Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

I don't think there is another State in the Union that has citizens that did what these Arizonians did. Were others would allow the shooter to continue shooting, in this case some men tackled the shooter to the ground and one gray haired 61 year old woman took away his magazine so he could not reload. That took a lot of guts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blogs and "news" accounts are over-flowing with comments regarding the alleged perp by former associates. Clearly, this was a guy who has been on "the edge" for quite some time. Drugs were apparently part of the accused's lifestyle. Ironic: Libtards make up the majority of those who would legalize drugs and are, presumably, have the highest rate of use/abuse.

 

It has been reported that the alleged perp had attended a similar seance sponsored by/for the Congresswoman three years ago...and that he was not happy with her/her responses at that time. A simple timeline would establish that this was prior to a great deal of the polarizing vitrol spewed by both SOME liberals and conservatives alike.

 

If the Libtards want to blame the incident on "conservatism", so be it. (Such an irrational, delusional, and non-sensical laying of blame will not explain why the perp took shots at people other than the Congresswoman.) Further, I would suggest that it would be fair to claim that Libtards could then be guilty of sanctioning/promoting "murder" on the basis of their support of abortion.

 

HH

 

 

This guy was all over the 'board' being skewed one way and then another way.

 

When people say they want the government to fail or when people say that people should be killed who support abortion, etc., you got to admit somebody unstable just might take actions into their own hands.

 

This guy definetely needed mental help. The community college he was attending that kicked him out for being mentally off should have pushed more to get him some help.

 

In Arizona mental health is a major issue. The State kicked a bunch of them of medicaid and now some of them are no longer on their meds which means some are more wackier then they were before they took their meds.

 

Our news is saturated with border issues, Obama Care, illegial immigration, etc. Instead of the local governments handling local issues, they get involved in federal issues. This area is a tenderbox in more ways then one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people just can't take the pressure. I must admit I was surprised it was a young 'liberal' and not some Tea Party dude that did the shooting. Now politicians will be scared to leave the golf course. It will probably all come down to a big government contract for Blackwater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blogs and "news" accounts are over-flowing with comments regarding the alleged perp by former associates. Clearly, this was a guy who has been on "the edge" for quite some time. Drugs were apparently part of the accused's lifestyle. Ironic: Libtards make up the majority of those who would legalize drugs and are, presumably, have the highest rate of use/abuse.

 

It has been reported that the alleged perp had attended a similar seance sponsored by/for the Congresswoman three years ago...and that he was not happy with her/her responses at that time. A simple timeline would establish that this was prior to a great deal of the polarizing vitrol spewed by both SOME liberals and conservatives alike.

 

If the Libtards want to blame the incident on "conservatism", so be it. (Such an irrational, delusional, and non-sensical laying of blame will not explain why the perp took shots at people other than the Congresswoman.) Further, I would suggest that it would be fair to claim that Libtards could then be guilty of sanctioning/promoting "murder" on the basis of their support of abortion.

 

HH

 

WOW!

 

This could be the most nonsensical response I have ever read from HH.

 

First would love to see your source on Liberals wanting to legalize drugs. I thought that was the Libertarians. And let's check on the demographics of drug abusers. I'm sure ole' Rush Limbaugh has that one covered for you.

 

Secondly, I am not aware of anyone directly blaming the incident on Palin/Faux News/Beck/Teabaggers/whoever. What is being said is their (and your) rhetoric contributes to and encourages the nutters to pull a stunt like this. No one is saying that Palin actually asked this particular nutter to pull the trigger, but her rhetoric creates an environment that encourages the behavior. If you cannot see and/or accept that, then you have the brains of a flea.

 

And lastly, leave it to you to bring up the abortion reference. Small problem there pal. Abortion is legal. Attempting to assassinate a politician and/or gunning down innocent bystanders is not. Nice try though.

 

Time to go back to your bunker now. Count up your emergency rations and be sure to fire off emails to the new governor, begging him not to dismantle the current pension system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blogs and "news" accounts are over-flowing with comments regarding the alleged perp by former associates. Clearly' date=' this was a guy who has been on "the edge" for quite some time. Drugs were apparently part of the accused's lifestyle. Ironic: Libtards make up the majority of those who would legalize drugs and are, presumably, have the highest rate of use/abuse.

 

It has been reported that the alleged perp had attended a similar seance sponsored by/for the Congresswoman three years ago...and that he was not happy with her/her responses at that time. A simple timeline would establish that this was prior to a great deal of the polarizing vitrol spewed by both SOME liberals and conservatives alike.

 

If the Libtards want to blame the incident on "conservatism", so be it. (Such an irrational, delusional, and non-sensical laying of blame will not explain why the perp took shots at people other than the Congresswoman.) Further, I would suggest that it would be fair to claim that Libtards could then be guilty of sanctioning/promoting "murder" on the basis of their support of abortion.

 

HH[/quote']

 

WOW!

 

This could be the most nonsensical response I have ever read from HH.

 

First would love to see your source on Liberals wanting to legalize drugs. I thought that was the Libertarians. [color:red]And let's check on the demographics of drug abusers. I'm sure ole' Rush Limbaugh has that one covered for you.[/color]

Secondly, I am not aware of anyone directly blaming the incident on Palin/Faux News/Beck/Teabaggers/whoever. What is being said is their (and your) rhetoric contributes to and encourages the nutters to pull a stunt like this. No one is saying that Palin actually asked this particular nutter to pull the trigger, but her rhetoric creates an environment that encourages the behavior. If you cannot see and/or accept that, then you have the brains of a flea.

 

And lastly, leave it to you to bring up the abortion reference. Small problem there pal. Abortion is legal. Attempting to assassinate a politician and/or gunning down innocent bystanders is not. Nice try though.

 

Time to go back to your bunker now. Count up your emergency rations and be sure to fire off emails to the new governor, begging him not to dismantle the current pension system.

 

 

Actually Rush went to Tucson to a rehab center to overcome his drug addictions.

 

What a connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it doesn't meet the standard of violaton of free speech then its acceptable. End of story. It may be unpopular to some but the standard INCLUDES speech that will incite violence or cause harm. Therefore, the Rush, Palin and other such people's words can not be blamed. Can't have it both ways. Blaming them but then agreeing it doesn't meet a legal standard for blame criminally. Again, there is speech done by militias in Idaho, NOI, Supremists, etc. that aren't widely listened but have a hard core audience. These speeches are often way past the standard and do incite violence. Nothing happens. It takes a helluva lot for a normal person to pick up a gun and go kill someone based on someone's rhetoric. There has been vandalism done to property and just to do that for your average working stiff who is pissed off takes a lot. Its why only a few will even do that. Those folks rarely pick up a gun and shoot. Many of us on here and on this thread are very, very pissed off at some things but wouldn't even come close to doing something like that or even destroy property.

 

As far as gun control. I grew up in a city that was very violent and had a lot of guns. I also spent my college years in a city and a county that I would guess had more guns per capita and a gun crime was almost non existent. If America ends gun ownership constitutionally (4/5 of Governors, 2/3 of Congress, President signing off) then to me that would indicate its the will of the people and our culture has changed. Just like a lot of other amendments. Slavery being one, women's vote another. Society changed. People's minds changed.

 

If you want to reduce gun crime the best way to do it is not taking away guns. Improve society. People with jobs, people with hope, people with a decent education, people who come from a family with a loving mother and father generally do not commit gun crimes. Hell, resolve the drug situation and you'd cut a lot of gun crime significantly. Improve the human condition in America and crime will go down. Easier said than done obviously, but lets not blame the existence of guns for the real problem. There are areas of Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas where just about every home has a shotgun or some weapon and nothing happens. These areas have a community, strong family bonds and a culture of mutual respect.

 

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are people who want the country to fail and want the president to fail..

 

There are people who want to 'fuck' the President.

 

There are people who would like to see Pelosi 'fucked'.

 

 

Now if a unstable person hears these expressions, and hears them a lot, the unstable person may act upon it. So the question is: Is the originator of such talk partially to blame?

 

In the past, some people were held responsible for the damage done by their words but today that just does not happen. Ned Buntline was an 1800's character who wrote a lot of nickel/dime novels. One time he incited a riot in Manhattan and ended up spending some time in jail for his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Free speech is a cornerstone of all the western republics and its probably the most protected in the USA than anywhere else in the western world.

 

Its a dangerous, slippery slope when we start talking about limiting free speech. Any action MUST be made without any emotional reaons and never in the heat of the moment from any tragedy that involves free speech.

 

What eventually comes from any limits on civil liberties and civil rights is someone or some group....or some political party that uses it in ways it was not originally intended. History, especially, American histoy is replete with such examples.

 

Although some think McCarthy era actions are in the past and we've advanced as a society to prevent such things again, only have to look around you. We're told we have no presumption of privacy and authorities can pretty much do what ever they want. We can't even move freely in our society any longer. Ever move is monitored directly or indirectly. Talk of a national ID card, etc.

 

Under such a scenario, even quoating one of our founders own words 'the government should fear the people' could easily be labled as speech promoting violence. If what some of us are proposiing becomes liable, then the British were right in that the speech by the colonists were inciteful and promoted violence. Essentially isn't that the same thing? We honor a history and honor events and speech leading up to our independence from Britain that are illegal by standards proposed on this forum ironically enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thailand is really the only place I've ever lived where I did not have a firearm of some sort. My father had his WWII souvenir pistol - which he taught me to shoot. My grandfather was a special policeman (part-time, called when needed) and also carried a .38 revolver in his work for the railway. He had several other pistols and kept a kept a shotgun and a rifle in the closet. I was allowed to carry a .22 pistol or rifle in the woods when I was 12. None of us ever shot anyone (wars excluded, we all 3 served - something the anti-gun folks invariably haven't). Virtually everyone we knew had a pistol or rifle. Strange that we never killed anyone.

 

Oh, yeah - that grandfather lived in Chicago during Prohibition days. I remember him showing me a spot where Al Capone's gang had machined gunned some rivals years before. I've inherited the .25 cal Colt automatic that my grandmother carried in her purse - that plus my grandfather's shoulder holster (he went armed off duty). My paternal grandfather was a hunter - pistols and shotguns everywhere, but he died when I was very young. I have firearms dating as far back as 1815 (a Kentucky rifle).

 

Now we get folks saying it is too dangerous to allow the people to be armed. Only our police and criminals can be trusted with weapons.

 

Bullshit!

 

The US has a myriad of gun laws. How about enforcing them? I seem to recall the much maligned NRA long backing a mandatory additional sentence for using a firearm in the commission of a crime. And guess what ... the ACLU and other groups have opposed that as unfair! It discriminates against criminals. :p

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...