Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords shot in head

[NorthSideSox72]

i think you mis-understood my point or i mis stated it.

 

Take those people with readily displayed rifles at the President's events recently. While the USSS certainly takes a look at them for protecting the President, I'm not naive enough to think that someone displaying a fire arm in open public, is really trying to pull off an assaniation plot on an elected official.

 

What I'm saying, is that during their protests, they run into counter protestors and things turn ugly (say Rand Paul supporter stomping on head ugly) by keeping these guns out of the mix, will certainly save some lives amongst these people in the future.

First, people are not readily displaying rifles AT Presidential events. They are somewhere in the very general vicinity, and that distinction is key.

 

Second, the only way to deal with what you are saying is to outlaw carrying guns at any sort of public event or protest of any kind, and that is a fairly large intrusion on 2A rights.

 

[iamshack]

In what sort of world would you not expect Palin's map and the violent rhetoric directed specifically at Giffords by some not to be brought up and questioned after someone puts a bullet through her head?

 

Are/were some rushing to conclusions to make political points or confirm pre-existing biases? Absolutely. But it isn't a problem solely of the left, and I think it's ridiculous that many on the right are painting themselves as victims here. Look at some of the vitriol Rush has spewed. Look at what Republicans are saying in comment sections of news articles or on conservatives forums and blogs. Yeah, you're seeing the same things on HuffPo or TPM, and yeah, I also find it disgusting. But it's no different. Label this crazy person as a member of your political enemies and use it to justify and intensify your hatred and dehumanization of them.

 

But to say this is truly frightening? Pure hatred flowing out in the open? Isn't that going a bit far? What if this guy was a Muslim or had said his favorite book was the Koran? Even if there were no real ties to radical Islam, no ties in his ideology and what drove him to kill to his religion, would we honestly be shocked to see this brought up over and over and over again in the media? To be used by many as an excuse to justify and intensify their hatred and dehumanization of Muslims?

 

Maybe I'm just too cynical, but this is just "business as usual" to me. Perhaps those on the right are not quite as used to being painted with such a broad brush as those on left and are shocked and dismayed at how unfair and unjust and unreasonable it is.

Great post.

 

I don't really identify much with either party, because all the nonsense that goes with politics in the last 10-15 years disgusts me to the point of choosing not to really participate. I see good ideas coming from both parties at times, but hate the entire process so much that I can't really be bothered with it. And as you guys know, there are not many things that I can't be bothered with.

 

So I guess what I am saying is that coming from someone who is not really on either side here, I find the immediate finger pointing by the Dems to be insensitive and almost sickening, but the dramatic "how could you possibly say such a thing" by the Republicans to be disingenuous and pathetic.

 

This was a tragedy brought about by the fact that NSS pointed out, some people are just crazy and stupid. The discussions that should be taking place are not which party might be to blame for this, because there isn't one to blame, but rather, how has our political system reached this point where this debate is even occurring? In the wake of such a tragedy and such an outrageous assault on our right to democracy, how is this what the issue has become?

 

I mentioned this earlier in the thread and I guess I'll repeat it again here, but this should not illuminate a failure to provide adequate protection for politicians, because again, as NSS and others have pointed out, all that can be done to protect our politicians is being done, at least with the technology that is currently available, but rather, it should illuminate the disgusting culture of political mudslinging for even the most minute political gain, even if it is at the hands of a reprehensible tragedy such as this. That, honestly, is more frightening to me than all the dramatic and fabricated outrage taking place by both parties here.

[BigSqwert]

In what sort of world would you not expect Palin's map and the violent rhetoric directed specifically at Giffords by some not to be brought up and questioned after someone puts a bullet through her head?

 

Especially since Giffords

because something terrible could happen as a result.

[iamshack]

Especially since Giffords

because something terrible could happen as a result.

But still Sqwert, and I know you are very liberal in your beliefs, you can't honestly believe that the target map in any way could be interpreted by anyone who is at all sane in a literal manner. I mean, come on. There are limits on how far one can stretch the politicising of things...

[BigSqwert]

But still Sqwert, and I know you are very liberal in your beliefs, you can't honestly believe that the target map in any way could be interpreted by anyone who is at all sane in a literal manner. I mean, come on. There are limits on how far one can stretch the politicising of things...

I believe I mentioned this 50 times in here. No, I don't believe it's what caused the shooting.

[iamshack]

I believe I mentioned this 50 times in here. No, I don't believe it's what caused the shooting.

I know you have said it didn't cause it. No one has said it has. But you just brought up the darn target map again. What for?

[bmags]

But still Sqwert, and I know you are very liberal in your beliefs, you can't honestly believe that the target map in any way could be interpreted by anyone who is at all sane in a literal manner. I mean, come on. There are limits on how far one can stretch the politicising of things...

 

It's not about that. There are times in life where things get really heated and you say and do things, and then an event happens where you realize the other people are humans. They have families. They are a lot like you and we all need to be more respectful. These are the silver linings of tragedies, for a little bit we remember that we are a lot alike, and our differences are not life and death.

 

This was pretty much the reaction once the hubub died down. And everyone started to realize things have gotten a bit out of control. And then someone decided to come out and make herself the victim.

[BigSqwert]

I know you have said it didn't cause it. No one has said it has. But you just brought up the darn target map again. What for?

To illustrate that it's not unreasonable to question Palin or bring up what she said/did. There are obvious questions that any sane person could make by looking at what happened.

 

Time line:

 

- Palin issues map with sniper targets attached to names

- One of the people on the map asks Palin to take it down because it could incite violence

- That same person gets shot in the head

 

Of course people will make those connections whether it directly caused the shooting or not. It's human nature.

Edited January 14, 2011 by BigSqwert

[Controlled Chaos]

To illustrate that it's not unreasonable to question Palin or bring up what she said/did. There are obvious questions that any sane person could make by looking at what happened.

 

Time line:

 

- Palin issues map with sniper targets attached to names

- One of the people on the map asks Palin to take it down because it could incite violence

- That same person gets shot in the head

 

Of course people will make those connections whether it directly caused the shooting or not. It's human nature.

not

 

[BigSqwert]

not

I guess that's why so many people are talking about.

[NorthSideSox72]

not

Yeah that helps the discussion.

 

I don't agree with BS here, but he's at least trying to make a salient point and defend it.

 

[iamshack]

To illustrate that it's not unreasonable to question Palin or bring up what she said/did. There are obvious questions that any sane person could make by looking at what happened.

 

Time line:

 

- Palin issues map with sniper targets attached to names

- One of the people on the map asks Palin to take it down because it could incite violence

- That same person gets shot in the head

 

Of course people will make those connections whether it directly caused the shooting or not. It's human nature.

I disagree with BMags and you here. This is called "coincidence." A really, really sad and unfortunate one, but I deem it entirely coincidence. Now if one of the other people with a target on them in that map gets attacked soon, then I will concede you might have been right.

 

And to BMags point, I disagree. This isn't going to stop or change anything. In fact, both parties have seized on it for political gain. Instead of there being some realization that this has all gone too far, it has gone even further. I don't believe the outrage or the fabricated sadness one bit. Yes, we are all sad and frustrated that this happened. It's terrible. But now both parties are tripping over themselves to see which can be more sorry and more sad and more outraged than the other to see which can come out of this looking better.

 

It's not making anything better. The parties are only descending into a lower form of pathetic.

[jasonxctf]

First, people are not readily displaying rifles AT Presidential events. They are somewhere in the very general vicinity, and that distinction is key.

 

Second, the only way to deal with what you are saying is to outlaw carrying guns at any sort of public event or protest of any kind, and that is a fairly large intrusion on 2A rights.

 

Certainly I'm not a legal scholar, but couldn't the same type of laws that prevent people from carrying weapons on airplanes or in schools be applied to political events where elected officials are present?

[NorthSideSox72]

Certainly I'm not a legal scholar, but couldn't the same type of laws that prevent people from carrying weapons on airplanes or in schools be applied to political events where elected officials are present?

Well first, they already are some of the time. Second, yes, you could pass such a law, but to what breadth? If its any elected official, that's a whole lot of people, when you consider local officials. And what defines a "political" event? Do you include candidates? Such a law could quickly become very restrictive if not made appropriately narrow. And furthermore, if people are looking to do harm, such a law is probably not going to achieve anything, because they will simply not follow the lesser law (since they plan to break the bigger one anyway).

 

[jasonxctf]

But still Sqwert, and I know you are very liberal in your beliefs, you can't honestly believe that the target map in any way could be interpreted by anyone who is at all sane in a literal manner. I mean, come on. There are limits on how far one can stretch the politicising of things...

 

from what I've read, congresswoman giffords challenger in the 2010 election, had events where participants were encouraged to shoot M16's for fun, while listening to the politican talk about the importance of taking out Giffords. Certainly taking out wasn't meant to be shooting her, but again, this rhetoric needs to be changed.

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01...from-office.php

[NorthSideSox72]

from what I've read, congresswoman giffords challenger in the 2010 election, had events where participants were encouraged to shoot M16's for fun, while listening to the politican talk about the importance of taking out Giffords. Certainly taking out wasn't meant to be shooting her, but again, this rhetoric needs to be changed.

 

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01...from-office.php

And her opponent is an irresponsible idiot for doing such a thing. Still doesn't have any level of causation.

 

[iamshack]

Certainly I'm not a legal scholar, but couldn't the same type of laws that prevent people from carrying weapons on airplanes or in schools be applied to political events where elected officials are present?

People are willing to accept some restrictions on their liberties because of the increased chances for danger. This is just common sense. And the Founding Fathers could have never contemplated the capabilities of some of these modern weapons and flying around on airplanes when drafting our Constitution. Sometimes, we are just being too incredibly literal when trying to interpret it.

 

There is a certain balance that must be achieved between trying to adhere to the spirit of the Constitution and using common sense to determine restrictions on the liberties the Constitution was trying to protect when drafted. That balance includes the danger present, whether the spirit of the liberty is still being protected, whether the proposed restriction would actually accomplish any tangible benefit or achieve any increased measure of safety, etc.

[Balta1701]

I have to go to one "Stephen Colbert" for the best point on this topic.

 

What we need to do is keep ramping up the rhetoric until it actually does directly lead to someone getting killed. Once we're at that point, we know where it is, so we take one step back, and we'll know that we're at the perfect level of violent political rhetoric.

[bmags]

I disagree with BMags and you here. This is called "coincidence." A really, really sad and unfortunate one, but I deem it entirely coincidence. Now if one of the other people with a target on them in that map gets attacked soon, then I will concede you might have been right.

 

And to BMags point, I disagree. This isn't going to stop or change anything. In fact, both parties have seized on it for political gain. Instead of there being some realization that this has all gone too far, it has gone even further. I don't believe the outrage or the fabricated sadness one bit. Yes, we are all sad and frustrated that this happened. It's terrible. But now both parties are tripping over themselves to see which can be more sorry and more sad and more outraged than the other to see which can come out of this looking better.

 

It's not making anything better. The parties are only descending into a lower form of pathetic.

 

I've watched the news quite a bit the past week, and your characterization is pretty ridiculous. Frankly, what you're describing is not happening by anyone in leadership positions nor most of politicians i've seen interviewed.

[iamshack]

I have to go to one "Stephen Colbert" for the best point on this topic.

 

What we need to do is keep ramping up the rhetoric until it actually does directly lead to someone getting killed. Once we're at that point, we know where it is, so we take one step back, and we'll know that we're at the perfect level of violent political rhetoric.

The sad thing with satire like Colbert's is that we keep decreasing the gap between reality and satire in politics as time goes by.

[Texsox]

I have to go to one "Stephen Colbert" for the best point on this topic.

 

What we need to do is keep ramping up the rhetoric until it actually does directly lead to someone getting killed. Once we're at that point, we know where it is, so we take one step back, and we'll know that we're at the perfect level of violent political rhetoric.

 

 

Of course even then the support will be determined by whether the person shot was from your party, or not. We wouldn't want anyone using a shooting for political gain. Nothing good should ever come out of a shooting.

[iamshack]

I've watched the news quite a bit the past week, and your characterization is pretty ridiculous. Frankly, what you're describing is not happening by anyone in leadership positions nor most of politicians i've seen interviewed.

That's if you take them at face value.

 

I don't.

 

Did you think in the weeks after 9/11 that there would be a point down the road 10 years later that we would be resisting paying the medical bills of the first responders?

Edited January 14, 2011 by iamshack

[BigSqwert]

And her opponent is an irresponsible idiot for doing such a thing. Still doesn't have any level of causation.

Yes he's an idiot but I still don't understand why so many, with almost no evidence other than a youtube profile and a little facebook data from googling, is 100% convinced that this was a 100% apolitical event. Just because his facebook page didn't say "I will kill the local Democratic Congresswoman because Sara Palin and other leaders I admire told me to" doesn't mean that there couldn't be some political motive in this. After all, he went to a political event and went up to the Congresswoman and shot her first. That didn't seem random. My first inclination would be that somehow this was politically motivated. Maybe I'm wrong but who knows? None of us have interviewed him or searched his belongings or interviewed people he knows. We really don't have that much info into what he really thinks to completely dismiss this as politically motivated. And yes he seems to be crazy.

 

And even if he admitted that he did this because he agreed with Palin or Rush or whoever doesn't make it their fault but his. But it would be evidence to those politicos to tone down their rhetoric instead of getting defensive as we've been seeing. I just hope that investigators are looking at all possible motives and not excluding one because it could hurt some people's feelings.

[BigSqwert]

And this is absolute bulls***. I pray that nothing happens to her. WTF is wrong with people?

[NorthSideSox72]

Yes he's an idiot but I still don't understand why so many, with almost no evidence other than a youtube profile and a little facebook data from googling, is 100% convinced that this was a 100% apolitical event. Just because his facebook page didn't say "I will kill the local Democratic Congresswoman because Sara Palin and other leaders I admire told me to" doesn't mean that there couldn't be some political motive in this. After all, he went to a political event and went up to the Congresswoman and shot her first. That didn't seem random. My first inclination would be that somehow this was politically motivated. Maybe I'm wrong but who knows? None of us have interviewed him or searched his belongings or interviewed people he knows. We really don't have that much info into what he really thinks to completely dismiss this as politically motivated. And yes he seems to be crazy.

 

And even if he admitted that he did this because he agreed with Palin or Rush or whoever doesn't make it their fault but his. But it would be evidence to those politicos to tone down their rhetoric instead of getting defensive as we've been seeing. I just hope that investigators are looking at all possible motives and not excluding one because it could hurt some people's feelings.

Seems pretty clear with what we've learned so far that this guy wasn't aligned with either party, and oh yeah, he's also a nutjob. That's why we can't really blame any specific party or politician, and shouldn't.