Originally Posted by Zarathustra

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

LOL! Just one point of correction, however... Dirty Harry carried a .44 Magnum.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Are you saying its okay to kill a politician that advocates for a US military presence in Afghanistan?

Hmm..

I've not really weighed in on what would be okay or not. Really, the only point of that story was that the person who was shot was someone who had consistently not only advocated, but actually taken concrete steps to cause violence against and harm to real people (that's what the bullshit phrase 'advocate a military presence' actually means in the context of a person of power). The application of violence or the infliction of harm against such a person strikes me as at worst an ethically grey (if not a positive benefit, depending on specifics).

And yet, an attack against such a person is treated as a primary wrong to which the murder of a child is no more than an "plus, also".

So much more the false equivalency BS, a Palin fanatic posted this on Palin's Facebook page:

"It's ok. Christina Taylor Green was probably going to end up a left wing bleeding heart liberal anyway. Hey, as 'they' say, what would you do if you had the chance to kill Hitler as a kid? Exactly."

These sad excuses for human beings f***ing suck.

Originally Posted by Odin

So much more the false equivalency BS, a Palin fanatic posted this on Palin's Facebook page:These sad excuses for human beings f***ing suck.

If this post was for real, you are right. However, my first thought is that it was put there to trap people who want to believe the worst. I think you have been set up.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

Incitement to riot is a crime and should be.

Riot is a crime (destruction of property, injury to others, etc.) Speech isn't riot, nor can it cause there to be riot when the crowd-to-riot isn't already in rioting-mode. Speaking in the context of a riot is not legitimately a crime.

Conspiracy which is heavily dependent on speech is a crime and should be.

?? "Conspiracy" to do what? That's the crime (or not, in the case of 'conspiracy-to-throw-a-surprise-birthday-party'). Simply talking to some people and not to others about whatever is not legitimately a crime.

There are all kinds of legitimate limits in the areas of commercial speech - what you can and cannot say about your product.

Fraud is a crime. Speech is not.

What keeps happening here, like with the 'crowded theater' cliche, is that speech is being conflated with separate wrongs. Crimes are crimes. Speech isn't that.

Originally Posted by Odin

So much more the false equivalency BS, a Palin fanatic posted this on Palin's Facebook page:



These sad excuses for human beings f***ing suck.

You gotta quit being troll-bait, buddy. It just encourages them.

---

Plus, what J50 said.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Riot is a crime (destruction of property, injury to others, etc.) Speech isn't riot, nor can it cause there to be riot when the crowd-to-riot isn't already in rioting-mode. Speaking in the context of a riot is not legitimately a crime.
?? "Conspiracy" to do what? That's the crime (or not, in the case of 'conspiracy-to-throw-a-surprise-birthday-party'). Simply talking to some people and not to others about whatever is not legitimately a crime.

Fraud is a crime. Speech is not.

What keeps happening here, like with the 'crowded theater' cliche, is that speech is being conflated with separate wrongs. Crimes are crimes. Speech isn't that.

Your argument is semantics. There are no limits to the sounds you can make with your mouth - ie speech - but what is regulated is what those words mean. You do not and should not have unregulated free speech.

BTW - its political speech we need to protect. It so happens that political speech is what is under attack.

James50

Originally Posted by Xer H

What strikes me, after being reminded of the statements by family members of 9/11 victims, is that when people perceive of their government as totalitarian, they're willing to suffer great personal loss while calling for that government to not take extreme action. Others, who (perhaps) approve of their government, welcome extreme action.

There were many who wanted to go to war after 9/11, and many who now want to limit free speech and the right to own guns after Tucson. Green's father is urging that this not be done, despite his great loss.

I have a niece who's the age of little Christina. I would be devastated if she were murdered like this. But I would not call for the government to limit access to our elected officials, or limit our ability to speak our minds, or restrict our right to own weapons (or other self-protection). But then I think our government is treading too close to the line, when it comes to removing freedoms granted in our Constitution. Only slaves accept what they're told without questioning it.

Well said!

Originally Posted by Weave

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

No gun laws with any teeth. The bans on assault weapons don't have any teeth either. Someone is smuggling arms over the border to them from the USA. The other weapons you mention are illegal everywhere. Your fantasy that people could "defend themselves" if they were armed is false. Regular folks with pistols are outgunned and outskilled.

Originally Posted by Xer H

What strikes me, after being reminded of the statements by family members of 9/11 victims, is that when people perceive of their government as totalitarian, they're willing to suffer great personal loss while calling for that government to not take extreme action. Others, who (perhaps) approve of their government, welcome extreme action.

There were many who wanted to go to war after 9/11, and many who now want to limit free speech and the right to own guns after Tucson. Green's father is urging that this not be done, despite his great loss.

I have a niece who's the age of little Christina. I would be devastated if she were murdered like this. But I would not call for the government to limit access to our elected officials, or limit our ability to speak our minds, or restrict our right to own weapons (or other self-protection). But then I think our government is treading too close to the line, when it comes to removing freedoms granted in our Constitution. Only slaves accept what they're told without questioning it.

The "right" to own guns is an American obsession and masculine fetish. Guns do not protect people; they get stolen or are used accidentally to kill people. That right is only granted in the constitution to those who interpret it such, including our Supreme Court appointed by a president whom it itself appointed. It is not equivalent to bans on free speech. I hope what is being heard today are just calls to cool the hateful and threatening rhetoric, not ban it.

But these days we are told to accept the "right" to own guns without questioning it. The idea that guns afford protection is a dogma that people have accepted without question. I hope this incident reopens this debate; but then again, it never seems to lead anywhere anyway. We continue to accept that American must be a gun-totin' society. Many people die in these incidents because we accept this.

Originally Posted by Xer H

LOL! Just one point of correction, however... Dirty Harry carried a .44 Magnum.

I thought about that, but the image of Eric with an assault rifle (under discussion) was something I didn't want to muddy with consistency.

**For the record, to all and sundry, I am not suggesting that Eric is violent. It is the ironic juxtaposing of a firearm and his peaceful, if passionate, ways that struck me as humorous.**

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The "right" to own guns is an American obsession and masculine fetish. Guns do not protect people; they get stolen or are used accidentally to kill people. That right is only granted in the constitution to those who interpret it such, including our Supreme Court appointed by a president whom it itself appointed. It is not equivalent to bans on free speech. I hope what is being heard today are just calls to cool the hateful and threatening rhetoric, not ban it.

But these days we are told to accept the "right" to own guns without questioning it. The idea that guns afford protection is a dogma that people have accepted without question. I hope this incident reopens this debate; but then again, it never seems to lead anywhere anyway. We continue to accept that American must be a gun-totin' society. Many people die in these incidents because we accept this.

Sorry, Eric, but you're just wrong. You are welcome to your view, though... many people hold it.

Drug cartels have aggressively turned to the United States because Mexico severely restricts gun ownership. Following gunrunning paths that have been in place for 50 years, firearms cross the border and end up in the hands of criminals as well as ordinary citizens seeking protection.

"This is not a new phenomenon," Webb said.

What is different now, authorities say, is the number of high-powered rifles heading south - AR-15s, AK-47s, armor-piercing .50-caliber weapons - and the savagery of the violence.

Federal authorities say more than 60,000 U.S. guns of all types have been recovered in Mexico in the past four years, helping fuel the violence that has contributed to 30,000 deaths. Mexican President Felipe Calderon came to Washington in May and urged Congress and President Obama to stop the flow of guns south.

U.S. law enforcement has ramped up its focus on gun trafficking along the southwestern border. Arrests of individual gunrunners have surged. But investigators rarely bring regulatory actions or criminal cases against U.S. gun dealers, in part because of laws backed by the gun lobby that make it difficult to prove cases.

Thanks for posting this Zarathustra, from the Washington Post. I guess the pro-gun folks here don't want to read it.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

The application of violence or the infliction of harm against such a person strikes me as at worst an ethically grey (if not a positive benefit, depending on specifics).

Still find that position disturbing.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

And yet, an attack against such a person is treated as a primary wrong to which the murder of a child is no more than an "plus, also".

I see both sides on that. OT1H, their lives should have equivalence. OTOH, what makes the congresswoman special is her function in society. An attack on her is also an attack on that function. And ultimately that function is vital. Though you may not think so, I have a feeling.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

No gun laws with any teeth. The bans on assault weapons don't have any teeth either. Someone is smuggling arms over the border to them from the USA. The other weapons you mention are illegal everywhere. Your fantasy that people could "defend themselves" if they were armed is false. Regular folks with pistols are outgunned and outskilled.

Lots of "regular" folks defend themselves from violent attack almost everyday here in America. You can simply go to many gun enthusiast websites and find many stories of self defense. Yes training is important, in fact the NRA and other organizations offer many classes on self defense with firearms. The laws here have teeth. Try violating one of them if you think they are weak. The simple fact is you really just dont want anyone owning them thus the laws are "weak".

We have a pretty heavy law agianst "assault weapons" because true assault weapons have a selct fire switch that allow syou to fire fully auto which is totaly illegal in the USA unless you have special permits which few have. Machine guns have been illegal since the 1934 act.

You clearly do not know much about firearms or firearm issues. Hoplophobia is a treatable disorder......

Originally Posted by James50

Your argument is semantics. There are no limits to the sounds you can make with your mouth - ie speech - but what is regulated is what those words mean. You do not and should not have unregulated free speech.

It's about as far as possible from semantics. In fact, the point of free speech is the recognition that people do and should have the freedom to exchange whatever ideas they want with whomever they want. That's 'speech' (and why, by the way, it includes more than just mouth-sounds). Regulation of speech is wrong for the same reasons as would be regulation-of-thought.

...it's political speech we need to protect.

There is no such thing as 'political' speech as a category distinct from 'nonpolitical speech'. Speech (here as above, as always, the communication of ideas by whatever means) can appear political or not-political based on the context in which it is observed. It is the context that is political, not the speech.

I repeat: there is no legitimate restriction on speech.

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. Don't resent these very reasonable restrictions on you. I only wish they were more severe.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but primarily to protect myself from people like you. Now that is not to say in the event of confiscation, that I expect you personally will be showing up to pitch in. I understand that you will gladly hide behind the police during such an event.

Oh, it's also a great rifle.

Just a question Eric. Have you ever fired a gun? I'm curious as to your area of expertise in the matter given your seemingly superhuman ability to judge "saneness" over the internet based on what is sitting in my gun safe. I also have a nice AR-15 in there, right beside a Saiga-12 shotgun. There is also a .22 rifle in there. That list doesn't include a few more rifles at the family farm or my revolver; it's just what I keep in the safe here. Do these inert weapons frighten you? Ever fired one? Have you ever even held one in your hands? I am guessing not and yet you want, nay demand changes to public policy and a curtailment of civil liberties from a seat of ignorance? Some people might consider that to be irrational.

Hell I've seen a lot in the news about neuro-surgery the past few days, but I don't believe that makes me an expert on the matter, nor do I wish to add any input into any new regulations binding the practice. I understand that I might just need a neuro-surgeon someday.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

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?

Not necessarily. It's important to quote statistics, but it is equally important to define the story behind them. If an AR-15 is bought from a store in Texas and ends up in a drug dealer's hands, that's not the entire story. Who bought it? Why did they buy it? How did it get to Mexico? If 60,000 US guns are confiscated from Mexican drug lords but Mexican drug lords imported 6 million guns (I am simply throwing this number out for argument's sake) from countries other than the United States, then the statistics could be seen in a different light.

Is the article right or wrong? I don't know. I haven't studied the statistics myself, which I would do if the topic of Mexican drug violence really interested or concerned me. I generally try to take media accounts with a grain of salt you understand. The Washington Post has an agenda as does the NRA who refutes the article's premise (I trust both parties equally which is to say, I don't trust either party very much).

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

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

What makes you say that? At the very least he would be less ignorant and have a better understanding of firearms. Given that he seems interested in restricting a constitutional right I would think one would hope he was an expert in the subject rather than some knee-jerk.

Originally Posted by Xer H

LOL! Just one point of correction, however... Dirty Harry carried a .44 Magnum.

I have one of those. It stays loaded and sleeps right below me.

Originally Posted by Xer H

LOL! Just one point of correction, however... Dirty Harry carried a .44 Magnum.

I think if it comes down to it, the right seems more willing to take up arms than the left, and would win the fight against we peaceniks. However, it might end up looking more like Waco and Ruby Ridge, on a larger scale, with another Janet Reno doing the work for our side. It might be that the militancy of the Right will backfire on them, just as militancy on the Left had a similar effect on them in the late 1960s.

If Sarah Palin and her ilk run the country though, all bets may be off. We on the Left will just be repressed again as we were in the 1960s, with worse results for the country and the world. We'll see; the 4T has just begun.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

. . . masculine fetish.

NTTIAWWT !

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

But these days we are told to accept the "right" to own guns without questioning it. The idea that guns afford protection is a dogma that people have accepted without question. I hope this incident reopens this debate; but then again, it never seems to lead anywhere anyway. We continue to accept that American must be a gun-totin' society. Many people die in these incidents because we accept this.

I always wondered how the "well-regulated militia" portion of the amendment factors into gun enthusiasts thinking, myself.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Not to put too fine a point on it, but primarily to protect myself from people like you. Now that is not to say in the event of confiscation, that I expect you personally will be showing up to pitch in. I understand that you will gladly hide behind the police during such an event.

Gladly indeed.

Just a question Eric. Have you ever fired a gun? I'm curious as to your area of expertise in the matter given your seemingly superhuman ability to judge "saneness" over the internet based on what is sitting in my gun safe. I also have a nice AR-15 in there, right beside a Saiga-12 shotgun. There is also a .22 rifle in there. That list doesn't include a few more rifles at the family farm or my revolver; it's just what I keep in the safe here. Do these inert weapons frighten you? Ever fired one? Have you ever even held one in your hands? I am guessing not and yet you want, nay demand changes to public policy and a curtailment of civil liberties from a seat of ignorance? Some people might consider that to be irrational.

Not at all. Whether one has, or has fired, a gun has no relevance to the question.

Another thing I have never understood. Granted that you keep a gun under your pillow, but we are supposed to keep these guns locked up like your others. What good are locked-up guns when a burglar or government agent shows up at your bedroom door and points a gun at you? There's no time to get your gun.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The "right" to own guns is an American obsession and masculine fetish. Guns do not protect people; they get stolen or are used accidentally to kill people. That right is only granted in the constitution to those who interpret it such, including our Supreme Court appointed by a president whom it itself appointed. It is not equivalent to bans on free speech. I hope what is being heard today are just calls to cool the hateful and threatening rhetoric, not ban it.

But these days we are told to accept the "right" to own guns without questioning it. The idea that guns afford protection is a dogma that people have accepted without question. I hope this incident reopens this debate; but then again, it never seems to lead anywhere anyway. We continue to accept that American must be a gun-totin' society. Many people die in these incidents because we accept this.

Eric, I am extremely offended by this post. Most of us gun owners are not knuckle-dragging idiots.

One of the first things an authoritarian regime does when it takes power is to disarm the populace to quash possible resistance to it's rule

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

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.

I wish I still believed that. I think that, to start with, with basically have decent people elected to congress. Some arrive jaded already from state politics or corporate politics. The good ones, the Mr/Ms Smiths of the bunch, come to Washington all full of ideals and how they are going to make a difference and everything. And then they are subtly subverted.

First, they get the welcoming committee, the office in the capitol building, the staff, the luncheons, the hobnobbing with power brokers. They get called to meetings with bigwigs in the party, maybe the president himself, they are treated graciously by these people. They feel important. Then a big vote comes up, and maybe they feel like the party line isn't correct, or they haven't read the legislation. They get the call from the whip making sure they are going to vote "correctly" and if they aren't, the pressure starts. They delude themselves that this one vote won't matter, and boom, it starts. Soon they are in the fold and part of the bloc. Maybe they campaigned against earmarks, but now they are told this is how the game is played, you have to play ball, here is a perk for your district so that your people are taken care of... Just vote this way on this bill for this company or industry, and you will have nice comfy seat on the board when you retire with a salary you barely have to do anything for... and it gets to even the best of people. Power corrupts.

I don't know about this new class of representatives, these Tea Party folks. They were elected for their principals I'm told. I wonder how long it will take for them to be seduced by power?

Now, I could be wrong about all of that, but I am a Joneser/Xer, so I am naturally pessimistic.

Originally Posted by Odin

Eric, I am extremely offended by this post. Most of us gun owners are not knuckle-dragging idiots.

One of the first things an authoritarian regime does when it takes power is to disarm the populace to quash possible resistance to it's rule

What are you doing with a gun, Odin? Be offended then.

As I said before, it is a total fantasy to believe that individuals with guns can stop the army of an authoritarian regime. Again, learn from Waco and Ruby Ridge. It won't work. Janet Reno will win, and you will lose your life.

Please get rid of your gun before it hurts someone. I value your life and those of your family and friends.

It's about time Americans left and right outgrew their gun fetish. But I understand; like everything else in this country, things move at glacial speed. What I mean is that many Americans do accept this idea, and gun control is brushed aside today.

I accept that you are a gun owner, and can think. That is obvious. Well, think then; and get rid of your gun Odin.

Originally Posted by Zarathustra

Still find that position disturbing.

There's an old saying about what those who live by the sword can expect. What's disturbing is not the consequences, but the choice to engage in behavior that can have those consequences.

I see both sides on that. OT1H, their lives should have equivalence. OTOH, what makes the congresswoman special is her function in society.

On the gripping hand, a person who doesn't hurt people not only is not equivalent to someone who does engage in harming others -- he is superior.

Originally Posted by Dedalus

I wish I still believed that. I think that, to start with, with basically have decent people elected to congress. Some arrive jaded already from state politics or corporate politics. The good ones, the Mr/Ms Smiths of the bunch, come to Washington all full of ideals and how they are going to make a difference and everything. And then they are subtly subverted.

First, they get the welcoming committee, the office in the capitol building, the staff, the luncheons, the hobnobbing with power brokers. They get called to meetings with bigwigs in the party, maybe the president himself, they are treated graciously by these people. They feel important. Then a big vote comes up, and maybe they feel like the party line isn't correct, or they haven't read the legislation. They get the call from the whip making sure they are going to vote "correctly" and if they aren't, the pressure starts. They delude themselves that this one vote won't matter, and boom, it starts. Soon they are in the fold and part of the bloc. Maybe they campaigned against earmarks, but now they are told this is how the game is played, you have to play ball, here is a perk for your district so that your people are taken care of... Just vote this way on this bill for this company or industry, and you will have nice comfy seat on the board when you retire with a salary you barely have to do anything for... and it gets to even the best of people. Power corrupts.

Yes, but power is necessary. We just need checks and balances. We've had an era of apathy; perhaps that may be ending.

I don't know about this new class of representatives, these Tea Party folks. They were elected for their principals I'm told. I wonder how long it will take for them to be seduced by power?

About as fast as you can say "tea party." These folks are only interested in lowering their own taxes. They have no principles to start with, so it won't be hard to corrupt them.

Now, I could be wrong about all of that, but I am a Joneser/Xer, so I am naturally pessimistic.

I understand.