Doctor Fate wrote:Thank you! Danivon was making associations and connections that were, at best, strained. In his ramblings, did he ever mention doing this for Palin? How her "targeting" inspired him? (As if, btw, Democrats don't "target" certain seats? The fact that they don't use an image of gunsights on a web page a few thousand people see means what?). Massive stretch by Danivon--and a massive dose of reality by Fax . . . must be the new Redscape!

Well, I don't recall making a direct causal link between them, just comment on the unfortunate juxtaposition.

And 'Democrats do it too' is not actually a defence, or a decent rebuff, it's just 'whataboutery'. Neither side should do it (indeed, people who are not in either main party shouldn't do it). Kos doesn't go as far as Palin did, but even if he had, it simply means that they are both adding to the hysteria in your country. I didn't actually say it was exclusively a problem of the right. The more examples you show from either side only go to show how big the problem is, ok?

The issue I mention is not whether Loughner was directly influenced by Palin or Kelly. It's more about whether it's appropriate for political figures to use the imagery in campaigns, and whether they will do so again after this. So far they have been reluctant to even apologise, even when called on it in the past (as Palin was, by Giffords).

In the past on here, I've been critical of the level of political discourse in the USA, and this is an extension of that.

Oh well. I could hope. Let's remember, it was the President who referred to the GOP as "enemies," etc. This country has a history of heated political rhetoric. It is not rhetoric that has caused political assassinations. It has been people deranged enough to think their actions would change the political equation in their favor. If rhetoric alone sufficed, we would have had massive political violence during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

The Oklahoma bombing was what, if not massive political violence.

Your point however seems to be too absolute. Perhaps in a time when aggressive and violent rhetoric is flourishing, deranged (or just extreme) people may be more likely to think that their actions would have an effect. When campaigns are run on the basis that the government of the day (or just government, period) is evil and is trying to usurp all your freedoms, and that this one campaign is our last, best hope, perhaps people who are vulnerable may take up that message of panic. Especially if that campaign doesn't immediately appear to have been totally successful.

Tom - you raise an interesting issue, actually. Is American culture so violent in it's outlook that the use of such terms has become normalised? But of course, we don't often see NFL-related violence, least of all using firearms. Do we see players with cross-hairs against them? Do we have rhetoric about 'using our 2nd Amendment rights' to deal with cheating players? Nope, outside the really nutbar supporters I would hope.

So, we have mild use of gun-related terminology in sport, but not used much as a way of setting people up as targets, more to describe shots and tactics, and hardly any instances of people trying to assassinate sportsmen.

And we have less mild use of gun-related terminology in politics, sometimes used as a way of setting targets, and periodic instances of people trying to assassinate politicians.

We also have very violent rhetoric used in the abortion debate, with individuals being set up as a target and their details given out, and periodic instances of people trying to assassinate abortion doctors.

We also have very violent rhetoric from Islamic imams and terrorists, with individuals and nations set up as targets, and quite frequent instances of people trying to kill in the name of Islam.

When the latter is even a lone-wolf, and someone who appears to have some psychological problems, we can still easily link one to the other.

Yet there seems to be a correlation here. The more violent the rhetoric that is used, and the more it is used directly against people rather than just being descriptive, the more often it seems that we actually do get violence.

Added to being a country where a guy like Loughlan can get a weapon easily, and what do you expect?

Green Arrow wrote:People have the right to own guns also. It is how they use them that matters. Is that what you are saying?

That's what I am saying, although I can't speak for ricky. Also, that there are some places and situations where you can't take guns, even if you legally own them, and particular types of people who are not allowed to own guns.

The 1st and 2nd Amendments are not absolutes, clearly. If they were, then I suspect that you would have more problems, not fewer.

There are limits to free speech, some legal, and others what society is willing to see as 'reasonable', but aren't necessarily enforced by law. So, incitement laws, 'Fire' in a theatre, rules against cursing, defamation laws, conspiracy laws, fraud, etc all exist to punish people who say things that we think they shouldn't are one side.

The other is that people should have the responsibility to think about what they are saying and in what context it is in. The more you are saying, in terms of the power and influence you seek from it, the reach, and the public nature of it, the more you should think.

Right? I mean, the 1st Amendment means you can stand up in the middle of a funeral service and talk about how much you want to sleep with the widow, but you don't, do you?

rickyp wrote:? And isn't that incredibly dangerous to provide individuals with both the means and the assumed right to violently attack their government at any time? Surely that's NOT the founders intention.

Well considering comments like Jefferson's 1787 refreshing the tree of liberty with blood comment, I think that is probably exactly what they meant.

Here is the quote in full.

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure

I'd concur with the MX's assessments regarding schizophrenia. You can't really try and attach this guy's thought process to the violent rhetoric of either party.

There's a bit of tragic irony in that someone who needed more healthcare tried to assassinate an advocate of healthcare access.

I'd put the mentally ill at the top of the list of people in our society that need access to healthcare and housing. It makes me sad when I'm touring major cities in the US to see so many people in the streets that have serious mental health issues, and therefore no real ability to pull themselves out of their poor circumstances.

I don't bring that up to suggest this guy deserves some kind of free pass, it's not like he just ran out in the street and randomly stabbed someone he thought was the devil. This was very premeditated.

Archduke , Jefferson was responding to a letter from a friend in the US (He was in Paris at the time) regarding the Shays rebellion.
The actual result of the Shays rebellion was the call for a Constitution to replace the original articles , no? The reason being that without strong central government anarchy would continue and the original Articles of Confederation didn't provide the necesary legal framework to properly maintain order. . . If Shays rebellion is the model for those proposing violent opposition to their own government, it would seem that know not their history nor its outcome.
To believe in the fundamental meaning of the constitution would be to believe that armed insurrections cannot be tolerated and that a strong federal government is required to ensure that they do not regularly occur.
Methinks Jefferson was very much in the minority. In response to the same letter .....

"You talk, my good sir, of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. I know not where that influence is to be found, or, if attainable, that it would be a proper remedy for the disorders. Influence is not government. Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties, and properties will be secured, or let us know the worst at once."
George Washington

and here's a disturbing reality I actually thought of when the situation was developing...
I honestly thought "please don't be a white guy" and "Please don't be a Conservative" Not that it really mattered if he was a black or liberal but rather I did not want any sort of "relation" to the guy and while I would not really "blame" liberals or blacks (if he were one of those that I am not) it would simply feel better not being lumped together with him. That's just sad to think of something like this during a tragic situation but I admit it did cross my mind as I assume it did many others here as well.

Green, I'm not much for censorship.
However the history of the US is one of tolerance of the individualist. Even to where complete cranks are given room to breathe their fire.
The problem with the modern world is that modern media and the Internet aren't just giving them room, they are providing an unprecedented vehicle for the broadcast of nutbar ideas. My gawd, Glenn Beck resurrected Skousen. Skousen, who the Goldwater Republicans thought was an extremist nut.
There are cycles that the US goes through. I seem to remember the rhetoric of the early 90s as just about as vile as today. Then the Oklahoma bombing toned things down. (The militias had a lot in common with the tea party, including a misunderstanding of the constitution.)

Now that I've answered you, could you respond to this? I think you're a pretty strong proponent of a broad definition of the 2nd? How about you Archduke? A conservative lawyers view would be appreciated.

One thing I've noted in comments on other boards is that defenders of the 2nd constitution bulwark their defense by claiming that the 2nd amendment and citizens right to bear arms is intended by the founders as a way to assure that a tyrannical government can't take away citizens liberties.
My first question is really? How?
Isn't this just a coded call for armed insurrection? And its an insurrection to be acted upon based solely upon the individual citizens judgment of the actions of the government? And isn't that incredibly dangerous to provide individuals with both the means and the assumed right to violently attack their government at any time? Surely that's NOT the founders intention.

A person's speech about the 2nd Amendment is not the point. A person has the right to own a weapon according to the 2nd Amendment, and upheld by the Supreme Court. I don't give a rip about the "coded call for armed insurrection". If a person tries to overthrow the Gov't, then based upon his/her actions they would be tried in a court of law. This is exactly what I am saying. I am not the people you speak with on other sites. I am rational, basing my belief in the Constitution and decided Supreme Court law, and personal responsibility.

If you murder someone with a gun/mango/butter knife it is a crime. The weapon does not matter. The crime does.

Crap, I just had this long post that disappeared and I am getting ready to head home from work. I will try to rebuild it later tonight.

So, just to be crystal clear Green...
You'd agree that the 2nd amendment is not meant to ensure that citizens can resist tyrannical governments?

Neal Anderth wrote:There's a bit of tragic irony in that someone who needed more healthcare tried to assassinate an advocate of healthcare access.

additionally, that he shot her, and she had opposed restrictions on 2nd Amendment rights.

I'd put the mentally ill at the top of the list of people in our society that need access to healthcare and housing. It makes me sad when I'm touring major cities in the US to see so many people in the streets that have serious mental health issues, and therefore no real ability to pull themselves out of their poor circumstances.

I don't bring that up to suggest this guy deserves some kind of free pass, it's not like he just ran out in the street and randomly stabbed someone he thought was the devil. This was very premeditated.

Indeed. However, to deal with the mentally ill who do not recognise that they are mentally ill means more than providing healthcare, it means treating them without their consent.

If a tyrannical government comes to power (I don't think we are there right now...) I might change my mind. However, I do not think that we should take matters in our own hands. That was done in 1776, and again in 1861. Both times with positive results. Today's environment does not merit such actions in my opinion.

Do you consider limiting gun ownership (without cause!) a form of censorship?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Thank you! Danivon was making associations and connections that were, at best, strained. In his ramblings, did he ever mention doing this for Palin? How her "targeting" inspired him? (As if, btw, Democrats don't "target" certain seats? The fact that they don't use an image of gunsights on a web page a few thousand people see means what?). Massive stretch by Danivon--and a massive dose of reality by Fax . . . must be the new Redscape!

Well, I don't recall making a direct causal link between them, just comment on the unfortunate juxtaposition.

That is some ducking and diving. Both the article you cite and your post contained references to Palin and gun images. When you're called on it, you claim not to have made a "direct causal link." So, guilt by heavy inference is just fine?

If that is not the case, why mention Palin at all? You, like many on the left, could not wait to make political hay out of what is a nut doing a nutty thing. There is no connection to Palin, no evidence that he was motivated by ANY political rhetoric, and no evidence he was anything but a person with serious mental health issues.

And 'Democrats do it too' is not actually a defence, or a decent rebuff, it's just 'whataboutery'.

As someone who dragged Palin into it, I don't believe you have any right to decide what is a "decent rebuff."

My point is that both sides do it. You say neither side "should." Rubbish. Both sides have always used vitriol. Who would stop it? The government? Responsible politicians?

Read that last phrase a few times and let it sink in. Politics is what it is. This shooting had nothing to do with political argumentation, campaigning, or any single issue. One psycho is not going to change American politics.

The Oklahoma bombing was what, if not massive political violence.

Fascinating. After the Ft. Hood shooting, liberals were quick to say the attack was not terrorism, was not related to Islam, and we should look to gun restrictions as the answer. Of course, we later learned it was terrorism inspired by Islam. The idea that gun control was the issue is also dubious. The base forbade soldiers from carrying loaded weapons and the only way Hassan would have been stopped sooner was either by profiling him or by soldiers being armed. In any event, liberals assured us this should not reflect on Islam.

In the Oklahoma bombing, there was no wider, associated movement. We didn't see McVeigh's ideology spread or more such incidents. Yet, somehow, the OKC bombing is the Left's answer for everything--"Well, yeah, but what about McVeigh?" What about him? He was put to death--and rightfully so. Bad people do bad things. Crazy people do crazy things.

Palin, the Tea Party, and conservatives are not supporters of McVeigh. We don't defend him. We don't laud him. We don't stand for his crazy ideas.

Any other villains you'd like to bring up? What about the Joker?

Your point however seems to be too absolute. Perhaps in a time when aggressive and violent rhetoric is flourishing, deranged (or just extreme) people may be more likely to think that their actions would have an effect.

John Wilkes Booth believed that. Maybe others did too. However, there is no evidence in this case that the guy was anything but psychotic. Did he reference some political rhetoric? Tip his hat to Palin? You know, "This is for Sarah!" Or maybe, "This is for Markos!"

You're trying to make a political issue where one does not exist. You might as well bring Manson into the argument.

When campaigns are run on the basis that the government of the day (or just government, period) is evil and is trying to usurp all your freedoms, and that this one campaign is our last, best hope, perhaps people who are vulnerable may take up that message of panic. Especially if that campaign doesn't immediately appear to have been totally successful.

This is all conjecture--except for the part about the government usurping freedom. I'd point to recent moves toward net neutrality, regulation of CO2 (because Congress would not enact the legislation) and more.

The fact is that conservatives just had a huge victory in November. If this guy was politically aware, there is scant evidence for it and his actions don't support your theory.

I am confident you, Danivon were outraged by the attacks on Palin. You probably posted page after page, right? For example: http://www.correntewire.com/cmon_ladies ... ent-122503

The "Abort Palin" bumper stickers were an outrage and I'm sure you posted on those. http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/29/abort-sarah-palin/

You probably posted endlessly about political rhetoric when the Left was going after Bush, right?

You can now say it's "both sides," but is that how you started the thread?

Is it possible you jumped to a conclusion without all the facts and just have too much pride to admit you erred?

I submit the first part is possible, the second (too much pride) is likely, and the third (admission of error) is just not within you. You thought this was something it turned out not to be. You, like Krugman and others, jumped, erm, the gun.

Please forgive the rhetoric.