Originally Posted by ASB65

jadams, thanks for the thoughtful commentary you brought to our attention. I believe there are a lot valid points in the above post.

But I do not think it is quite fair to just blame the right-wing side. There is plenty of anger on the left too. I recall a thread on this forum "Would you support a left wing revolution?". Violence generally does go hand and hand with a revolution.

And this has been the fear of many of us all along on this forum. Not that a perfectly sane person would go out and commit an act of violence because they were pushed over the edge by some type of legislation they didn't like or that they would hear a Limbaugh or Beck type shouting propaganda and be moved to shoot someone. It was the fear that the already mentally unstable people of the world would pick up on this anger and commit an act of violence. As I've said before, this man could have just as easily gone after a store clerk that pissed him off as he did a political figure under different circumstances. But because of the environment he is living in with all the political anger down there, he zeroed in on a political figure. Any number of things can set off a paranoid schizophrenic. If he was merely trying to make a political point or his anger was only directly at Congreswoman Gifford, he wouldn't have shot all those other folks too. From what has been said of him, it really doesn't sound like he is either right or left wing. He is mainly just crazy. I think if the Republican governor had been the person at the meet and greet, it could have just as easily been her that was shot. This man was paranoid of government, period. And can't that same thing be said for many of us? The difference is that, most of us aren't paranoid schizophrenics.

As long as we live in a world where there is this strong partisan divide that we have going on today, I don't expect this to be the last incident. There are lots of crazy people walking our country. It is my belief that all the assassins who shot political figures through the years were crazy too. I wouldn't exactly have wanted Lee Harvey Oswald living next door to my kids either.

We should all be concerned about the effect of this shooting on political speech. Should we limit what pols say based on the effect it may have on an obviously deranged person who may or may not hear it?

Where political violence becomes common is when speech is suppressed or punished. We should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but accusing people of incitement to violence based on their use of marshal metaphors is ridiculous.

They are called "campaigns".

James50

Originally Posted by James50

We should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater...

Allow me to respectfully disagree. When one of us is in a crowded theater, and discovers that it is aflame, he would be absolutely in the wrong to refrain from alerting the rest of the patrons. The counter-analogy broadens just as well as the cliche is meant to.

There are no legitimate limits on the freedom of speech.

----

As to the second part, about the rhetoric used during campaings (and, to be sure, outside of campaigns as well). The ruling class engages in it primarily because it so well serves their purpose of engaging the emotions of their subjects. That is, aggressive posturing is used because it works, and it works because americans dig it.

People seem to have the arrow of causality all ass-backwards on this one.

Originally Posted by James50

We should all be concerned about the effect of this shooting on political speech. Should we limit what pols say based on the effect it may have on an obviously deranged person who may or may not hear it?

Where political violence becomes common is when speech is suppressed or punished. We should not shout "fire" in a crowded theater, but accusing people of incitement to violence based on their use of marshal metaphors is ridiculous.

They are called "campaigns".

James50

Maybe so, maybe not. But does anyone really like negative campaigning in the first place? We all complain about that one.

I don't have the answers. I just know what reality is. We do live a very politically charged environment right now. And I believe it's worse than has been in many, many years going all the way back to the Civil War. It is possible that this could change behaviors of political people or pundits and they will suddenly start watching what they say, but I kind of doubt they will at this point.

For years, we just accepted bullying in school as part of growing up. When kids suddenly began shooting up their fellow classmates and especially after Columbine happened, we began taking a second look at what we considered acceptable and began taking bullying more seriously. If these acts of violence continue to occur, then we as a society may be forced to rethink exactly what negative campaigning and all this rhetoric is doing to those who are not mentally stable.

The world changes. Kids were bullied back in 1950's too but they didn't bring guns to school and start mowing down other students and teachers. Yes, we have always had negative campaigning but we may have reached a boiling point, for whatever reason, and that it has become a situation of it just not safe to behave this way anymore.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

There are no legitimate limits on the freedom of speech.

Incitement to riot is a crime and should be. Conspiracy which is heavily dependent on speech is a crime and should be. There are all kinds of legitimate limits in the areas of commercial speech - what you can and cannot say about your product.

There are no rights which are absolute.

James50

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Here's a short story you might find apt:

In any case, it's not condemnation of killings that is problematic -- far from it. Rather, it is the constant weight given to the killing of a parasite over the killing of a genuine innocent, by virtue of the fact that the parasite was a member of the ruling class.
It's an overt declaration that people -- far less mere subjects -- are of lesser importance than is the sanctity of the ruling class as a ruling class. That's pretty bad.

I must have missed something here, and I apologize for doing so. Are you saying its okay to kill a politician that advocates for a US military presence in Afghanistan?

Originally Posted by The Rani

I'm sure some of the victims and their families will sue Sarah Palin, and maybe also the Tea Party guy who ran against the congressswoman last fall, and we will end up with some new guidelines in place as a result.

Not a bad outcome.

Originally Posted by jadams

Interesting that we are looking to the Civil War for lessons. *But I find his take on that war strange. *IMO it had nothing to do with liberty or justice. *It had to do with power and progress. *It was the agrarian age vs the industrial age, agrarian value systems used to justify economic necessities of that system vs industrial values used to justify their economic necessities.*

The south NEEDED serfs (ignorant and powerless to pick their cotton), and the north NEEDED factory workers (slightly educated, and paid barely enough to afford their products). *It was about power and progress, with a dash of democratic ideology used by both sides to justify their reality.

And as for northerners and southerners discovering how alike they were ... srsly?? *Is that why the north eviscerated the south and left it (and blacks) to lie in squalor, oppression and ignorance for 100 years. *We are going thru all this now because the Civil War made such a mess of things. *The only good this about this miserable rehash of the Civil War is that both blacks and southerners have come into their own, and the north lies in waste as it has lost it's industrial base. *

Unfortunately that's a good thing only because it redressed a wrong. *The "south" and "blacks" are still being portrayed as cartoonish plebs. *At least they were. *While blacks are still oppressed, I think they are starting to overcome the stereotypes. *And I will give Obama some props for that. *He personifies so many mighty white values (education, calm, conservative, cooperative, proper) that he makes the " south" (read white plebs) look like lunatic boobs. *It was not always so. *In the 60's it was blacks that were mad as hell and burning up the cities, terrifying everybody. *They have moved on.

But, thanks to Lee Atwaters southern strategy, southern values (traditional family, religion, independence, hatred of an american government that defeated them, and a gun culture machismo born of oppression) have been corrupted and used by the oligarchs to manipulate their votes and support an aristocratic agenda. *Reduce federal taxes on the super rich so that the fading middle class can pay higher city taxes, while the states go broke, education is supported by the lottery, and we throw everyone in jail so that our privatized prisons can make a profit??? *

Do you seriously think the aristos give a rats a** about creationism? *You think the aristos are teaching that to their children? *Do you think they give two hoots about abortion...well, yes to that one. *They'd rather female workers were all sterilized and have caused quite a ruckus in such third world areas as northern Mexico where the machinadoras are accused of forcing women to undergo sterilization so that they don't miss work. *But do they tell the plebs that, hell no. *It's all Jesus and guns they promote for our plebs. *And don't let's forget that mythical "Free Market" that has shipped our jobs away, monopolized the markets, and gambled away the worlds financial system. *Yeah, let's hear it for Ayn Rand.

It would be funny if I were rich. *Instead I am stuck here, reliving not only the civil war, but the 1930's depression, and some kind of weird Nazi revival ... And yeah I said Nazi. *Call it what is.**

All that being said, this awful tragedy in Tucson is strangely inspiring. *The Real American People there that day were wonderful. *The elderly teacher that took a little girl to see the American government in action, shot 4 times and worried for the little girl who dies before her eyes. *The judge (who I am reminded was a republican) who leaves church to meet with a colleague and is murdered. *The retired colonel who, already grazed in the head by a bullet, reaches out to subdue the gunman. *The elderly lady who reaches for his gun and takes away his magazine. *The 20 year old Mexican college intern, who you never see out of a suit, telling how the tried to help his boss survive, sounding more like a 40 year old veteran army medic retelling a battle story with utter sang froid. *And the three elderly citizens (at least 2 of whom were republicans) who were murdered trying to participate in the system of government everyone seems to hate so much. *The young social worker, Jewish like his boss, trying to make a difference, murdered before his wedding day.

It is so utterly sad it literally makes one weep. *I have given up on America, on the American people, on this stupid tired political system that is entirely manipulated. *And then I see something like this. *So sad. *So sad. Those poor people still believed in their government. **

And, no I am not blaming the right wing for that wild eyed, probably schizophrenic boy who has not a clue why his brain is so scrambled. *But I do see the dangerous, constant, ranting, hatred, full of violent imagery they have wallowed in for 50 years. *50 years! *Since 1968. *Give it a rest. Give it a rest. *For heavens sake, give it a rest.
***
Sent from my iPad

Yes, the Civil War was about what the professor stated. And yes, the Civil War was about the agricultural vs. industrial context you argued for. I don't see them as mutually exclusive. The latter (your interpretation) is a very legitimate take on the larger context. But the former is how it played out more often than not in the hearts and minds of those participating en masse. It is what actually got people riled up. I don't see people gettting all excited about issues of modes of production (except during Marxist revolutions, which the Civil War was not). But as for disagreeing on basic notions of what "freedom" or "liberty" mean, darn tootin' they can get riled up.

It's even more complicated than that, of course, but your point is well taken.

You wanna read the real thing:

"Know this if nothing else: This was a hate crime. I hate the damn left-wing liberals. There is a vast left-wing conspiracy in this country & these liberals are working together to attack every decent & honorable institution in the nation, trying to turn this country into a communist state. Shame on them....

This was a symbolic killing. Who I wanted to kill was every Democrat in the Senate & House, the 100 people in Bernard Goldberg's book. I'd like to kill everyone in the mainstream media. But I know those people were inaccessible to me. I couldn't get to the generals & high ranking officers of the Marxist movement so I went after the foot soldiers, the chickenshit liberals that vote in these traitorous people. Someone had to get the ball rolling. I volunteered. I hope others do the same. It's the only way we can rid America of this cancerous pestilence.

"I thought I'd do something good for this Country Kill Democrats til the cops kill me....Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather. I'd like to encourage other like minded people to do what I've done. If life aint worth living anymore don't just kill yourself. do something for your Country before you go. Go Kill Liberals.

Where is this guy?

Just convicted of murder in Knoxville. Who did he actually kill? Two Unitarian Universalist Ministers.

Do you think someone like this needs Bernard Goldberg to tell him what to do?

James50

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It's not "RW revisionism", it's your own bias and/or ignorance. Although it could also be an issue of semantics. What is "right wing"? If favoring free market, laissez-faire economic policies is "right wing", then Fascism and Nazism were absolutely not right wing. Fascism was described by Mussolini as a "third way" between communism and free market capitalism (what he called "hyper-capitalism"). He believed liberal democracy and uncontrolled markets were destructive and degenerative forces on a society and a people, and Fascism was the solution.

The official name of the Nazi Party was accurate. It was not a misnomer or a lie: National Socialist German Workers Party. They were socialists, and they were also nationalists. They were "progressives" who believed that modern society required social engineering from the top down by a powerful government. They believed in central planning. They acted upon the ideas of Darwin and Nietzsche in carrying out their ethnic cleansing, medical experiments, and wars. Where they differed from communists was in their dedication to German nationalism, which included their Darwinian goal of producing the "Master Race" through genetic selection.

In other words, they were arguably "right wing" because of their fanatical nationalism. But when it comes to economics, they were extremely left wing by current standards. Their secularism (whereby religion may be tolerated, but only in subservience to the state, as long as it does not interfere) also places them on the left.

All pretty much true, I think; except the Nazis did not take over the ownership and operation of all capitalist businesses, but supported and subsidized them in so far as they produced war materials. The Nazis had a military-industrial complex similar to ours. They did create a peoples car company, which went on to become a successful private corporation (Volkswagon).

They started out promising to regulate businesses such as chain stores on behalf of the common man, but then betrayed those promises. The Nazis had national goals and planning for business mostly insofar as it involved the large industries that built weapons and other war needs (the arms of Krupp, etc.) Otherwise, business could pretty much exploit people as much as it wished, I think.

Also, right-wingers such as yourself keep saying that the Left is for central planning and "social engineering from the top down by a powerful government." That is not true. Both right and left believe in this. It is only a question of which things government is asked to do. "Big government" is a slogan used by Reaganoids to attack the social programs we need. The right believes just as much in big government, and so do you JPT.

Politics is about power; nothing else.

The definition of the Left is advocacy on behalf of those who don't have power in society, and equalization of that power to all people. The Right seeks to protect power on behalf of those who already have it, and believes that there is a natural hierarchy in which some people or groups of people are meant to rule or have advantages over others.

The top/bottom axis on the Nolan grid concerns the amount of power a government should have. Libertarians believe in little or no power; authoritarians or statists believe in maximum power. Left and Right is about how power should be directed; to what ends.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Palin's hit map...

-Uh huh...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703667904576071913818696964.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

...Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41087

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, who recently published a hate screed that damned the entire conservative movement as the “American Taliban,” declared Gabrielle Giffords was “dead to him” after she voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House, and that was just a couple of days ago...


Whatever. Maybe the Kosmeister can cross Giffords off of HIS list?

Originally Posted by Xer H

Odin, you know better than that. A political hit list isn't a literal one. I'm sure Palin would decry this violence as much as anyone.

Let's not jump to conclusions and make this worse. That would be far too 3T of us, and exactly what some would want us to do...

-The self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom has a long track record of jumping to conclusions so he can take a partisan political cheap shot which can can use as his hoped-for Reichstag moment.

Originally Posted by Odin

The folks at Palin's rally back in '08 shouting "KILL HIM, KILL HIM!!!"

...It's not the first time that the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom has pushed this lie:

Originally Posted by Odin

I have been shocked and disgusted by this orgy of right-wing hate, starting with people going "KILL HIM!!!" at Palin's rallies last summer.

...and its not the first time I've corrected him:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2008/10/16/kill_him/print.html

The Secret Service says allegations that attendees at two of Sarah Palin's rallies called for the death of Barack Obama are unfounded...

...The self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom did the same thing when a census employee showed up dead:

Originally Posted by Odin

I am almost speechless. Republican TERRORISM, that is what this is. Send Limbaugh, Beck, Bachmann, and Palin to Gitmo!

...which, of course:

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2009/11/census_worker_killing_probe_ne.html

The Census Bureau employee found dead in September killed himself and staged his death to look like a homicide, state and federal law enforcement officials said Tuesday...

There's also the hypocrisy of the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom belly-aching about fueled rhetoric when he smokes the stuff himself. Oh well.

Thinking of Giffords' vote for Lewis (which James 50 brought up):

Originally Posted by Odin

John Lewis called a "N***er" Barney Frank called a "F**got" today on the Hill by teabaggers.

Those f***ing bigoted bastards!

...of course, it turned out that the video evidence showed that Lewis and Frank made it up (i.e. they LIED):

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

http://politifi.com/news/Video-Proof-No-Tea-Party-Protesters-Really-Didnt-Call-Anyone-The-NWord-312377.html

But now, via Jim Hoft , comes video showing that no such words were said at all...

And of course, the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom's sympathies for those who have been the victims of Leftie violence are non-existent.

Originally Posted by Odin

I apologize for making unwarranted assumptions and jumping to the conclusion that Loughner was incited by Palin's gun-sight map...

-The important question is, will the self-proclaimed One-Eyed God of Wisdom learn form this, or will he continue to jump to stupid conclusions for paertisan gain, thus contributing to "The Spiral of Violence"?

Originally Posted by The Rani

The only guilty one is that chickenshit who pulled the trigger...

-Huh.

Sounds suspiciously like a call for "personal responsibility." You could lose your shrink license!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Just across the border from Arizona, a war rages on with guns supplied by the United States ...

-A myth. The dealers get them from everywhere. The "theycome from the US nonsense" is based on stat's for weapons that were already suspected to have a US source. BTW, Mexico has pretty harsh gun control laws (almost as harsh as their immigration laws ). We can all see how well that works.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

I must have missed something here, and I apologize for doing so. Are you saying its okay to kill a politician that advocates for a US military presence in Afghanistan?

I hate to speak for Justin, because generally I'm wrong in my interpretation. Then Justin comes back and says, "No Amy, that's exactly what I meant." But I will give it shot again. Correct me if I'm wrong again, Justin...

I think what he was saying is that when this congresswoman was shot, it made big news, but soldiers are dying in Afghanistan every day and it doesn't get to coverage this story has.

Same can be said for all the people who are victims of crimes every day. As sad it is that, that little, innocent, nine year old girl was killed on Saturday. I'll bet she wasn't the only child in America who died on Saturday due to a violent act. Many mothers lose children in gang related incidents in the poorer communities of this country every day. We just don't hear about it and it doesn't make national news. And chances are if the congresswomen hadn't been part of the story, this shooting would not have gotten the coverage it did. I'm not saying, it wouldn't gotten coverage, but it probably wouldn't have the only news story this weekend.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Maybe so, maybe not. But does anyone really like negative campaigning in the first place? We all complain about that one.

I don't have the answers. I just know what reality is. We do live a very politically charged environment right now. And I believe it's worse than has been in many, many years going all the way back to the Civil War. It is possible that this could change behaviors of political people or pundits and they will suddenly start watching what they say, but I kind of doubt they will at this point.

For years, we just accepted bullying in school as part of growing up. When kids suddenly began shooting up their fellow classmates and especially after Columbine happened, we began taking a second look at what we considered acceptable and began taking bullying more seriously. If these acts of violence continue to occur, then we as a society may be forced to rethink exactly what negative campaigning and all this rhetoric is doing to those who are not mentally stable.

The world changes. Kids were bullied back in 1950's too but they didn't bring guns to school and start mowing down other students and teachers. Yes, we have always had negative campaigning but we may have reached a boiling point, for whatever reason, and that it has become a situation of it just not safe to behave this way anymore.

I dont think rhetoric hasnt gotten much worse than its been in a long time. In the late 1960's we had alot of rhetoric and alot more political assasinations and attempts. We had Hinckley and Mark David Chapman in the 80's. Nuts are out there and you cannot stop them all. The political rhetoric had NOTHING to do with this situation. It is despicable for the media types, that moronic sheriff, the Daily Kooks, and Paul Krugman to assign blame to conservatives. It nothing but rank politicization. period.
But hey, dont let a "crisis" go to waste huh Rahm? Disgusting.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Does anyone really believe the candidates in the 2012 elections are going to be nice? Like I said, "You can't teach an old new tricks."

No, largely because the dire situations we face, and the stubbornness of people and their leaders not to deal with them, will continue as usual. As well as because people and politicians don't know how to communicate properly. We all have a lot to learn.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-A myth. The dealers get them from everywhere. The "theycome from the US nonsense" is based on stat's for weapons that were already suspected to have a US source. BTW, Mexico has pretty harsh gun control laws (almost as harsh as their immigration laws ). We can all see how well that works.

It doesn't work because thugs can get weapons from places like the USA where there are no gun laws. They don't get them from Mexico, so the Mexican law works.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It doesn't work because thugs can get weapons from places like the USA where there are no gun laws. They don't get them from Mexico, so the Mexican law works.

wrong again...they (Mexican organized crime) get many weapons from within Mexico, mainly bought from corrupt police and military people. You may notice that they use fully automatic weapons there (illegal here) and grenades and other munitions (also illegal here). These arent bought in the USA. They also get weapons from black market sources and from overseas. The Mexican laws only prevent law abiding Mexicans the right to defend themselves from these thugs.

PS-we have thousands of gun laws in here in the USA, many even in Arizona

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Uh huh...

....
...Palin critic Markos Moulitsas, on his Daily Kos blog, had even included Rep. Gabrielle Giffords's district on a list of congressional districts "bullseyed" for primary challenges...

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=41087

Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas, who recently published a hate screed that damned the entire conservative movement as the “American Taliban,” declared Gabrielle Giffords was “dead to him” after she voted against Nancy Pelosi for Speaker of the House, and that was just a couple of days ago...


Whatever. Maybe the Kosmeister can cross Giffords off of HIS list?

How about linking to the original Markos post, like here -

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6...882/511/541568

For most reading that, its a no-brainer that it comes nowhere near the 'elimination speech' spewed by the Right -
http://www.fourthturning.com/forum/s...3&postcount=27

I do, however, recognize that someone mired in Idiot America's trailer park lacks the discernment - so don't waste your time. But please, for godsake, the fourteen year old Valley girls that originated "whatever" are now in their mid-thirties, and even they don't use it.
Stunted adolescence - typical characteristic of many in Idiot America.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

None of that has the slightest bearing on guns. Individuals with guns cannot stop a tyranny, although yes people seem to think so. It's not so.

Talk about "contempt." "Governments" is a broad term, and our government with its many serious flaws is not that of a Hitler, Stalin or Mao. People who "infest" governments are also people. Most are interested in public service. The most untrustworthy folks in our society are those who have lots of money. They are the ones with power, and who buy power. They are the ones who can't be trusted. People in our government answer to us. It's up to us to keep them working for us (well, I guess that means they can't be "trusted" either, in a sense; or you could say, "trust, but verify" to quote your hero).

Libertarians or whatever you call yourselves, you are extremely gullible to think that people with lots of money can be trusted.

Dude, I am new here and not trying to start anything, but that is extremely naïve. Most of the people in our government answer to the people who put them there, the high dollar donors. But more than that, they ARE the same group of people in many cases. How many of the folks in our government come from these companies? And after they “retire” or get voted out, they join the boards of the companies that that helped put them there. For what? The influence and access they have with their fellows who are still in the government. The money and influence stays nicely tied up in the hands of a VERY few at the top, while the rest of us are brainwashed into believing we live in a free society.

Watch what will happen now, under the guise of the tragedy in Arizona. The far right will want to increase the power of surveillance for the police and other federal policing agencies. The far left will want to ban anything bigger than a bb gun. We will probably end up with a hybrid of both. Bottom line, we will have more rules and laws and guidelines, and less freedom. And we will be so busy watching Dancing With the Stars and debating utterly irrelevant things like the merits of the BCS to even notice. The 2 major parties play pong with us, batting us back and forth, all the while knowing if they lose this election, they will be back in 2 or 4 years, because we have no viable alternatives.

Personally, I think this guy Loughner is a nutball, as someone said on these boards more of a Dylan Klebold than a Timothy McVeigh. He was going to do something to someone, with whatever tools he could muster. In a free society there is no way to protect all of us all the time. Like the father of that poor little girl said, that is preferable to the alternative.

As far as the Patrick Henry thing? We all know what he meant. Guess what folks? We are all here because of a book we read, and if you are here and didn’t read the book, go read it and don’t post again until you do. From what I have read on these forums, most of us believe we are in a 4T phase, we just differ on whether we think it started in 2001 or is just getting underway now. In any event, 4T’s have traditionally been bloody. The last one featured a war largely fought on foreign soils, but previous to that, we did it right here in North America (and England if you extrapolate backwards). If it turns out that way again, the events of last week may sadly become commonplace.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

It doesn't work because thugs can get weapons from places like the USA where there are no gun laws. They don't get them from Mexico, so the Mexican law works.

Actually they get most of them from Central and South America who first get them from Russia, China, and former Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations. I will take a wild stab and guess that I know a lot more about US gun law than you do Eric. Did you know that I cannot go out and buy a Russian built AK-47 because of US law? I have to build one myself, paying careful attention to law to make certain I am in legal compliance (it's called 922(r) if you don't believe me). This of course adds significant cost. Do you really happen to think a lot of Mexican drug lords are heading north to pay $1000 or more in the US for a rifle they can import for $200 from elsewhere?

No, what tends to happen in the case of rifles originating from US sources is that Mexican police and government officials buy their weapons from legitimate vendors in the US. Those rifles are then stolen or sold by corrupt politicians to the various Mexican drug cartels.

Mexican "law" as you so call it, in action.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I hate to speak for Justin, because generally I'm wrong in my interpretation. Then Justin comes back and says, "No Amy, that's exactly what I meant." But I will give it shot again. Correct me if I'm wrong again, Justin...

I think what he was saying is that when this congresswoman was shot, it made big news, but soldiers are dying in Afghanistan every day and it doesn't get to coverage this story has.

Same can be said for all the people who are victims of crimes every day. As sad it is that, that little, innocent, nine year old girl was killed on Saturday. I'll bet she wasn't the only child in America who died on Saturday due to a violent act. Many mothers lose children in gang related incidents in the poorer communities of this country every day. We just don't hear about it and it doesn't make national news. And chances are if the congresswomen hadn't been part of the story, this shooting would not have gotten the coverage it did. I'm not saying, it wouldn't gotten coverage, but it probably wouldn't have the only news story this weekend.

That is decidely not how his post came across to me, at least not as the message he was trying to convey with that link to Afghanistan. As an additional message, your interpretation makes sense, at least as such, if not as what Justin was trying to say.

Regardless, I hope my take on what he meant is incorrect.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Actually they get most of them from Central and South America who first get them from Russia, China, and former Soviet and Warsaw Pact nations. I will take a wild stab and guess that I know a lot more about US gun law than you do Eric. Did you know that I cannot go out and buy a Russian built AK-47 because of US law? I have to build one myself, paying careful attention to law to make certain I am in legal compliance (it's called 922(r) if you don't believe me). This of course adds significant cost. Do you really happen to think a lot of Mexican drug lords are heading north to pay $1000 or more in the US for a rifle they can import for $200 from elsewhere?

No, what tends to happen in the case of rifles originating from US sources is that Mexican police and government officials buy their weapons from legitimate vendors in the US. Those rifles are then stolen or sold by corrupt politicians to the various Mexican drug cartels.

Mexican "law" as you so call it, in action.

So you say, but I heard the reports that they are being smuggled in.

Corrupt politicians are by definition not obeying the Mexican law. That's not the fault of the law.

And what the hell are you doing making an AK-47? Give it up and switch to more sane activities please. Don't resent these very reasonable restrictions on you. I only wish they were more severe.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-A myth. The dealers get them from everywhere. The "theycome from the US nonsense" is based on stat's for weapons that were already suspected to have a US source. BTW, Mexico has pretty harsh gun control laws (almost as harsh as their immigration laws ). We can all see how well that works.

Not convinced.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

No, what tends to happen in the case of rifles originating from US sources is that Mexican police and government officials buy their weapons from legitimate vendors in the US. Those rifles are then stolen or sold by corrupt politicians to the various Mexican drug cartels.

Copper,

What is your take on the linked article? Is this what you are talking about?
As Mexico drug violence runs rampant, U.S. guns tied to crime south of border


It's part of a year-long investigation called "the hidden life of guns". Sorry, it's a long-ass article. Do you see it as entirely crap?

Originally Posted by Dedalus

Dude, I am new here and not trying to start anything, but that is extremely naïve.

Go ahead, make my day!

Seriously, discussions are why we are here. Talk away.

Most of the people in our government answer to the people who put them there, the high dollar donors. But more than that, they ARE the same group of people in many cases. How many of the folks in our government come from these companies? And after they “retire” or get voted out, they join the boards of the companies that that helped put them there. For what? The influence and access they have with their fellows who are still in the government. The money and influence stays nicely tied up in the hands of a VERY few at the top, while the rest of us are brainwashed into believing we live in a free society.

I agree with you there completely. Whose fault is that? We the people. We are supposed to put good people in there who answer to us. We are supposed to create a democracy not based on money. We don't; we elect the wrong people, and even when we elect the right ones, we don't keep after them. I may be naive, but I think politicians answer to the people who elected them, when we the people speak up.

Watch what will happen now, under the guise of the tragedy in Arizona. The far right will want to increase the power of surveillance for the police and other federal policing agencies. The far left will want to ban anything bigger than a bb gun.

Seriously? You joke!

Shootings like this happen constantly in America, and neither right nor left do anything about it. Like one poster above said, this incident will be forgotten in a month or so, and the usual shouting match will continue unabated. What is naive is to think we ever learn much from these incidents or do anything about them. Gun laws? We've been waiting for decent gun laws since Sirhan shot RFK. Nothing has been done.

We will probably end up with a hybrid of both. Bottom line, we will have more rules and laws and guidelines, and less freedom. And we will be so busy watching Dancing With the Stars and debating utterly irrelevant things like the merits of the BCS to even notice. The 2 major parties play pong with us, batting us back and forth, all the while knowing if they lose this election, they will be back in 2 or 4 years, because we have no viable alternatives.

I agree, the two parties we have now are dysfunctional. People are deserting them in droves too.

Personally, I think this guy Loughner is a nutball, as someone said on these boards more of a Dylan Klebold than a Timothy McVeigh. He was going to do something to someone, with whatever tools he could muster. In a free society there is no way to protect all of us all the time. Like the father of that poor little girl said, that is preferable to the alternative.

As far as the Patrick Henry thing? We all know what he meant. Guess what folks? We are all here because of a book we read, and if you are here and didn’t read the book, go read it and don’t post again until you do. From what I have read on these forums, most of us believe we are in a 4T phase, we just differ on whether we think it started in 2001 or is just getting underway now. In any event, 4T’s have traditionally been bloody. The last one featured a war largely fought on foreign soils, but previous to that, we did it right here in North America (and England if you extrapolate backwards). If it turns out that way again, the events of last week may sadly become commonplace.

I can't disagree with any of the above, dude.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

And what the hell are you doing making an AK-47? Give it up and switch to more sane activities please.

It boils down to fundamentals, I think. Some people strongly believe that a heavily armed citizenry is a deterent to oppression.

Interestingly, one theory prevaling out there is that the reason women got the right to vote first in the Rocky Mountain states was their access to guns. No kidding -- that was actually being taught when I was in grad school in the mid-90's. Whether correct or not, it is thought-provoking.

You obviously come from a different fundamental point-of-view (and one I ultimately agree with you on). I think the answer is to get involved in government if one feels that way, not spend time putting together AK-47's. But that's just me.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

4T’s have traditionally been bloody. The last one featured a war largely fought on foreign soils, but previous to that, we did it right here in North America (and England if you extrapolate backwards). If it turns out that way again, the events of last week may sadly become commonplace.

Exactly right. Except I'm expecting events of this 4T to be far worse than what happened last week. It's just a matter of time.

Welcome to the boards.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Go ahead, make my day!

Eric the Green with an AK-47. Now that's a sobering thought!