• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Here go all the leftists............

Sarge

Guest
Gun control

Speech control

That took what, two days?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html



One of the fiercest gun-control advocates in Congress, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), pounced on the shooting massacre in Tucson Sunday, promising to introduce legislation as soon as Monday targeting the high-capacity ammunition the gunman used.




Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.
 
You had to see this coming. I'm not going to get into the gun control debate, bit I will say i think it is a damn shame that people are politicizing this tragedy. I suppose it is inevitable, though, given how both sides try to use 9-11.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Compare this to last year at Fort Hood


There was ample evidence, in other words, that the Ft. Hood attack was an act of Islamist violence.

Nevertheless, public officials, journalists, and commentators were quick to caution that the public should not "jump to conclusions" about Hasan's motive. CNN, in particular, became a forum for repeated warnings that the subject should be discussed with particular care.

"The important thing is for everyone not to jump to conclusions," said retired Gen. Wesley Clark on CNN the night of the shootings.

"We cannot jump to conclusions," said CNN's Jane Velez-Mitchell that same evening. "We have to make sure that we do not jump to any conclusions whatsoever."

"I'm on Pentagon chat room," said former CIA operative Robert Baer on CNN, also the night of the shooting. "Right now, there's messages going back and forth, saying do not jump to the conclusion this had anything to do with Islam."

The next day, President Obama underscored the rapidly-forming conventional wisdom when he told the country, "I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts." In the days that followed, CNN jouralists and guests repeatedly echoed the president's remarks.

"We can't jump to conclusions," Army Gen. George Casey said on CNN November 8. The next day, political analyst Mark Halperin urged a "transparent" investigation into the shootings "so the American people don't jump to conclusions." And when Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra, then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, suggested that the Ft. Hood attack was terrorism, CNN's John Roberts was quick to intervene. "Now, President Obama has asked people to be very cautious here and to not jump to conclusions," Roberts said to Hoekstra. "By saying that you believe this is an act of terror, are you jumping to a conclusion?"



http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs...-hood-now-race-blame-palin-afte#ixzz1AdgGLway
 
Uh, one lady who became a gun control advocate after her family gunned down 20 years ago does not constitute ALL the leftists.

Or, since you brought up Fort Hood, I guess Sarah Palin is considered ALL the righties?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/wa...t-hood-shooter-should-have-been-profiled.html

I agree with Goaldeje on this one. People use tragedies like this every time. 9/11 is by far the biggest example, and is still being used to this day.
 
Last edited:
I've heard one of the major arguments against gun control from the right is that if everyone is armed, crime will go down. Well, AZ has some of the most lenient gun-control laws in the country, and it certainly didn't help in this situation.
 
I've heard one of the major arguments against gun control from the right is that if everyone is armed, crime will go down. Well, AZ has some of the most lenient gun-control laws in the country, and it certainly didn't help in this situation.

Gotta be in proximity. Had someone in the audience had a weapon,maybe they could have done us a favor and plugged this nut
 
Here's the one being spread throughout the interwebz that is driving me nuts.



Many of my leftist friends are falling into the Paul Krugman category and are posting this map trying to make the connection between Sarah Palin and the shooter, Lougher.

I agree this was a poor use of imagery on the part of Sarah Palin, but it had nothing to do with the shootings in Arizona.

sarah_pac_crosshairs.jpg


Here is a map that was used by the Democratic Leadership Council when they were "targeting" the states that Bush narrowly won in 2000.

Now I know these are not exact parallels between the 2 since these are different times, but where was the outcry then?

BP_0405_heartland1.gif
 
Last edited:
I've heard one of the major arguments against gun control from the right is that if everyone is armed, crime will go down. Well, AZ has some of the most lenient gun-control laws in the country, and it certainly didn't help in this situation.

Sarge touched on it, but the fact is this type of crime was not going to be deterred by anything but the gunmen's decision to go through with it or not. In the State of Maryland, a very strict gun law state, there have been 3 shootings recently that resulted in would be robbers being shot to death or stopping the crime. That is what law abiding citizens who carry weapons can do. This is not the type of crime that will be affected other than what Sarge mentioned. Had one person been close enough to pull the trigger once Lougher started shooting, there could have been less carnage.

I gotta say Lanky, this was a poor attempt to question the theory of more security with more guns. Poor argument indeed.
 
It's funny, the left hates Palin, they just don't know why

Guess they had to have someone relevent to hate since Bush isn't around anymore
 
Help a brother out - I'd like to know who said these things in the last year or so.

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun".

Get out there and “punish our enemies”.

“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry"!

“Punch back twice as hard".

I want to know “whose a$$ to kick”.

"I’m itching for a fight".
 
I don't think Palin had anything to do with this crazy person whatsoever.

But since it's been brought up, I do think her use of gunsights is a little tacky. I might use a target icon, but gunsights ... I don't think so. That said, I don't think they are related to this incident in any way.
 
Sarge touched on it, but the fact is this type of crime was not going to be deterred by anything but the gunmen's decision to go through with it or not. In the State of Maryland, a very strict gun law state, there have been 3 shootings recently that resulted in would be robbers being shot to death or stopping the crime. That is what law abiding citizens who carry weapons can do. This is not the type of crime that will be affected other than what Sarge mentioned. Had one person been close enough to pull the trigger once Lougher started shooting, there could have been less carnage.

I gotta say Lanky, this was a poor attempt to question the theory of more security with more guns. Poor argument indeed.

To be fair, I was just throwing it out there, not necessarily trying to disprove any theories (however "3 shootings in MD" is not exactly an earth-shattering counter-argument). I'm not necessarily anti-gun, either, just thinking that this particular argument is ineffective.

What do you mean by "this type of crime?" Isn't that exactly the type of crime people are referring to? A random gunman opening up on a specific target or a crowd? I hear all the time, "if only there had been a citizen with a gun at location x during crime y, that guy would never have shot all those people." Well, AZ is the perfect scenario for more people to have guns, and that exactly didn't happen. Its the perfect argument for stricter guns laws, actually - which ironically you supported with your "3 shootings in a strict gun-law state" argument. :)

It's funny, the left hates Palin, they just don't know why

Guess they had to have someone relevent to hate since Bush isn't around anymore

Oh, I know exactly why I dislike Sarah Palin, thank you very much.
 
Great piece on Gawker about this: http://gawker.com/5729802/the-sad-death-of-gun-control

An obviously deranged man killed six people with a legally purchased and legally carried pistol on Saturday, and the only thing we're arguing about is whether he was listening to Sarah Palin.

The debate over what caused Jared Lee Loughner to do what he did is a waste of time. He was obviously suffering from paranoid schizophrenia or a similarly destabilizing emotional disorder; parsing out the particular determinants of his apparent belief that grammar is mind control will not solve any puzzles. The thing about genuine craziness is that it rejects parsing, invents its own reasons, and resists explanation. Accusing Sarah Palin and assorted other teabaggers of somehow inspiring or abetting this action is like accusing Scooby Doo of inspiring Sam Berkowitz's affection for his neighbor's talking dog. The workings of a properly delusional mind are unfathomable.

There is of course one thing we can squarely and firmly place the blame for these killings on, aside from Loughner himself: The handgun he used to carry them out. Arizona essentially has no gun laws. Loughner committed no crime when he purchased the gun, no crime when he loaded it, and no crime when he carried it to the Safeway. He was obviously crazy to virtually everybody who encountered him in recent months except for the dealer who sold him the gun. He was too crazy for community college, but not too crazy to buy a Glock.

Click link for the rest.
 
So the solution is to have everyone who wants to purchase a gun undergo a psychiatric evaluation? Really? How in the hell is that even remotely close to the same ZIP code as being practical?

I hate reactionary, emotionalist political bull****.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device
 
Accusing Sarah Palin and assorted other teabaggers.....

I was down with it all the way up until "teabaggers"...then it just became obviouslt liberal and going tio be anti-gun. I have been shooting guns since I was 11 years old and have never shot anybody. My father has never shot anybody, etc, etc.

the problem isnt gun laws..the problem is there are crazy people in this world. period. stricter gun laws wont make a difference in crazy people murdering innocent people.

"Teabaggers" certainly isn't a solely liberal term. Walton & Johnson, two of the most Libertarian personalities on the radio today, use the word to describe the Tea Party.
 
So the solution is to have everyone who wants to purchase a gun undergo a psychiatric evaluation? Really? How in the hell is that even remotely close to the same ZIP code as being practical?

I hate reactionary, emotionalist political bull****.
Posted via BGO Mobile Device


I think "doctor's note" is a far cry from "psychiatric evaluation," but that's just me. I don't necessarily agree with the measure either way, either - its only one potential solution.

And just FYI - "hate," "reactionary" and "bull****" are all pretty emotional terms. You're fighting fire with fire, my friend.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top