Majority Whip Steve Scalise Shot at Charity Baseball Practice

[Reddy]

Well said, especially for you.

It's so bizarre how poorly y'all know me. But that's my fault, and the joy of the anonymity of the Internet.

 

Edit: and the fact that I've been part of the problem in regard to divisive rhetoric. It's not gonna completely stop, because I'm passionate about what I believe, but over the last week's and months I've realized we all need to do a better job of listening, myself included.

Edited June 15, 2017 by Reddy

[caulfield12]

How many times does someone from the GOP argue they need to listen more...?

 

Democrats get called weak or soft for even taking that seemingly reasonable approach. Attacking the Clinton's, Obama, Pelosi, anyone who challenges expansion of gun rights...has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in fundraising that just perpetuates the cycle of attack ads.

 

 

People hate the "both sides do it" nature of some corners of mainstream journalism, believing that it creates a sense of equivalency when there is none. Fair enough.

 

But in this case, both sides do do it! Casting your political opponents as not just wrong but dangerous motivates the bases of the respective parties. And fired-up bases turn out. And that, for most politicians, is plenty of justification to keep playing to the extremes rather than trying to land somewhere in between those two poles.

 

Until the electorate stops rewarding politicians for saying the most outlandish things about the other party, they will keep right on doing it -- no matter how many attacks like the one Wednesday morning happen. Depressing but true.

Chris Cilizza, CNN.com

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/ted-nugent-promise...-205716922.html

Ted Nugent has seen the light about divisive rhetoric fomenting violence

Edited June 15, 2017 by caulfield12

[greg775]

I absolutely hate every single thing about this. I was in Arlington yesterday when it happened. Not far. I had lunch with a former Congressman hours after the shooting, and it was definitely weird for him. He'd played in that game for 23 years.

 

I don't pray, but I'm hoping Scalise comes through this alright. NO ONE deserves to be shot for their political beliefs, and any liberal who says he "had it coming" is not someone I want to associate with.

 

But I will say that I hate that a deranged, far-left radical can completely undermine every single bit of progress liberals have made against the Trump agenda in one swoop, and validate every Trump supporter in America.

 

I'm nervous about the impact it has here in Georgia. I just got to the 6th this afternoon for GOTV, and both campaigns have had to put out statements about receiving death threats in the last two hours. I'm nervous about knocking on doors all weekend. But we can't let fear dictate our lives, and we need to spread a message of compassion. We have to start listening to each other. The end.

No time for "I told you sos." But my statements about Texas becoming its own country or California or several other states breaking away don't seem so far off. Our country is so un-divided right now. We all hate each other. Liberals vs. conservatives are ready for war with their pathetic threats against each other on social media, etc. I've never run into more people in real life and social media who DESPISE the president this badly. All these horrible incidents of violence. It is wicked of me to say but it's not unreasonable to think Trump is going to get killed before he's impeached and if some nutjob or some anger driven crazed person kills him, the riots will be all over.

 

I'm praying for the best, but the USA is so divided right now. It's crazy at all the hate. I hesitate to say the only time we come together as a country is in these cities where disasters occur. We do bond together AT THE SCENE of these horrific acts. Not as a nation though.

GOD BLESS AMERICA! CMON PEOPLE WAKE UP AND LETS BE TOGETHER not divided.

[greg775]

I don't pray, but I'm hoping Scalise comes through this alright. NO ONE deserves to be shot for their political beliefs, and any liberal who says he "had it coming" is not someone I want to associate with.

Best wishes to you for writing a great statement like that.

[Reddy]

How many times does someone from the GOP argue they need to listen more...?

 

Democrats get called weak or soft for even taking that seemingly reasonable approach. Attacking the Clinton's, Obama, Pelosi, anyone who challenges expansion of gun rights...has resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars in fundraising that just perpetuates the cycle of attack ads.

 

 

People hate the "both sides do it" nature of some corners of mainstream journalism, believing that it creates a sense of equivalency when there is none. Fair enough.

 

But in this case, both sides do do it! Casting your political opponents as not just wrong but dangerous motivates the bases of the respective parties. And fired-up bases turn out. And that, for most politicians, is plenty of justification to keep playing to the extremes rather than trying to land somewhere in between those two poles.

 

Until the electorate stops rewarding politicians for saying the most outlandish things about the other party, they will keep right on doing it -- no matter how many attacks like the one Wednesday morning happen. Depressing but true.

Chris Cilizza, CNN.com

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/ted-nugent-promise...-205716922.html

Ted Nugent has seen the light about divisive rhetoric fomenting violence

 

Dude it doesn't matter. I can't control what Republicans do. I can't control how they perceive me. I can control whether I'm contributing to the problem or not. And I'm going to do my best to stop contributing to the problem.

 

I can't control them. I can control me. Liberals can't control what Republicans do, but we can control what we do. We're the ones who want change, right? They don't. So it's us that need to do whatever it takes to reach out to them and create arguments that will bring them to us. Divisive, angry, hateful rhetoric will never achieve that goal.

[caulfield12]

Dude it doesn't matter. I can't control what Republicans do. I can't control how they perceive me. I can control whether I'm contributing to the problem or not. And I'm going to do my best to stop contributing to the problem.

 

I can't control them. I can control me. Liberals can't control what Republicans do, but we can control what we do. We're the ones who want change, right? They don't. So it's us that need to do whatever it takes to reach out to them and create arguments that will bring them to us. Divisive, angry, hateful rhetoric will never achieve that goal.

 

To me, it's more practical.

 

Take back the lost center...those are arguments that can be won.

 

Get away from the Wall Street connections (nationally, by 1%, Dems are more connected by potential voters to the banking industry than Republicans...which is comical).

 

Health care is a big part of the battle, but it really comes down to standing up for policies than benefit the 40-60th quintiles of the US population.

 

The way Trump's going, it will be easy to argue what NOT to do. Articulating policies that can gather bipartisan support (triangulating) is the logical way to go...the right always goes too far when they have power, and the pendulum will naturally shift back to the middle again.

[ptatc]

Dude it doesn't matter. I can't control what Republicans do. I can't control how they perceive me. I can control whether I'm contributing to the problem or not. And I'm going to do my best to stop contributing to the problem.

 

I can't control them. I can control me. Liberals can't control what Republicans do, but we can control what we do. We're the ones who want change, right? They don't. So it's us that need to do whatever it takes to reach out to them and create arguments that will bring them to us. Divisive, angry, hateful rhetoric will never achieve that goal.

We finally have something to agree on with politics.

[EvilMonkey]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/con...pons/index.html

Meanwhile, GOP doubling down on gun control with their "good guy with a gun" scenario that usually works much better in the movies where lots of bystanders don't get killed.

 

I'd hate to imagine if Rand Paul's "it would have been a bloodbath" scenario came to pass...everyone in the US would have been allowed the right to carry a gun everywhere they went beginning next week after a law was quickly jammed through.

Well it was a 'good guy with a gun' that saved them, so why not? One of the members stated that if it wasn't for the one guy standing up and shooting back, he would have walked around the dugout wall and shot them all. Would you rather they all be dead to satisfy your anti-gun stance? You always imagine a scene where everyone whips out a gun and goes to shooting, but that doesn't happen. You don't need everyone, just a few. My gun is to protect ME. I have no desire to be hero-on-the-spot, I am not rushing to go shoot the bad guy, but if he is trying to shoot me, I will shoot back. Assuming I am not in a gun free zone, that is.

[pettie4sox]

Well it was a 'good guy with a gun' that saved them, so why not? One of the members stated that if it wasn't for the one guy standing up and shooting back, he would have walked around the dugout wall and shot them all. Would you rather they all be dead to satisfy your anti-gun stance? You always imagine a scene where everyone whips out a gun and goes to shooting, but that doesn't happen. You don't need everyone, just a few. My gun is to protect ME. I have no desire to be hero-on-the-spot, I am not rushing to go shoot the bad guy, but if he is trying to shoot me, I will shoot back. Assuming I am not in a gun free zone, that is.

 

Shiittttt Alpha we all know you carry in those gun free zones anyway.

[caulfield12]

Well it was a 'good guy with a gun' that saved them, so why not? One of the members stated that if it wasn't for the one guy standing up and shooting back, he would have walked around the dugout wall and shot them all. Would you rather they all be dead to satisfy your anti-gun stance? You always imagine a scene where everyone whips out a gun and goes to shooting, but that doesn't happen. You don't need everyone, just a few. My gun is to protect ME. I have no desire to be hero-on-the-spot, I am not rushing to go shoot the bad guy, but if he is trying to shoot me, I will shoot back. Assuming I am not in a gun free zone, that is.

 

The problem is 95% of the people in the country are not so well trained or accurate...panicking when you have a gun in your hands, we occasionally hear about experienced police officers doing that when feeling threatened.

 

In the end, the gun control battle will be fought by the mothers of this country.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/us/escaped-g...ured/index.html

Homeowners with guns capture escaped Georgia inmates

Edited June 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[Quin]

Well it was a 'good guy with a gun' that saved them, so why not? One of the members stated that if it wasn't for the one guy standing up and shooting back, he would have walked around the dugout wall and shot them all. Would you rather they all be dead to satisfy your anti-gun stance? You always imagine a scene where everyone whips out a gun and goes to shooting, but that doesn't happen. You don't need everyone, just a few. My gun is to protect ME. I have no desire to be hero-on-the-spot, I am not rushing to go shoot the bad guy, but if he is trying to shoot me, I will shoot back. Assuming I am not in a gun free zone, that is.

 

The counter argument is the Dallas shooting last year. There were s lot of good guys with guns.

 

[Reddy]

It was good guys with expert level training that saved the day in Alexandria, Alpha... Turns out they're way better at protecting you than you are.

[pettie4sox]

The counter argument is the Dallas shooting last year. There were s lot of good guys with guns.

 

Wasn't that guy special forces though? Hard for local PD to deal with someone of that caliber.

[Quin]

Wasn't that guy special forces though? Hard for local PD to deal with someone of that caliber.

 

I know he was military.

 

But now take a situation where it's just an average Don't Tread on Me against someone who has prepared for s situation for a long time.

[Texsox]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/politics/con...pons/index.html

Meanwhile, GOP doubling down on gun control with their "good guy with a gun" scenario that usually works much better in the movies where lots of bystanders don't get killed.

 

I'd hate to imagine if Rand Paul's "it would have been a bloodbath" scenario came to pass...everyone in the US would have been allowed the right to carry a gun everywhere they went beginning next week after a law was quickly jammed through.

We can create scenarios in which untrained civilians with guns end in tragedy. How about the guy is pointing a gun at your head from five feet away? Do you want a gun then?

 

We can go back and forth making up situations. You pick ones where an armed civilian is bad, I will create one where an armed civilian is good. What does that really prove?

 

 

[pettie4sox]

We can create scenarios in which untrained civilians with guns end in tragedy. How about the guy is pointing a gun at your head from five feet away? Do you want a gun then?

 

We can go back and forth making up situations. You pick ones where an armed civilian is bad, I will create one where an armed civilian is good. What does that really prove?

 

If your gun isn't drawn, you're still cadaverous.

[StrangeSox]

This country didn't do s*** after over 20 children were gunned down. It isn't going to do anything now.

 

Actually, scratch that. Many states around the country actually loosened gun laws in response to Sandy Hook.

[EvilMonkey]

The problem is 95% of the people in the country are not so well trained or accurate...panicking when you have a gun in your hands, we occasionally hear about experienced police officers doing that when feeling threatened.

 

In the end, the gun control battle will be fought by the mothers of this country.

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/15/us/escaped-g...ured/index.html

Homeowners with guns capture escaped Georgia inmates

I laugh at your thought that police in general are 'well trained'. Most departments have zero range qualifications after the first year and they certainly don't have the budget to allow cops to train on the city's dime. You are again assuming a scene where everyone has a gun and will panic. yes, you might. And not everyone has a gun. if you think you can't handle one, don't get one. Practice if you do. I was nervous as hell in my one time having to defend myself with arms, but still ready to do so.

[illinilaw08]

I laugh at your thought that police in general are 'well trained'. Most departments have zero range qualifications after the first year and they certainly don't have the budget to allow cops to train on the city's dime. You are again assuming a scene where everyone has a gun and will panic. yes, you might. And not everyone has a gun. if you think you can't handle one, don't get one. Practice if you do. I was nervous as hell in my one time having to defend myself with arms, but still ready to do so.

 

This is the problem here. I know a lot of very responsible firearm owners. And I know some people who own firearms and think that by virtue of owning a gun, they are John Wayne. The problem with the bolded is that there are some number on firearm owners who can't responsibly handle their weapon, and that can innocent victims at risk.

 

If I could rearrange the bolded, I'd say, "if you can't handle one, you can't get one."

[caulfield12]

How many kids or young adults under age 30 believe they're qualified to "deal out justice" by virtue of mastering shooting games like Counterstrike or Overwatch???

 

https://learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/17/fact-...armed-citizens/

By this argument, we should just get rid of the police entirely and re-enact The Purge on a daily basis in America.

 

 

One of the recurring anti gun arguments that I hear centers on the mistaken belief that gun owners will end up shooting an innocent person (such as a child, bystander, etc.) when trying to defend themselves against a criminal. The fact is that armed citizens are about 5.5 times less likely than the police to accidentally shoot the wrong person.

 

[A]lthough only 2 percent of those involved in civilian shootings are misidentified, 11 percent of individuals involved in police shootings were later found to be innocents misidentified as criminals.

Edited June 16, 2017 by caulfield12

[Texsox]

If we base our laws on what the least responsible person in America will do then we lose everything. One big difference is most anything irresponsible someone can do with a gun almost always means they have broken a law.

[illinilaw08]

If we base our laws on what the least responsible person in America will do then we lose everything. One big difference is most anything irresponsible someone can do with a gun almost always means they have broken a law.

 

But we already base some laws around that. There's a minimum test of competency to drive a car here. Why? Because someone who does not know how to operate a car is a major danger to the rest of society. I know that the Second Amendment, in theory, creates the distinction between firearms and cars, but to me they aren't that dissimilar - particularly when confronted with the Open Carry guys.

[pettie4sox]

I feel like people are blowing off their own body parts more than actually shooting the wrong people.

[Quin]

But we already base some laws around that. There's a minimum test of competency to drive a car here. Why? Because someone who does not know how to operate a car is a major danger to the rest of society. I know that the Second Amendment, in theory, creates the distinction between firearms and cars, but to me they aren't that dissimilar - particularly when confronted with the Open Carry guys.

 

Just make it so everyone can have access to a firearm.

 

However, if they fit the profile of someone that will use it in a mass shooting, then they have to pay more for the gun. But, they still have access to top of the line guns.

[Reddy]

Just make it so everyone can have access to a firearm.

 

However, if they fit the profile of someone that will use it in a mass shooting, then they have to pay more for the gun. But, they still have access to top of the line guns.

 

Seems reasonable