported.

The 28-year veteran of the Tucson Fire Department retired two days later while his supervisors were still considering how to discipline him, according to the Star, which obtained the memos about the incident through a public records request.
Capt. Ben Williams wrote in a report that when Ekstrum first said he would not go on the call, "he mentioned something about `political bantering' and he did not want to be part of it."

Williams said in the report that he told the 56-year-old firefighter that he could not refuse a call for that reason and then talked to the firefighter privately in his office. He said Ekstrum "started to say something about how he had a much different political viewpoint than the rest of the crew and he was concerned."

I don't even know what to say to that, Sophus...

w T F!