Peace loving Progressives

[Faldur]

And these are the people who complained about a cross hair in a Palin ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc

[trish]

You can find thousands of rednecks and Tea-Baggers making analogous violent statements when egged on by a reporter looking for fuel to throw on the fires. Never-the-less, whatever side of the political fence, that kind of language is irresponsible and contributes to the overall risk of violence in our nation. This goes for ordinary jerks attending rallies, and it goes double-fold for political celebrities with large megaphones like Sarah Palin (as long as you're bringing her up in this context) and Second-Amendment-Remedies Sharon Angle.

[onmyknees]

You can find thousands of rednecks and Tea-Baggers making analogous violent statements when egged on by a reporter looking for fuel to throw on the fires. Never-the-less, whatever side of the political fence, that kind of language is irresponsible and contributes to the overall risk of violence in our nation. This goes for ordinary jerks attending rallies, and it goes double-fold for political celebrities with large megaphones like Sarah Palin (as long as you're bringing her up in this context) and Second-Amendment-Remedies Sharon Angle.

Still "clinging" to that absurdity I see...not to unlike your beloved NY Times who's own ombudsmen called the linkage "problematic"...LOL

"You can find thousands of rednecks and Tea-Baggers making analogous violent statements when egged on by a reporter looking for fuel to throw on the fires".

OK....find them. Post them. You're generalizing yet again.

[onmyknees]

Here's how NYT Editor Bill Keller put it recently......



"I think the effect of Fox News on American public life has been to create a level of cynicism about the news in general. I think it has contributed to the sense that ‘they’re all just, you know, out there with a political agenda, Fox is just more overt about it.’ And I think that’s unhealthy. I think Fox has also raised, we have had a lot of talk since the Gabby Giffords murder, attempted murder, about civility in our national discourse, and I, you know, make no connection between the guy who shot those people in Tucson and the national discourse. But it is true that the national discourse is more polarized and strident than it has been in the past, and to some extent, I would lay that at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, yes."

Notice how he plays the same game as Trish...?? "I make no connection ( wink, wink) "...Hey Bill....if there's no connection then why bring it up ???????

Memo to Bill Keller...Mr. Murdoch is eating your lunch...Ya think after a decade of cheerleading for the far left we might have cause to be cynical ????? maybe spend less time worrying about him, and Sarah Palin..and more time returning the NYT as trusted news organazation it was a decade ago.

[hippifried]

What a whiner you are.

[trish]

Notice how he plays the same game as TrishIt's not a game: six people were killed.

[Faldur]

You can find thousands of rednecks and Tea-Baggers making analogous violent statements when egged on by a reporter looking for fuel to throw on the fires.

Trish I challenge you to back up that statement with some facts. If there are indeed thousand of examples you most certainly find one or two to post here. No one has displayed the level of violent retorec that the progressives have displayed. The left no longer posseses creditability, the two faced retoric is so transparent it's pathetic. And America is not buying it any more.

[onmyknees]

It's not a game: six people were killed.

Correct...The happenings in Arizona were no game...what transpired afterward certainly was...it's called the BLAME GAME.

[onmyknees]

Here's how NYT Editor Bill Keller put it recently......



"I think the effect of Fox News on American public life has been to create a level of cynicism about the news in general. I think it has contributed to the sense that ‘they’re all just, you know, out there with a political agenda, Fox is just more overt about it.’ And I think that’s unhealthy. I think Fox has also raised, we have had a lot of talk since the Gabby Giffords murder, attempted murder, about civility in our national discourse, and I, you know, make no connection between the guy who shot those people in Tucson and the national discourse. But it is true that the national discourse is more polarized and strident than it has been in the past, and to some extent, I would lay that at the feet of Rupert Murdoch, yes."


Notice how he plays the same game as Trish...?? "I make no connection ( wink, wink) "...Hey Bill....if there's no connection then why bring it up ???????


Memo to Bill Keller...Mr. Murdoch is eating your lunch...Ya think after a decade of cheerleading for the far left we might have cause to be cynical ????? maybe spend less time worrying about him, and Sarah Palin..and more time returning the NYT as trusted news organazation it was a decade ago.





Whiner ?? LMAO..Somking that junk weed again? It's called presenting your case with direct quotes and facts and some op-ed. Try it sometime !

[hippifried]

You right wingers have been trying to snivel out of that teabaggin klan/nazi who shot up the crowd in Tucson since it happened. In your words: Big fail! I'm sure we'll find out more about the latest "Lee" before he gets his dose of potassium chloride.

[trish]

FAIL. Avoiding responsibility and continuing the same practices that make public service riskier than it needs to be is not a game either.

[Faldur]

You right wingers have been trying to snivel out of that teabaggin klan/nazi who shot up the crowd in Tucson since it happened. In your words: Big fail! I'm sure we'll find out more about the latest "Lee" before he gets his dose of potassium chloride.

Hippi this is so laughable it's pathetic, how about some facts to go with your wild accusations? Been looking for them for some time, and all we get is your gums moving. Creditability my friend, you have none..

[trish]

It's pathetic that you're laughing, and the rest of you think it's a game. Six people were murdered. Don't you think it would be prudent for Sarah to tone it down instead of going into complete-denial--the-political-rancor-and-metaphorical-uses-of-violent-language-and-images-had-nothing-what-so-ever-to-do-with-it--I'm-the-real-victim-here-of-blood-libel mode?

[Faldur]

Trish, post one example of the thousands of events you stated happened. Just one, with thousands you can't find one? Yes, 6 persons were murdered by a madman that should have been locked up months before the incident. He was a-political and described by his friends as a ultra-liberal.

Quit flapping your gums and start backing up your fantasies with some facts. Ahh.. It's comes back to that whole creditability thing..

[loren]

Lets see, Jared Loughner, hates "Blue Dog Democrats" for being fake democrats.


Loughner's best friend, Zach Osler, disputed speculation by media commentators that Loughner's actions were fueled by partisan politics and rhetoric, insisting, "He did not watch TV, he disliked the news, he didn't listen to political radio, he didn't take sides, he wasn't on the Left, he wasn't on the Right"

He is big into conspiracy theories, has a deep hatred of Bush, is a 9/11 denier, believes in a global shadow government the New World Order(sounds like he's an alex jones supporter), and believes NASA fakes spaceflights (& moonlanding?).

Somehow, he doesn't sound like a TEA Party guy to me.:shrug

[trish]

First let’s mention the primary examples. If it weren’t for Palin’s and Angle’s calls to arms as metaphor for political action, the Tea-Bagger’s call to bring guns to town-meetings and political rallies and the murders in Tucson, this thread wouldn’t even exist. These examples are primary because everyone in the nation is aware of them. Those with the loudest megaphones have the largest responsibility. This is not to say that those driven to violence mistakenly got their permission directly from Palin or Angle. Everyone has heard of the law of inertia, but very few people have ever cracked Newton's Principia. Ever hear of trickle down? There are indeed other assholes in world who pass along and amplify the hatreds to which they're exposed. Assholes like YouTube - Tea Party Violence: Teabagger Tries To Kill Man With Obama Bumper Sticker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8) or like those attested to in the following article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001259-504083.html , or like those in the Breitbartesque YouTube clip posted by Faldur. As we all know violent language and violence itself, as it escalates, can cross party lines. I don’t give a flying fuck who spews violent language (though it seems to be real important to some people), but those who do spew it should own up to their responsibilities. It's this kind of shit increases the risk that violence will occur. Giffords approached Palin on this very point, before the tragic shootings in Tucson.

[hippifried]

Lets see, Jared Loughner, hates "Blue Dog Democrats" for being fake democrats.



He is big into conspiracy theories, has a deep hatred of Bush, is a 9/11 denier, believes in a global shadow government the New World Order(sounds like he's an alex jones supporter), and believes NASA fakes spaceflights (& moonlanding?).

Somehow, he doesn't sound like a TEA Party guy to me.:shrug
The blue dogs were the biggest losers in this last Congressional election.

Who do you think the "tea party" is made up of? All those toons you mention jumped on the bandwagon, along with the birthers, the 700 clubbers, the gold bugs, & the klan/nazis. It's not like the infestation was invisible.

[onmyknees]

First let’s mention the primary examples. If it weren’t for Palin’s and Angle’s calls to arms as metaphor for political action, the Tea-Bagger’s call to bring guns to town-meetings and political rallies and the murders in Tucson, this thread wouldn’t even exist. These examples are primary because everyone in the nation is aware of them. Those with the loudest megaphones have the largest responsibility. This is not to say that those driven to violence mistakenly got their permission directly from Palin or Angle. Everyone has heard of the law of inertia, but very few people have ever cracked Newton's Principia. Ever hear of trickle down? There are indeed other assholes in world who pass along and amplify the hatreds to which they're exposed. Assholes like YouTube - Tea Party Violence: Teabagger Tries To Kill Man With Obama Bumper Sticker (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pdwTQ4xA8) or like those attested to in the following article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20001259-504083.html , or like those in the Breitbartesque YouTube clip posted by Faldur. As we all know violent language and violence itself, as it escalates, can cross party lines. I don’t give a flying fuck who spews violent language (though it seems to be real important to some people), but those who do spew it should own up to their responsibilities. It's this kind of shit increases the risk that violence will occur. Giffords approached Palin on this very point, before the tragic shootings in Tucson.


OK...we asked for proof, and you gave us one. Your nut case cancels out Faldurs'...still waiting for hundreds. And really Trish...get off the Palin kick. Nobody but you and the back benchers at MSNBC are are playin that card . Didn't you far lefties learn anything from the election ? The more you tell a lie ( tea baggers are racist, tea partiers are bigots...blah blah) the madder you make the opposition. It's already overplayed. And really......and I mean this...it sounds like you're getting lazy, and searching for new material has been difficult. You're starting to sound earily like Chris Matthews. Mildly obsessed, and weirdly delusional, and reaching for the low hanging fruit...trouble is you picked the tree clean weeks ago!!!!!!

[onmyknees]

It's pathetic that you're laughing, and the rest of you think it's a game. Six people were murdered. Don't you think it would be prudent for Sarah to tone it down instead of going into complete-denial--the-political-rancor-and-metaphorical-uses-of-violent-language-and-images-had-nothing-what-so-ever-to-do-with-it--I'm-the-real-victim-here-of-blood-libel mode?

TRISH WHEN YOU FUCKERS TONE IT DOWN....I'LL CONCEED AND AGREE PALIN AND THE TEA PARTY SHOULD...UNTIL THEN...PEDAL TO THE METAL !!!!!!!!! Tone it down my ass...you people lie on a daily basis.


Take a moment to read Charles Blow's column. This ain't Faldur, Onmyknees, Palin or Sharon Angle. He's a far left NYT contributer. Read for yourself Trish....he get's it. When will you ???


NYT's Blow: Case for Civility Harmed by Those That Used Giffords Shooting for Political Gain


By Noel Sheppard (http://newsbusters.org/users/noel-sheppard) | January 15, 2011 | 10:13


New York Times columnist Charles Blow summed it up (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/opinion/15blow.html?ref=opinion) marvelously Saturday:
Immediately after the news broke, the air became thick with conjecture, speculation and innuendo. There was a giddy, almost punch-drunk excitement on the left. The prophecy had been fulfilled: “words have consequences.” And now, the right’s rhetorical chickens had finally come home to roost. [...]
The only problem is that there was no evidence then, and even now, that overheated rhetoric from the right had anything to do with the shooting. (In fact, a couple of people who said they knew him have described him as either apolitical (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7xLg2C2iI0) or “quite liberal (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?_r=1).”) [...]
The American people know it, too. According to a USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday (http://www.gallup.com/poll/145556/Doubt-Political-Rhetoric-Major-Factor-Ariz-Shootings.aspx), 42 percent of those asked said that political rhetoric was not a factor at all in the shooting, 22 percent said that it was a minor factor and 20 percent said that it was a major factor. Furthermore, most agreed that focusing on conservative rhetoric as a link in the shooting was “not a legitimate point but mostly an attempt to use the tragedy to make conservatives look bad.” And nearly an equal number of people said that Republicans, the Tea Party and Democrats had all “gone too far in using inflammatory language” to criticize their opponents.


Concocting connections to advance an argument actually weakens it. The argument for tonal moderation has been done a tremendous disservice by those who sought to score political points in the absence of proof.



How much longer will you continue to beat the drum Trish ????????? FAIL

[onmyknees]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zVknXIVMp80


Now check this vid out. If this was a Tea Partier the seemingly easily offended Trish would be dragging her soap box down to the village square and calling for the Tea Party to curb the heated rhetoric. She doesn't care who's making the dangerous political speech...she just wants it curbed ( but mentions Palin in nearly every post) Funny thing is...this was a rally sponsered by Common Cause, Code Pink, and various labor unions, so it's no big deal.......Yawn !!!!!!

Egyptian style revolution...???? Hmmmm sounds incendiary to me. Over throwing the government ???

See what happens when you go down this road Trish????It gets turned right back around on you.

[trish]

Your nut case cancels out FaldursI'm not discounting Faldur's. I'm not canceling it away with one on the other side. They both count. They both add to the risk of violence. Don't you get it? Only you guy's are keeping score. BTW haven't been using violent language, nor have I resorted to violence. Neither have you and neither has Faldur. But Sarah has invoked metaphors of violence, and so has Angle. They (and their groupies) should just own up to it instead of making up bizarre shit about blood libel. Not that it'll make a great deal a difference. What we really need is restrictive gun laws: limitations on magazine capacity, strict licensing, more extensive background checks, limitations on where one can carry, limitations on assault weapons, requirements for all gun owners to carry liability insurance etc. Even if a determined murderer will always be able to find a semi-automatic glock-19 with a high capacity magazine, we don't have to make it easy for him.

[loren]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zVknXIVMp80


Now check this vid out. If this was a Tea Partier the seemingly easily offended Trish would be dragging her soap box down to the village square and calling for the Tea Party to curb the heated rhetoric. She doesn't care who's making the dangerous political speech...she just wants it curbed ( but mentions Palin in nearly every post) Funny thing is...this was a rally sponsered by Common Cause, Code Pink, and various labor unions, so it's no big deal.......Yawn !!!!!!

Egyptian style revolution...???? Hmmmm sounds incendiary to me. Over throwing the government ???

See what happens when you go down this road Trish????It gets turned right back around on you.
Whenever leftist groups throw out baseless accusations and even threaten either harm or death to sitting or past public officials, it's called free speach. But if a conservative points out their double-standard behavior with examples, it's heated, inciteful political rhetoric and hate speach.

[trish]

...the seemingly easily offended Trish...Did I say I was offended?? Not at all. None of the language we're talking about is particularly offensive and it's certainly not directed at me. Is Palin offended? Of course, because everything is about her? Blood libel, really? :roll: Are her groupies offended? Sure you are, that's this thread's raison d'etre. My concerns are much less selfish. I'm not offended. I'm concerned that violent language and calls to political action that utilize violent metaphors increase the risk of violence to our political leaders, to others in public service and to any ordinary person who expresses an opinion or displays a bumper sticker. I'm concerned when people are told to bring their guns to a town meeting and they obey like unthinking sheep. It just brings us that much closer to the possibility of violence; not to mention it amounts to censorship via the intimidation of armed violence.


She doesn't care who's making the dangerous political speech...she just wants it curbed Wrong again. Listen carefully. I don't want it curbed. What do I have to do with it? I'm merely pointing out that such language increases the risk of violent behavior in our society, that it would be nice if those who engage in it would admit as much and it would be prudent of them if they curbed their use of violent symbolism. I don't figure into it.


Whenever leftist groups throw out baseless accusations and even threaten either harm or death to sitting or past public officials, it's called free speach. But if a conservative points out their double-standard behavior with examples, it's heated, inciteful political rhetoric and hate speach. Actually it's called hate speech and hate speech is not at issue here. Have you not read my previous posts in this thread or in the thread titled, "A Shooting Spree in Arizona"? I condemn all calls to political action that is couched in the language of violence. I do make a distinction between the temperature of the language and calls to violence (real or metaphorical) in the language. You can call Oberman a motherfucking, plague infested rat, I don't give a shit. That's heated speech but not violent speech. In politics who can't avoid heated and passionate speech. But if you say someone should string up this Conservative pundit or that Liberal Senator, then you've crossed the line regardless of what party you belong to. What's crossing the line? It's increasing the risk that someone, somewhere, crazy or sober, political or not, thinks they have the permission or justification of a segment of society to act out violently. I'm sure among ordinary folk, there are offenders of every party and every sort of persuasion. I'm disappointed that the people in Faldur's post have allowed themselves to be coaxed into suggesting violent acts be performed against political figures. I also condemn those violent suggestions. Among those in the public eye with the biggest megaphones there are a few stars (Palin and Angle among them) in the use of violent metaphor who really stand out...do you condemn their uses of violent symbolism?

[onmyknees]

"Did I say I was offended?? Not at all. None of the language we're talking about is particularly offensive and it's certainly not directed at me. Is Palin offended? Of course, because everything is about her? Blood libel, really? :roll: Are her groupies offended? Sure you are, that's this thread's raison d'etre. My concerns are much less selfish. I'm not offended. I'm concerned that violent language and calls to political action that utilize violent metaphors increase the risk of violence to our political leaders, to others in public service and to any ordinary person who expresses an opinion or displays a bumper sticker. I'm concerned when people are told to bring their guns to a town meeting and they obey like unthinking sheep. It just brings us that much closer to the possibility of violence; not to mention it amounts to censorship via the intimidation of armed violence. "

Trish...you didn't have to say you were offended. That was implied...or was I mistaken because of 4 weeks of you harping on the same issue ? I really don't know where you're going with this. Look...politics is a rough and tumble ordeal. it should be, but we've been using political military type metaphors for decades, and now you make the decision that we must tone it down ? I just don't see historical evidence to back up your concerns. The Reagan assignation attempt, the Squeaky Frome incident, and most serious threats have little to do with rough and tumble dialogue. Just like we won't change the abortion law because of the butcher in Philadelphia, nor should we change or modify the first amendment and tough political talk because of Loughner. That's not the way our republic functions. Yea...I know you'll retort with ..."I'm not asking to curb the first amendment" ....actually in a way you are. Subtly.
Look...Gabby Giffords was by all accounts a nice lady. If I thought for a second that Loughner or anybody else took Sarah Palin's words literally I might meet you half way on this, but there's absolutely no correlation...none, and I think all this call to civility has a political undertone...perhaps not by you.

Some guy acts like a yahoo because he sees an Obama bumper sticker, Put his ass in jail for 30 days and move on, nobody died...yet people are killed every day in this country because of road rage and You don't know their names, nor do we care to be honest...but throw in an Obama bumper sticker and suddenly it has all your focus. I'll bet there's far more people who get their ass kicked because they have team logo on their car !!!!!!!!!!!!!! So what's your point? If it's that largely we are too angry and too violent..?? I Probably agree. But it doesn't have a fucking thing to do with Palin, or an Obama bumper sticker or passionate political rhetoric.

I get the impression that you and others on the left are setting the stage getting ready for god forbid the day some lunatic hurts someone because of something someone said and it can be shown conclusively. Hedging you bets like some sort of investment in the future... But on the other hand....if it never happens...no big deal...it's just Palin's reputation that you've destroyed . Move on...nothing to be concerned about. Let's find another right wing danger to get everybody all concerned about !!

You know what concerns me, and alarms me far more than Sarah Palin telling supporters to lock and load for the political battles ahead ?????????...............This...



Oh it's not as violent as you would like us to believe some of Palin's metaphors are, but it's far more insidious, and far more fucking dangerous to a democracy in the long run. We won't see the President calling for something to be done about this in a speech in Tucson...This type of thing can't be capsulated in a nice sound bite by the left. But this sort of thing doesn't seem to concern the left. Not for a second do you see the dangers in what's being done to abuse the special rights we allow the press. There's no gun for you to blame, no easily identifiable victim , nothing that can summed up in a 30 second sound bite, yet it had more to do with the outcome of a national presidential election than all the fiery things Palin and Angle ever said. Here we have the preeminent paper of record subtly and deliberately slanting news stories as to move political opinion in their direction. Maybe someday when Palin is off your hit list...(oops) you can give me your thoughts on this, but I'm guessing it's not high on your priorities list as long as Palin is around. This takes some analysis...it's not quite as easy to draw the conclusions that you seem so concerned about, and it's not as easy for lightweights to draw the distinctions ( and I'm not putting you in that category) . This just isn't a big deal to the left...but put Palin behind a microphone and you hang on every fucking word looking to draw some imaginary linkage.



I'm sure you know Bernard Kalb is an esteemed former reporter and now journalism professor...




Kalb to NYT Executive Editor Keller: Why Do You Allow Left-Wing Views in Your News Stories?

By Clay Waters (http://www.newsbusters.org/bios/clay-waters.html) | February 04, 2011 | 16:50
New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller was challenged Monday night on the paper’s commitment to objectivity, especially concerning opinionizing in front-page articles, in an appearance televised on C-Span (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Scenesatthe), before an audience at George Washington University. About 26 minutes into the wide-ranging journalism discussion, moderator Marvin Kalb challenged Keller.

Kalb: “On the Times you have news and then you've got opinion. Now there should be a wall between the two. Your ombudsman Arthur Brisbane says, and I quote, ‘the news pages are laced with analytical and opinion pieces that work against the premise that the news is just the news, unquote. Many conservatives as you well know, criticize the Times as being a liberal, left-wing newspaper, and that those views get into the news part of your newspaper. Why do you allow this to happen?”
Keller: “We don’t allow it to happen. I mean--”

Kalb: “But it happens almost every day.”

Keller: “According to Art Brisbane or according to you?”

Kalb: “No, well, according to people who have read the Times for many many years. There’s more, what I’m getting at here Bill, is that there’s more analysis dipping into commentary and the editorial side of reporting than a straight hard news story.”

Kalb is referring to Brisbane's January 9 column (http://www.mrc.org/timeswatch/articles/2011/20110112120601.aspx), where he said of a decision to put David Leonhardt's liberal economic analysis on the front page:
It was The Times’s decision to place it on Page 1 that posed the difficulty, sending the message that The Times’s take on health care is synonymous with Mr. Leonhardt’s, which some see as progressive or liberal.

[Silcc69]

Did we forget bout this particular incident?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/150410-black-gop-official-resigns-citing-arizona-tea-party-threats.html

The sole black Republican Party district chairman in Arizona resigned from his post in the wake of Saturday's shooting, citing threats from the Tea Party faction and concerns for his family's safety.

District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others resigned.

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.

The first and only African-American to hold the party's precinct chairmanship, Miller said he has been called "McCain's boy," and during the campaign saw a critic form his hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.

"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

His resignation comes in the wake of the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson), and the killing of several others, including a federal judge, at a political rally over the weekend. Although there have been no links discovered between the shooter, Jared Loughner, and the Tea Party, political opponents have blamed the movement and one of its major figures, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for creating an atmosphere that encourages violence.

Last month, Miller was re-elected to his second term as district chairman following the November general election, which saw Democratic incumbents like U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and state Rep. Rae Waters (D-Ahwatukee Foothills) unseated in favor of Republican candidates.

Miller said the recent party election involved infighting between Miller and his allies and a "radical" local Tea Party faction calling itself the "New Vision" slate.

"There's trouble within the Republican Party," he said. "I'm seeing this new faction, the Sarah Palin type of Republicans."

The Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html#ixzz1AqMYTq70)

Ahwatukee Foothills News (http://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_b8b25924-1e76-11e0-a837-001cc4c03286.html)

If the guy was a democrat then this would not be a shocker but a black GOP member being threatened by the Tea Party make no sense at all. He is after all on THERE side.

[trish]

Trish...you didn't have to say you were offended. That was implied...or was I mistaken because of 4 weeks of you harping on the same issue ?There you go again, claiming to know what I think instead of listening to what I say. What did I just say? I said, "I'm not offended." End of story. Why do you always try to make things personal? The issue isn't my feelings, the issue is the increased risk of violent behavior that is engendered by the use of violent symbolism in lieu of calls to political action.


I really don't know where you're going with this.I didn't start this thread. I assume you guys are going somewhere with it. Here is the prudent course of action: Don't tell people to take their guns to political rallies. Don't tell people they may have to resort to Second Amendment Remedies. Don't support people when they say such things. Don't take your guns to rallies. Don't take them to town-hall meetings. Don't take them to State and Federal Parks, Schools, Churches or Nurseries. Support laws that would limit high capacity magazines, support laws that seek to limit gun ownership to responsible persons, make assault weapons illegal, stop whining and just admit your celebrity made a silly blunder involving language and symbolism...it's not like it hasn't happened before (I read all of them) or even since (blood libel).

I'm not asking for a law that will gag violent speech. I'm not advocating any sort of censorship. Sarah has a right to lubricate the violent fantasies of her groupies, the groupies have a right to those fantasies and I have a right to call them out on it. I'm advocating nothing that could be construed as insidiously dangerous to the Constitution. I'll tell you what is insidiously dangerous to the Constitution: sitting at a town-hall meeting with guns at your side while shouting down the speaker who holds the floor.

[onmyknees]

There you go again, claiming to know what I think instead of listening to what I say. What did I just say? I said, "I'm not offended." End of story. Why do you always try to make things personal? The issue isn't my feelings, the issue is the increased risk of violent behavior that is engendered by the use of violent symbolism in lieu of calls to political action.

I didn't start this thread. I assume you guys are going somewhere with it. Here is the prudent course of action: Don't tell people to take their guns to political rallies. Don't tell people they may have to resort to Second Amendment Remedies. Don't support people when they say such things. Don't take your guns to rallies. Don't take them to town-hall meetings. Don't take them to State and Federal Parks, Schools, Churches or Nurseries. Support laws that would limit high capacity magazines, support laws that seek to limit gun ownership to responsible persons, make assault weapons illegal, stop whining and just admit your celebrity made a silly blunder involving language and symbolism...it's not like it hasn't happened before (I read all of them) or even since (blood libel).

I'm not asking for a law that will gag violent speech. I'm not advocating any sort of censorship. Sarah has a right to lubricate the violent fantasies of her groupies, the groupies have a right to those fantasies and I have a right to call them out on it. I'm advocating nothing that could be construed as insidiously dangerous to the Constitution. I'll tell you what is insidiously dangerous to the Constitution: sitting at a town-hall meeting with guns at your side while shouting down the speaker who holds the floor.

I'm hardly making this personal Trish. If I was you'd know it ! This is politics ...it gets a little rough sometimes. Sooo after all this all you're saying is you have the right to call groups that use rhetoric you don't like out ?? You had that right before this thread ever started !!!!!! LMAO. IMO there's more to this for you than what you're suggesting.

Wow...you have this hysteria about people attending town hall meetings with guns. So in the spirit in which your latest post was intended....let me say to you...stop crying about all this gun talk you have such a fear of, and stating calling YOUR celebrity out on it ......

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” ....“Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Now let's judge that statement by Trish's standard. He is directly referrencing a bringing a gun. He's not talking in metaphors, he's speaking directly. I'm worried that at some point, some wing nut may take him literally. Is he suggesting a physical brawl? One could interpret this as a call to arms. We've seen people beat up by union thugs at political rallies. Will this escalate? I'm concerned !!!!


And...I read hundreds of liberal blogs, newspapers, periodicals, articles, web sites, magazines , and watch as much liberal TV as I can stand I've googled this...did nexus lexus searches....bing searches, and not once since this statement was made did one liberal ...including the gun sensitive Trish show any concern about the firey political rhetoric referrencing guns and brawls.

Therefore...I smell the foul order of HYPOCRACY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gigantic Fail !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[onmyknees]

Did we forget bout this particular incident?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/150410-black-gop-official-resigns-citing-arizona-tea-party-threats.html

The sole black Republican Party district chairman in Arizona resigned from his post in the wake of Saturday's shooting, citing threats from the Tea Party faction and concerns for his family's safety.

District Chairman Anthony Miller and several others resigned.

Miller, a 43-year-old Ahwatukee Foothills resident and former campaign worker for U.S. Sen. John McCain, was re-elected to a second one-year term last month. He said constant verbal attacks after that election and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family's safety.

The first and only African-American to hold the party's precinct chairmanship, Miller said he has been called "McCain's boy," and during the campaign saw a critic form his hand in the shape of a gun and point it at him.

"I wasn't going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday," Miller said. "I love the Republican Party but I don't want to take a bullet for anyone."

His resignation comes in the wake of the attempted assassination of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Tucson), and the killing of several others, including a federal judge, at a political rally over the weekend. Although there have been no links discovered between the shooter, Jared Loughner, and the Tea Party, political opponents have blamed the movement and one of its major figures, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, for creating an atmosphere that encourages violence.

Last month, Miller was re-elected to his second term as district chairman following the November general election, which saw Democratic incumbents like U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) and state Rep. Rae Waters (D-Ahwatukee Foothills) unseated in favor of Republican candidates.

Miller said the recent party election involved infighting between Miller and his allies and a "radical" local Tea Party faction calling itself the "New Vision" slate.

"There's trouble within the Republican Party," he said. "I'm seeing this new faction, the Sarah Palin type of Republicans."

The Arizona Republic (http://www.azcentral.com/community/ahwatukee/articles/2011/01/11/20110111gabrielle-giffords-arizona-shooting-resignations.html#ixzz1AqMYTq70)

Ahwatukee Foothills News (http://www.ahwatukee.com/news/article_b8b25924-1e76-11e0-a837-001cc4c03286.html)

If the guy was a democrat then this would not be a shocker but a black GOP member being threatened by the Tea Party make no sense at all. He is after all on THERE side.

Well....i don't speak for the Tea Party Silcc, I do understand them, and agree with some of the things they articulate, but this guy sounds like he was a McCain Republican. In case you hadn't noticed, McCain is not the hearthrob of conservatives and Tea Partiers. He runs far right in the primaries, gets elected, then sheds his skin...but not to be concerned...ask any Tea Partier what they think of newly elected black Congressman , Col. Alan West !!!!!

[loren]

What we really need is restrictive gun laws: limitations on magazine capacity, strict licensing, more extensive background checks, limitations on where one can carry, limitations on assault weapons, requirements for all gun owners to carry liability insurance etc.
Why is liberal's answer always more gun control? Gun controll will not prevent crime. The only people who are limited by restrictive gun laws are honest, law abiding citizens not the criminals.

There are approximently 80 million Americans owning a total of about 258 million firearms. You would think with that many guns "on the street" there would be hundreds of people being shot and killed every day. According to the FBI, in 2009 (there aren't any numbers out for 2010 yet) there were 13,636 murders. Firearms caused 9,148 [that's about 25 people a day, nationwide] of those deaths, that's 67.1%. Another 1,825, 13.4% deaths reasulted from knives. The rest were killed by "other" weapons or were beaten to death.http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

According to the NHTSA in the same year [2009], there were 33,808 traffic fatalities. Of which, 10,839 were the reasult of drunk driving.http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research

Perhaps we need restrictive laws against car owners/perspective buyers. Background checks, limit the distances that people are allowed to drive, require all drivers to keep travel logs etc. Also, we need more laws regulating alcohol. Background checks, 5 day waiting period on all sales, limit the number of drinks permited, require people who drink alcohol to carry liability insurance etc.

[trish]

You had that right before this thread ever started !!!!!! LMAO.I never denied it, so here's your ass back.

Wow...you have this hysteria about people attending town hall meetings with guns.Yes, I fucking well do.


“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,”It should never been said. Obama's line obviously inflamed others to make even more violent statements that weren't hypothetical. It's part of the escalation. You're appalled by liberal uses of violent language and have said nothing at all about Palin, or Angle or the Tea-Bagger's uses of violent symbolism. So let's stop with the hypocrisy charge.


Why is liberal's answer always more gun control? Because the use of guns in our country is out of control, duh.

[Silcc69]

Why is liberal's answer always more gun control? Gun controll will not prevent crime. The only people who are limited by restrictive gun laws are honest, law abiding citizens not the criminals.

There are approximently 80 million Americans owning a total of about 258 million firearms. You would think with that many guns "on the street" there would be hundreds of people being shot and killed every day. According to the FBI, in 2009 (there aren't any numbers out for 2010 yet) there were 13,636 murders. Firearms caused 9,148 [that's about 25 people a day, nationwide] of those deaths, that's 67.1%. Another 1,825, 13.4% deaths reasulted from knives. The rest were killed by "other" weapons or were beaten to death.http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

According to the NHTSA in the same year [2009], there were 33,808 traffic fatalities. Of which, 10,839 were the reasult of drunk driving.http://www.centurycouncil.org/learn-the-facts/drunk-driving-research

Perhaps we need restrictive laws against car owners/perspective buyers. Background checks, limit the distances that people are allowed to drive, require all drivers to keep travel logs etc. Also, we need more laws regulating alcohol. Background checks, 5 day waiting period on all sales, limit the number of drinks permited, require people who drink alcohol to carry liability insurance etc.

That means an average person that owns a gun, owns 3.2 guns :)

[trish]

Gun controll will not prevent crime. The only people who are limited by restrictive gun laws are honest, law abiding citizens not the criminals.Of course not. Laws against murder don't prevent murder. Laws against theft don't prevent theft. Laws regulating the use of TNT don't prevent white supremacists from blowing up office buildings and churches. Laws regulating the safe use of automobiles on our highways don't prevent accidents. So what? Law can be effective when they define, diminish or simply make crime difficult. The laws regulating the use restrict BOTH the person who would use it criminally as well the person who would use it constructively. But there's no big problem. The laws regulating the highway restrict both the criminal and the safe driver. We require, for example, prospective drivers to pass an exam before they can get a license to drive. Those with learners licenses in many states do in fact keep a log. Again no problem. The people who use TNT in their work and the people who use our highways are more than happy to have regulations in place because those regulations make their jobs safer, their travel safer and guard the safety of others as well.

According to you, 67.1% of all murders are done with guns; i.e. guns are by far the preferred tool for murder. How many lethal gun related accidents are there? How many involving children? How many accidental shootings that don't lead to death?

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

[onmyknees]

Civility Watch..................


And oh yea...
Pintado told authorities he was “glad” his threat made Snyder nervous. He is a self described Political Activest....Hmmmmmmm . The left wing...dangerous !!!!


UMass student arrested for alleged e-mail threat

By: Sam Butterfield (http://dailycollegian.com/author/sambutterfield/) | February 01, 2011 | ShareThis (javascript:void(0))

http://dailycollegian.com/media/2011/02/4376.jpg (http://dailycollegian.com/media/2011/02/4376.jpg) Rep. William Snyder - MyFloridaHouse.gov

Web update: 5:23 p.m.
The Daily Collegian obtained a statement from Rep. William Snyder, the Stuart, Fla. state representative who was the target of threatening emails allegedly sent by a University of Massachusetts student.
Snyder said he is grateful to law enforcement in Florida and Massachusetts for their efforts, and glad Manuel Pintado, the suspect in the case, is in custody.
“I am grateful to the Martin County Sheriff’s office and the arresting officers from the Northampton Police Department for their dedication to the protection of public safety and am thankful that the individual is in custody and will be brought to justice,” he said.
Florida House of Representatives Press Secretary Lyndsey Cruley said neither Rep. Snyder nor any other Florida lawmakers are taking any additional precautions or security measures, and that Rep. Snyder is continuing with his legislative business as usual.
“No, Rep. Snyder did not take any additional precautions,” she said, “he notified the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and local law enforcement in Martin County, and at this point is back to his duties,” she said.
—

http://dailycollegian.com/media/2011/02/PintadoManuel-e1296595630700-300x177.jpg (http://dailycollegian.com/media/2011/02/PintadoManuel-e1296595630700.jpg) Manuel Pintado - Northampton Police Department

Web update: 4:36 p.m.
University of Massachusetts Executive Director of News and Media Relations Ed Blaguszewski confirmed that Manuel Pintado, the individual arrested in connection with sending threatening emails to a Florida lawmaker last night, is enrolled as a student at UMass.
Blaguszewski could not discuss specifics of whether or not the Dean of Students office would pursue sanctions against Pintado, but said that in situations where a student is arrested and the University becomes aware of charges, the Dean of Students generally commences proceedings.
—–
A University of Massachusetts student is awaiting extradition to Southeast Florida for allegedly making threatening emails to a Florida state representative.
Manuel Pintado, 47, of Northampton was being held at the Hampshire County House of Corrections in Northampton after police there took him into custody at the request of Martin County, Florida law enforcement.
Pintado was arrested last night for allegedly sending Rep. William D. Snyder, a Republican representing Florida’s House district 82, a message attacking him for his involvement in a bill which would allow police to ask anyone for proof of citizenship, according to a release from the Martin County Sheriff’s Office.
According to the Feb. 1 statement, the text of the email read “To the Honorable William D. Snyder; You better just stop that ridiculous law if you value you rand your familie’s lives ashole.”
Snyder’s office received the communication Jan. 8, and contacted Martin County Sheriff Robert L. Crowder’s office the next day.
Martin County Investigations Division Detective Brian Broughton then commenced an investigation to identify the sender and the legitimacy of the threat. Broughton was able to determine the sender of the unsigned email was Pintado, after tracing the email’s origin to a public access wireless Internet line originating at the Starbucks at 211 Main Street in downtown Northampton, a short distance from Pintado’s Hampton Street residence.
Broughton then contacted Northampton Police seeking support in the investigation. Northampton PD interviewed Pintado, who, according to the release, told police in the Pioneer Valley’s anchor city he views himself as a “political activist.” According to the release, Pintado admitted to NPD that he had sent the message, and said he believed Snyder was seeking to abolish the 14th Amendment, which establishes that all people “born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens of the U.S.
Snyder has led the charge in the Florida house on drafting an immigration bill which some have compared to the controversial law in Arizona which allows police to ask any citizen for proof of immigration papers or citizenship.
Pintado told Northampton Police he did not wish to harm Snyder, but also said “he was glad the email made him nervous.” Broughton was also able to confirm that Pintado had traveled from Massachusetts to Florida last December, “giving him the ability to carry out a threat against Representative Snyder.”
Broughton then secured warrants for Pintado’s arrest on charges of corruption by threat, a third-degree felony, and written threat to kill or do bodily harm, a second-degree felony.
Last night at approximately 8 p.m., Pintado was taken into custody without struggle in Northampton. According to the release, Pintado “has a history of multiple arrests in the Northeast,” and “lists his occupation as a student at the University of Massachusetts.”
Several phone calls to UMass’ executive director of news and media relations Ed Blaguszewski’s office and home phones were unreturned immediately, but a report in the Springfield Republican stated that Blaguszewski confirmed Pintado was a student at the University. Calls to the Registrar’s Office were also unanswered, as the office has closed due to the snow storm blanketing much of the Northeast.
In the statement, Martin County Sheriff Robert L. Crowder said he was glad his organization had been able to coordinate with its counterparts in Western Massachusetts to protect a public servant.
“The safety of those who serve the public, in any capacity, is of utmost importance and a matter we take very seriously,” he said. “This individual made a serious threat to both Representative Snyder and his family, and that is something that law enforcement and the citizens of the State of Florida will not tolerate.”
Northampton PD Capt. Scott Savino was reached before press time, but did not return calls seeking comment on the nature of the arrest and Pintado’s extradition status before press time. Calls to Snyder’s Tallahassee office were unanswered as of press time, and his Stuart, Fla. office was reached but did not deliver comment by press time.
The Collegian will have more on the case as it develops.

[trish]

Let’s review what it means to communicate through metaphor. The communication will have at least two meanings, a literal one and the underlying meaning. When Palin says, “Take up your arms,” the intended picture is that of an army taking up it weapons. This is the literal meaning of the invocation. It is the intended picture but not the intended meaning. It’s presents the picture she deliberately wishes to paint. She wants her followers to think of themselves are soldiers fighting for freedom, country, etc. etc. But she (presumably) doesn’t want them to literally take up their weapons...at least when asked about what she meant she said she meant for people to “Take up their votes.” Now I never heard of people taking up their votes, but let’s put that discrepancy down to her diminished capacity to formulate a complete and meaningful English sentence. The intended underlying meaning of the metaphor is for you to vote those targeted democrats out of office.

The thing writers like about metaphors is you can use them to mean two things; i.e. often both the literal and the underlying meanings are intended. That makes them tantalizingly ambiguous. It also makes the use of violent metaphors in political contexts dangerous. The problem is “Take up your arms” means literally “Take up your arms,” and only Sarah knows for sure if that meaning was intended as well as the underlying meaning.

When Obama says, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” I[t']s an example of [a] violent hypothetical being used as a metaphor. It’s a rather overworked one at that. In the context of his address in Philly the intended underlying meaning was something like, “If the republicans bring lies to the table, we’ll bring the truth.” Because it’s metaphorical language there is a built in ambiguity. Did Obama intend for the audience to take away both meanings, the literal and the underlying meaning? In this case what does it matter? The literal meaning of “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” is a hypothetical and not a call to arms....unless of course they do bring a knife to the fight; i.e. the dangerous thing about Obama’s metaphor is that when taken literally it is a call to escalate arms should arms be brought into the political arena.

Sure enough, arms are being brought into the political arena. Here we come to symbolic speech. Tea Baggers have literally been told to bring their guns to town-hall meetings. Not figuratively, but literally to bring guns into meeting[s] all over the country, meetings that have the potential already to be passionate and heated. It’s clear to any sane person that such a call to arms is irresponsible. The call was not a metaphor. It was literal. But the bringing of arms was itself intended as a symbolic message. Bring your arms to the town meeting to send a message to your legislatures and your fellow citizens. What could that message be other than, “Drop this health-care bill or we’ll drop you in your tracks; shut the fuck up and sit down, or I just might draw my gun and shoot you down.” Perhaps, with a stretch of the imagination, you can think of a more innocuous interpretation of [the] symbolic act of taking your guns to a [debate]. But certainly I’ve already enumerated the more obvious message and it is clearly subversive of the First Amendment rights of all citizens.

I notice there's plenty of ire against violent language and actions taken by students and other citizens of liberal persuasion. I condemn their language and actions as well. But where are my conservative counterparts? Won't some conservative speak against flying planes into IRS buildings, or against bringing guns to town-hall meetings, or against invocations of Second Amendment Remedies? Or is it just pretend ire that you're displaying?

[hippifried]

It's only make believe. That's why it isn't worth the effort to try & argue with those that predicate their public positions on lies.

[onmyknees]

Let’s review what it means to communicate through metaphor. The communication will have at least two meanings, a literal one and the underlying meaning. When Palin says, “Take up your arms,” the intended picture is that of an army taking up it weapons. This is the literal meaning of the invocation. It is the intended picture but not the intended meaning. It’s presents the picture she deliberately wishes to paint. She wants her followers to think of themselves are soldiers fighting for freedom, country, etc. etc. But she (presumably) doesn’t want them to literally take up their weapons...at least when asked about what she meant she said she meant for people to “Take up their votes.” Now I never heard of people taking up their votes, but let’s put that discrepancy down to her diminished capacity to formulate a complete and meaningful English sentence. The intended underlying meaning of the metaphor is for you to vote those targeted democrats out of office.

The thing writers like about metaphors is you can use them to mean two things; i.e. often both the literal and the underlying meanings are intended. That makes them tantalizingly ambiguous. It also makes the use of violent metaphors in political contexts dangerous. The problem is “Take up your arms” means literally “Take up your arms,” and only Sarah knows for sure if that meaning was intended as well as the underlying meaning.

When Obama says, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” I[t']s an example of [a] violent hypothetical being used as a metaphor. It’s a rather overworked one at that. In the context of his address in Philly the intended underlying meaning was something like, “If the republicans bring lies to the table, we’ll bring the truth.” Because it’s metaphorical language there is a built in ambiguity. Did Obama intend for the audience to take away both meanings, the literal and the underlying meaning? In this case what does it matter? The literal meaning of “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun” is a hypothetical and not a call to arms....unless of course they do bring a knife to the fight; i.e. the dangerous thing about Obama’s metaphor is that when taken literally it is a call to escalate arms should arms be brought into the political arena.

Sure enough, arms are being brought into the political arena. Here we come to symbolic speech. Tea Baggers have literally been told to bring their guns to town-hall meetings. Not figuratively, but literally to bring guns into meeting[s] all over the country, meetings that have the potential already to be passionate and heated. It’s clear to any sane person that such a call to arms is irresponsible. The call was not a metaphor. It was literal. But the bringing of arms was itself intended as a symbolic message. Bring your arms to the town meeting to send a message to your legislatures and your fellow citizens. What could that message be other than, “Drop this health-care bill or we’ll drop you in your tracks; shut the fuck up and sit down, or I just might draw my gun and shoot you down.” Perhaps, with a stretch of the imagination, you can think of a more innocuous interpretation of [the] symbolic act of taking your guns to a [debate]. But certainly I’ve already enumerated the more obvious message and it is clearly subversive of the First Amendment rights of all citizens.

I notice there's plenty of ire against violent language and actions taken by students and other citizens of liberal persuasion. I condemn their language and actions as well. But where are my conservative counterparts? Won't some conservative speak against flying planes into IRS buildings, or against bringing guns to town-hall meetings, or against invocations of Second Amendment Remedies? Or is it just pretend ire that you're displaying?


Trish...wonderful dissertation of metaphorical versus hypothetical language when used in a political context. Truly. It does astound me the efforts some go to justify equally potentially violent political language on the left. Oh...you're quite careful to "generally" condemn all violent language...very safe bet, but when given specific instance, after specific instance, somehow by dissecting sentences, and projecting your interpretation of the speakers meaning ...none of this nasty stuff on the left seems to draw your specific condemnation. Not the Nazi referrences, nothing....Unlike you....I don't condemn neither what Obama said...nor what Palin said, but cleverly you can draw a distinction. Good for you, and convenient as well. It's truly is a thing of beauty to read how you weave your quilts ( metaphor!) You would have us believe that Obama's language is a hypothetical but somehow have the incisive ability to get inside Palin's head and analyze her. The dead give a way for me was this ..."But she (presumably) doesn't want them to literally take up their weapons..." Presumably being the instructional word there.

And then this...“Take up your arms,” and only Sarah knows for sure if that meaning was intended as well as the underlying meaning" How coy, but ultimately revealing. You and several writers at the NYT and Huff Post are the only ones in America that truly consider that as possible. And they were excoriated and you should be as well.

You pretty much rendered the remainder of your English lesson null in void after those two not so subtle revelations.
You speak of citizens "all over this country" being told to literally bring arms to town hall meetings. Although I hold the possibility that may have happened albeit extremely rare, I have no specific knowledge of it...and, I'd appreciate proof. "All over this country" seems to me to be pretty widespread. Instead of giving us an English lesson, perhaps you can provide some proof of that? Surely an English professor wouldn't speak in sweeping generalities without overwhelming proof of exactly what "all over this country" means. If that sounds condesending, I'm simply returning the favor! ( "Let's Review")

In conclusion, you lament..."But where are my conservative counterparts? Won't some conservative speak against flying planes into IRS buildings?" Not sure where you were, but I heard widespread condemnation from all corners. I think what you're looking for is a mea culpa by conservatives that one of our own had taken to violence. Frankly that's not going to happen since there was no direct, or indirect link to any organized conservative group by the individual. That's like asking me to take responsibility for Tucson. I condemn it...but I damn sure don't take responsibility. In fact, my recollection was he was more left than right, but I don't expect you to take him as one of your own. He was a deranged individual. Period. And as far as speaking out against second amendment remedies...I think the electorate took care of that quite nicely.

With respect to some of the language you quoted at town hall meetings, from anger comes motivation and ultimate change. I don't condone that behavior, or language, but I think we can call it hyperbolie and certainly uncivil since no incidents I'm aware of occured at town hall meetings other than furious citizens. ..but I suspect it was far more rare that you'd like to believe. I prefer the anger be turned into political action as it was on Nov. 2.

So here's today's civility violation. It's several months old, but no doubt instructive. I fully expect to receive a lesson back in the use of comedy and irony in American Political life !! Yea...these guys are fucking hilarious.... !!!!!!!!

msnbc.com Video Player (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/27432472#27432472)

[onmyknees]

It's only make believe. That's why it isn't worth the effort to try & argue with those that predicate their public positions on lies.

You won't engage not for the reasons you state, but IMHO because you're either too lazy, or not capable. I agree...it's so much easier just to call someone a liar and get back to the bong !

[trish]

but somehow have the incisive ability to get inside Palin's head and analyze her.WRONG. Read my post again. I do not claim to know what was in Sarah's head. I looked at what her statement said literally (for that one only needs to know English) and I quoted her own response to the question of its underlying meaning. I then go one step in her favor and presumed (as nearly everyone does) that she did not intend her statement to have both the underlying and the literal meaning. So there you go again, trying to read my mind and putting more stress on a single word than a fair reading would support. Instead of criticizing what I say, you once more criticize what you think I'm thinking. BIG FAIL.


I don't condemn neither what Obama said...nor what Palin said, but cleverly you can draw a distinction. Good for you, and convenient as well. It's truly is a thing of beauty to read how you weave your quilts ( metaphor!) I take no credit. Logical argument is in itself a thing of beauty. Have you found a flaw in the distinction drawn?


And then this...“Take up your arms,” and only Sarah knows for sure if that meaning was intended as well as the underlying meaning" How coy, but ultimately revealing. You and several writers at the NYT and Huff Post are the only ones in America that truly consider that as possible.Of course it's possible. It may be improbable. It may in fact not be the case. I don't think it is the case. I'm not making a statistical analysis, nor a probabilistic analysis of her likely intent. In post #34 I'm simply analyzing the logic of her metaphor. Can you show it's not logically possible that her intent included both meanings? Of course you can't. That would require getting into her head. Instead of psychoanalyzing her, or trying to get into her head, I simply decide to err in her favor, by not further exploring that logical possibility.


I think what you're looking for is a mea culpa by conservatives that one of our own had taken to violence. Frankly that's not going to happen since there was no direct, or indirect link to any organized conservative group by the individual. Isn't strange that I and other liberals can publicly point out how using violent metaphors to call for political action by any party is dangerous and increases the risk violent action that can cross party lines and escalate on both sides; but for you or other conservatives to support that view would be tantamount to admitting mia culpa? Do you have a guilty conscience? I'm not drawing any conclusions just yet, merely asking.

[hippifried]

You won't engage not for the reasons you state, but IMHO because you're either too lazy, or not capable. I agree...it's so much easier just to call someone a liar and get back to the bong !
There's nothing to engage. You don't have anything to say. Come up with something that resembles an original thoutht, that isn't predicated on a lie, & we'll have smething to talk about.

[onmyknees]

There's nothing to engage. You don't have anything to say. Come up with something that resembles an original thoutht, that isn't predicated on a lie, & we'll have smething to talk about.


I'm not usually into name calling, so forgive me..but I'll make an exception in your case....you're a simpleton and it has nothing to do with your political views which you're hard pressed to express. Your posts are one sentence, two at most.....and you essentially parrot what Trish says. They have an avatar for guys like you...."I agree" . Use it !!!!!!!!!!

[onmyknees]

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/07/naacp-won%e2%80%99t-directly-address-racism-leveled-against-clarence-thomas-at-progressive-protest/


This is what is meant by liberal hypocrisy. It reeks of the same sort of pathology Trish laid on us regarding political rhetoric and political speech. Whereas she safely condemns all “inflammatory speech” generically , she refuses to condemn specific, obvious examples, or provides us with an intellectual lecture about nuances and the subtle difference between Obama’s hypothetical speech verses Palin’s metaphorical . And then incredulously asks where are the conservatives who should be condemning this fiery rhetoric !!!!!! This is precisely the liberal mind set. Lecture us from lofty positions with condemnation, about how crude and dangerous we are, while not understanding the nuances of liberal hate speech. It’s the exact same thing the NAACP does, the National Organization for Women, and Big Labor. I’m not a conspiracy theorist, but I’m starting to feel all these people attended the same university lectures together because they all process the identical orthodoxy.
Recall how many times the NAACP ran to the cameras on CNN and MSNBC and the 3 major networks to peddle phony studies ( with no hard data) about how racist the tea parties were. Racist, Racist, Racist…we heard it at nausea…( and Trish is perplexed as to our anger) Yet here we have obviously blatant examples and their collective outrage mysteriously seems to have waned since the election !!!!!!!!!! To borrow a phrase from Trish...."Any sane person" knows precisely why the NAACP won't call this one. It's because Justice Thomas although as black as any man I know, is a conservative, and the protestors are liberal, so it doesn't take a Political Science major to figure out the play here . .......so the obviously conclusion is it's not about race, but rather ideology...but that's not the charter or history of the NAACP.
The larger point that in my opinion Trish misses ( perhaps intentionally) is that she may be blessed with the academic background to dissect the nuances in Progressive rhetoric, and tell us it’s really not harmful because it’s hypothetical but the average American ( right and left) does not. Could Obama’s reference to guns and knives have been taken out of context by a potential unhinged individual? Absolutely. Therefore ALL potentially dangerous political speech must be condemned, or none of it...or one runs the risk of finding themselves in the position she along with the NY Times and NAACP finds themselves… ….HYPOCRACY.

[trish]

I'm not usually into name calling, so forgive me..but I'll make an exception in your case....you're a simpleton and it has nothing to do with your political views which you're hard pressed to express. Your posts are one sentence, two at most.....and you essentially parrot what Trish says. They have an avatar for guys like you...."I agree" . Use it !!!!!!!!!!I'm sorry, but I've read hippiefried's posts, and though I often agree with him, I rarely find them to be derivative of mine. Take this thread for example. Hippiefried is explaining that you haven't established any facts that warrant a lengthy response. That's pretty much the whole story. My responses on the other hand have been quite lengthy. So how is that parroting? Actually I think there's something else going on here.

Every time I read one of your posts, it's trish this and trish that. Even in your response to other people you want my attention. Try to pay some attention to what's being written and less to who writes it.


This is what is meant by liberal hypocrisy. It reeks of the same sort of pathology Trish laid on us regarding political rhetoric and political speech. Whereas she safely condemns all “inflammatory speech” generically , she refuses to condemn specific, obvious examples, or provides us with an intellectual lecture about nuances and the subtle difference between Obama’s hypothetical speech verses Palin’s metaphorical . Which is it? Do I refuse to condemn, or do I condemn while pointing out distinctions? You have yet to show us exactly where my distinctions are inaccurate or irrelevant. Are you just complaining that I found distinctions to make?


And then incredulously asks where are the conservatives who should be condemning this fiery rhetoric !!!!!!WRONG. And I've been insistent on this point...NOT FIERY RHETORIC, BUT THE USE OF VIOLENT METAPHORS TO MOVE PEOPLE TO POLITICAL ACTION. There's distinction and it's not nuanced. I have yet to see a conservative speak against the latter. Why? Are they afraid it would be self-condemnation?


This is precisely the liberal mind set. Lecture us from lofty positions with condemnation, about how crude and dangerous we are, while not understanding the nuances of liberal hate speech. I just gave a nuanced analysis of Obama's "If they bring a knife,..." blunder. I condemned it. You didn't. You literally said:
Unlike you....I don't condemn neither what Obama said...nor what Palin said... So is it dangerous or not? Am I too critical of liberal uses of violent metaphor because I condemn it and you don't. Or do I not sufficiently appreciate its dangerousness? You can't have it both ways.

[hippifried]

I'm not usually into name calling, so forgive me..but I'll make an exception in your case....you're a simpleton and it has nothing to do with your political views which you're hard pressed to express. Your posts are one sentence, two at most.....and you essentially parrot what Trish says. They have an avatar for guys like you...."I agree" . Use it !!!!!!!!!!
There you go lying again. Name calling is all you do. It's the only way to argue the lie that you start these threads with. As for political views: You don't know mine & I don't care about yours. You know absolutely nothing about me. Everything you think you know is just somebody elses opinion of what I should be thinking, based on some convoluted associative illogic. Like I said: No original thought. If you ever find a there there, let me know. In the meantime. I'm perfectly happy laughing at your gullibility.

[Faldur]

There you go lying again. Name calling is all you do. It's the only way to argue the lie that you start these threads with.

Excuse me, I started this thread and I don't believe it began with a lie. I think it was a factual video describing the threads main topic, (how ever sarcastic it was).

People who live in glass houses, Hippi.. you have been challenged on several topics to back up your verbal accusations with some facts and they never seem to appear. Seems to me OnMy regularly backs up his statements with pics, links or videos.

[trish]

Excuse me, I started this thread and I don't believe it began with a lie. I think it was a factual video describing the threads main topic, (how ever sarcastic it was).

People who live in glass houses, Hippi.. you have been challenged on several topics to back up your verbal accusations with some facts and they never seem to appear. Seems to me OnMy regularly backs up his statements with pics, links or videos.
Pics, links and videos aren't always the evidence they're cracked up to be. First of all, you guys are cherry picking. You aren't going out and picking random links to violent language, are you now? Now lets take the video that begins this thread. The questioner is clearly baiting these people and yes they're being suckers by eventually fall into step, but not until after several cuts and a lot of coaxing. We never see the beginning of the interviews and we never see the time code so we don't know how long the cuts are. Consequently we don't know how long it took the Breitbartesque reporter to coax the violent language out of these people. I do indeed condemn their language, but I also condemn the reporter for giving them a small megaphone and then all but squeezing that language from his subjects. So is the clip a lie? No one is depicted as saying something they didn't say. Yet, Christians will tell you that there's such a thing as a lie of omission. That's the lie the video tells. You think that was a factual video? LMAO Whaddya think we should to do those demonstrators then? Come on, give me a real answer. What should we do? What do they deserve? Come on. You can answer. What should we do to 'em? What should we do after that? Then what? That's not all is it? What else do we do to 'em? Huh? What else?

[onmyknees]

There you go lying again. Name calling is all you do. It's the only way to argue the lie that you start these threads with. As for political views: You don't know mine & I don't care about yours. You know absolutely nothing about me. Everything you think you know is just somebody elses opinion of what I should be thinking, based on some convoluted associative illogic. Like I said: No original thought. If you ever find a there there, let me know. In the meantime. I'm perfectly happy laughing at your gullibility.


Wow...that's 3 sentences....:Bowdown:

You're right, I do name call....but is an insult to be called what you are? Liberal and progressive??? . Here's what I do know about you....you take drive by swipes, like the guy who drives by you in the car and yells insults knowing full well he'll be safely away by the time you realize what's happened..."LIAR, GULLIABLE" TEA BAGGER" but you rarely state what your position is and why. There's no crime in that , but it's superficial and simplistic..therfore you warrant scorn, IMHO...Instead of laughing at me , why don't you try your literary skills and tell us what you think and why you think it. Look...I know you'd prefer to be yanking your crank to the pics on the general discussion board, but bring some game here.

[thombergeron]

That's pretty funny that you brought up Alan West.

Remember his totally reasonable takeway from The Untouchables? "If they put one of yours in the hospital, you put two of theirs in the morgue."

Remember his measured response to the Obama Administration's (nonexistent) gun control policy? "You must be well-informed and well-armed because this government that we have now is a tyrannical government." (West was, incidentally, totally wrong about the Nazi's banning of private gun ownership.)

Remember when the women who was his chief of staff for about five seconds said, "If you commit a crime while you're here, we should hang you and send your body back to where you came from, and your family should pay for it."

Good times.

[thombergeron]

Also kind of inconvenient for your argument that you keep railing against the NYT when conservative darling Ann Coulter said, “My only regret with Tim McVeigh is that he did not go to the New York Times building.”

Apparently, she agrees with you!

[thombergeron]

Can't leave out peace-loving Glenn Beck, who's program is watched by 3 million kind-hearted critical thinkers:

“Hang on, let me just tell you what I’m thinking. I’m thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I’m wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could.”

[thombergeron]

Tough to beat Michael Savage for cool, collected rhetoric: “I say round liberals up and hang em’ high. When I hear someone’s in the civil rights business, I oil up my AR-25.”

Although, in fairness, the AR-25 is an Army manual, not an assault rifle, so perhaps he's wanting to just bore liberals to death.

[thombergeron]

Remember all those batshit crazy leftists who were so pissed that George Bush was elected that the went out and shot people?

Oh, wait a minute:

Richard Popalowski (http://www.wtae.com/r/19096134/detail.html)

Joshua Cartwright (http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/cartwright-16963-elizabeth-deputies.html)

James Wenneker von Brunn (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/11shoot.html?_r=2&8au&emc=au)

[onmyknees]

There you go lying again. Name calling is all you do. It's the only way to argue the lie that you start these threads with. As for political views: You don't know mine & I don't care about yours. You know absolutely nothing about me. Everything you think you know is just somebody elses opinion of what I should be thinking, based on some convoluted associative illogic. Like I said: No original thought. If you ever find a there there, let me know. In the meantime. I'm perfectly happy laughing at your gullibility.


I'm sorry, but I've read hippiefried's posts, and though I often agree with him, I rarely find them to be derivative of mine. Take this thread for example. Hippiefried is explaining that you haven't established any facts that warrant a lengthy response. That's pretty much the whole story. My responses on the other hand have been quite lengthy. So how is that parroting? Actually I think there's something else going on here.

Every time I read one of your posts, it's trish this and trish that. Even in your response to other people you want my attention. Try to pay some attention to what's being written and less to who writes it.

Which is it? Do I refuse to condemn, or do I condemn while pointing out distinctions? You have yet to show us exactly where my distinctions are inaccurate or irrelevant. Are you just complaining that I found distinctions to make?

WRONG. And I've been insistent on this point...NOT FIERY RHETORIC, BUT THE USE OF VIOLENT METAPHORS TO MOVE PEOPLE TO POLITICAL ACTION. There's distinction and it's not nuanced. I have yet to see a conservative speak against the latter. Why? Are they afraid it would be self-condemnation?

I just gave a nuanced analysis of Obama's "If they bring a knife,..." blunder. I condemned it. You didn't. You literally said: So is it dangerous or not? Am I too critical of liberal uses of violent metaphor because I condemn it and you don't. Or do I not sufficiently appreciate its dangerousness? You can't have it both ways.


"I'm sorry, but I've read hippiefried's posts, and though I often agree with him, I rarely find them to be derivative of mine. Take this thread for example. Hippiefried is explaining that you haven't established any facts that warrant a lengthy response. That's pretty much the whole story. My responses on the other hand have been quite lengthy. So how is that parroting? Actually I think there's something else going on here.

Every time I read one of your posts, it's trish this and trish that. Even in your response to other people you want my attention. Try to pay some attention to what's being written and less to who writes it.


Not sure how to respond to that....you don't like when I say you're getting in Palin's head, but you're trying to get into mine? More of the same from you! Not sure what you "think" is going on...but whatever it is..it's in your head only ! I want your attention ????? That's pretty lame ! LMAO...Wow...I mean really Trish ...get a clue girl ! Your condesending tone has been unchallanged for awhile now ...You're not schooling anybody here, and you're not the head mistress !!! You know what's going on here?? I don't back down and I'm not in the least intimadated or convinced by your arguments...that's what's going on. I read your opinions, and counter with my own, and state why I think you're wrong. If you're reading any more into that...well that's on you. And if I refer to you in other posts, it's because I use what you say as an example of, in my opinion the protoypical thinking, and in some cases the hypocracy of progressives. I guess you run the risk of being quoted as this is a public forum. So if I don't do that in the future, can we assume I'm no longer begging for your attention? LMAO

Now...back to substance...I asked you to supply proof of your statement yesterday of people being encouraged to attend tea parties all over the county armed. It seemed like the basis for your entire position. Please stop telling me to pay attention to the posts and trying to shrink me, and practice what you preach.............or don't...it really doesn't matter. .....I'm taking a blow from here for a couple days.

[thombergeron]

I asked you to supply proof of your statement yesterday of people being encouraged to attend tea parties all over the county armed.

Militia Groups Hold Armed Protest on Potomac (http://www.newser.com/story/86397/militia-groups-hold-armed-protest-on-potomac.html)

[thombergeron]

http://restoretheconstitution.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/20100102__news07guns01032_gallery.jpg

[thombergeron]

Which is not to say that the Tea Party is incapable of non-violent protest, like the guys who only spit on Emanuel Cleaver and merely called James Clyburn a nigger.

[Faldur]

Whaddya think we should to do those demonstrators then? Come on, give me a real answer. What should we do? What do they deserve? Come on. You can answer. What should we do to 'em? What should we do after that? Then what? That's not all is it? What else do we do to 'em? Huh? What else?

That answer is simple, we expose them for the vile racist/angry revolutionaries that they are. We don't continue to support a left leaning media that continually hides these kind of people, comments and gatherings.

Once that is done, we can line them all up against a wall and throw used condoms at them. (that more the response you wanted?, let me know i can edit it for you).

[Faldur]

http://restoretheconstitution.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/20100102__news07guns01032_gallery.jpg

Let me get this straight, saying "No" is violent? In case you didn't know, guns are legal in this country.

[thombergeron]

onmyknees doubted the veracity of reports of armed tea partiers and asked for evidence of said phenomenon.

And there 'tis. Enjoy.

Are going to take the position that carrying a firearm at a political protest is a nonviolent act? That the gentleman in this photo does not intend an "Or else!" coda to his demand that we end congess [sic] spending and replace the comunist [sic] in DC? That he's carrying a rifle just because he likes rifles?

Because I would call such as position disingenuous.

[trish]

I presume you don't require proof that guns were brought to town hall meetings all over the nation, nor that fellow healthcare protestors encouraged each other to bring them. Nor, I presume, do you require proof that plenty of encouragement was to be found on Fox Newsfotainment. If you need to find such encouragement coming from a representative try looking up Phil Gingrey.

[w1s2x3]

onmyknees doubted the veracity of reports of armed tea partiers and asked for evidence of said phenomenon.

And there 'tis. Enjoy.

Are going to take the position that carrying a firearm at a political protest is a nonviolent act? That the gentleman in this photo does not intend an "Or else!" coda to his demand that we end congess [sic] spending and replace the comunist [sic] in DC? That he's carrying a rifle just because he likes rifles?

Because I would call such as position disingenuous.

Our country was born of violence. We fought a war to stop slavery. Perhaps one to stop tax slavery is next?

[trish]

We fought a war to stop slavery. Perhaps one to stop tax slavery is next? Awe, are you a slave? There, there. Now go fetch me a mint julep.

[Prospero]

You tea party folk ---well intentioned as many of you surely are - but do you not realise that you are being led by the nose by some of the richest people in the country to fight and campaign on their behalf. Tax slavery. This is such utter tosh.

I find it truly remarkable that you cannot see the way you are being manipulated. Led by the nose. It's the rich who are screwing you - not the democrats and Obama. It is the corporations.

[Prospero]

You might recall that it was a former military man, your own President Eisenhower who before he left office warned the American people to beware the military-industrial complex. They are the enemy - not Obama. Break the trance everyone and see the real ills of this world.

[w1s2x3]

Awe, are you a slave? There, there. Now go fetch me a mint julep.

Hmmm... sounds like someone enjoys the fruits of someone elses labors.

[trish]

Oh, you actually labor and produce goods by your own hand? Prove it. I want the long form.

[robertlouis]

Let me get this straight, saying "No" is violent? In case you didn't know, guns are legal in this country.

More's the pity

[Faldur]

More's the pity

Had you only taken our guns away 235 years ago, we might still under your rule.. :dancing:

[TJ347]

Are we back on guns? Listen, it's very simple... If you want to ban gun ownership by private citizens, call upon your state senators to act on it, and vote them out if they won't. Stop trying to convince people who are firmly on the other side of the fence of the absurdity of civilians owning firearms, as it's a waste of time and energy.

That said, can you imagine what would happen if the government decided, a la Great Britain, to do away with civilian gun ownership? I should think the result would be the opposite of "everybody being safer". Hundreds of thousands dead is a very real possiblity, maybe more.

[TJ347]

That means an average person that owns a gun, owns 3.2 guns :)

I now own nine! Got a new Kel-Tec P11 today... It's a beauty! Happy to pick up the slack for people who only have one or two guns.

[onmyknees]

You tea party folk ---well intentioned as many of you surely are - but do you not realise that you are being led by the nose by some of the richest people in the country to fight and campaign on their behalf. Tax slavery. This is such utter tosh.

I find it truly remarkable that you cannot see the way you are being manipulated. Led by the nose. It's the rich who are screwing you - not the democrats and Obama. It is the corporations.

I assure you....it makes for good left wing water cooler banter, and probably is the main topic of conversation in the lunch rooms of the NY Times...but no one is leading these people around. If you're referring to the infamous Koch brothers, the NYT recently issued a correction on an expose they did on the Koch brothers.....which is where you're more than likely getting your info from... And even if everything the boogy man tells you was true about them...Soros is infinitely more dangerous to the stablily of the dollar, and therefore the US economy than the Koch brothers....there's no room for discusion on that....it's factual.

Additionally they're not fighting for anyone but themselves as individuals. The corporations such as GE have plenty of lobbyists (and friends) in high places....they don't need the Tea Party.. If you're suggesting that TEA Party folks don't see all corporations as evil or the enemy of the Republic, then that would be a true statement. With respect to your statement of wealth...they're not my enemy. I live and prosper in a country that provides industrial people the tools and the freedom to prosper, and create wealth. I don't resent them a bit.....but it's a pity you do.

[TJ347]

What I like is how some people on this board, convinced of their own superior intellect, are completely ignorant of the fact that everything they say, indeed everything they believe, is based on inherent bias. "Republicans who aren't rich support billionaires who only want to take what little they have away from them!" It's a good thing you're here to tell us the truth! And what is it you do for a living again... Rocket scientist, right?

The rich and powerful who dominate everyone else are found in both parties, and the only fools here are those who think otherwise. We only insult our own intelligence by pretending Obama, Bush, Clinton or anyone else doesn't think about themselves first, their well-heeled friends second, and re-election third. There is no fourth consideration.

[robertlouis]

Had you only taken our guns away 235 years ago, we might still under your rule.. :dancing:

Yep, back to the mythic past, conveniently ignoring the daily holocaust of gun violence on your streets.

[trish]

Besides, it wasn't the guns so much as the hiding behind the rocks and the trees.

[robertlouis]

Are we back on guns? Listen, it's very simple... If you want to ban gun ownership by private citizens, call upon your state senators to act on it, and vote them out if they won't. Stop trying to convince people who are firmly on the other side of the fence of the absurdity of civilians owning firearms, as it's a waste of time and energy.

That said, can you imagine what would happen if the government decided, a la Great Britain, to do away with civilian gun ownership? I should think the result would be the opposite of "everybody being safer". Hundreds of thousands dead is a very real possiblity, maybe more.

Borne out of course by the statistics which show that in the same period the US had 9,400 homicides committed with firearms and the UK just 14.

Stop violence, arm everyone instead. Yep, that'll work.

[TJ347]

What you don't understand is that stats for the UK post gun ban are irrelevant when theorizing as to what the stats might be were the US to ban civilian gun ownership. In this country, as opposed to yours, many people would not simply surrender their weapons to the local police station. This would put law enforcement in the unenviable position of trying to forceably retrieve them, which would undoubtedly end in bloodshed. Despite not being an American, surely you have enough of an understanding of American culture that you can see that as a logical outcome? The reasons surrounding our break from England are in large part the chief reason guns are so ingrained in American culture. As this was never a large part of your culture, I doubt you can possibly understand why I and many other Americans would never turn our weapons in to the government voluntarily, so it is likely pointless for me to try to explain any further than I already have.

As to the UK post gun ban, it appears illegal use of edged weapons has risen significantly. This is not at all surprising, seeing as England was both conquered and united under the blade, as it were. As I said before, guns are not necessary for us to kill each other. We have never had a problem doing that.

[robertlouis]

What you don't understand is that stats for the UK post gun ban are irrelevant when theorizing as to what the stats might be were the US to ban civilian gun ownership. In this country, as opposed to yours, many people would not simply surrender their weapons to the local police station. This would put law enforcement in the unenviable position of trying to forceably retrieve them, which would undoubtedly end in bloodshed. Despite not being an American, surely you have enough of an understanding of American culture that you can see that as a logical outcome? The reasons surrounding our break from England are in large part the chief reason guns are so ingrained in American culture. As this was never a large part of your culture, I doubt you can possibly understand why I and many other Americans would never turn our weapons in to the government voluntarily, so it is likely pointless for me to try to explain any further than I already have.

As to the UK post gun ban, it appears illegal use of edged weapons has risen significantly. This is not at all surprising, seeing as England was both conquered and united under the blade, as it were. As I said before, guns are not necessary for us to kill each other. We have never had a problem doing that.

Point taken. I can certainly see that as a potential outcome in the circumstances and in light of that any move to severely restrict the availability and use of weapons in the US is realistically doomed to failure.

It doesn't, however alter my discomfort with the fetishisation of guns in your culture and my heartfelt thanks that in the UK the possession of firearms is still a minute exception rather than the norm.

[TJ347]

"Fetishisation"? I suppose so. After all, it seems the biggest summer blockbusters are replete with guns, missile launchers and fantastic explosions. Anyway, if simply owning guns makes one a "gun fetishist" in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. That said, contrary to what people like Trish and Hippi might have you think, I neither feel a gun is some type of penile extension, nor do I feel it turns me into "The Terminator". I do feel safer with it, but there are people who feel safe without carrying a gun. What to do when I will not be converted to their way of thinking, nor will they come around to my way of thought?

I'll tell you what I'm most certainly not willing to do. I'm not willing to let someone's theory that it would probably make our society safer compel me to give up my guns. I have theories as to what would make our society less obese, but you don't see me on a crusade to put Krispy Kreme out of business. Personal choice and all that, you understand. Now Trish would at this point go into gun death stats (and you as well), but you know what? Viewing the total gun deaths in this country as compared to the number of legally owned guns out there, we're actually doing quite well. Understand, it is tragic when a fourth grader in Georgia gets hold of his father's revolver and accidentally shoots and kills his friend. However, what does that have to do with my guns? Unless I'm that kids father, nothing at all. And this is my answer to any and all stats one might present. Did I contribute to that number? If not, how can you quote that stat to me as evidence that I'm wrong in my position? I respect your position on the matter, as I do everyone's really, but no one has ever said anything sensible about my gun ownership that has caused me to reconsider it for even a second.

[robertlouis]

"Fetishisation"? I suppose so. After all, it seems the biggest summer blockbusters are replete with guns, missile launchers and fantastic explosions. Anyway, if simply owning guns makes one a "gun fetishist" in your book, then I'm guilty as charged. That said, contrary to what people like Trish and Hippi might have you think, I neither feel a gun is some type of penile extension, nor do I feel it turns me into "The Terminator". I do feel safer with it, but there are people who feel safe without carrying a gun. What to do when I will not be converted to their way of thinking, nor will they come around to my way of thought?

I'll tell you what I'm most certainly not willing to do. I'm not willing to let someone's theory that it would probably make our society safer compel me to give up my guns. I have theories as to what would make our society less obese, but you don't see me on a crusade to put Krispy Kreme out of business. Personal choice and all that, you understand. Now Trish would at this point go into gun death stats (and you as well), but you know what? Viewing the total gun deaths in this country as compared to the number of legally owned guns out there, we're actually doing quite well. Understand, it is tragic when a fourth grader in Georgia gets hold of his father's revolver and accidentally shoots and kills his friend. However, what does that have to do with my guns? Unless I'm that kids father, nothing at all. And this is my answer to any and all stats one might present. Did I contribute to that number? If not, how can you quote that stat to me as evidence that I'm wrong in my position? I respect your position on the matter, as I do everyone's really, but no one has ever said anything sensible about my gun ownership that has caused me to reconsider it for even a second.

I respect your personal position and doubt neither your sincerity nor your sense of responsibility for a moment. I guess to some extent it's the difference between an essentially individualistic society such as the US, which does have its paler reflection here in the UK, and the more communitarian type of society such as Scotland where I grew up, and where we experienced the horrible tragedy of Dunblane in the 90s. An aunt of mine taught in that school, and although she was unharmed, she was so traumatised that she had to take medical retirement shortly afterwards. Andy Murray the tennis player was in her class on the day of the shooting.

The difference here was that rather than go through a bout of handwringing and then carry on as before as tends to be the case in the US after another school or campus massacre, we made our laws relating to individual access to guns even tighter, and I do very much believe that that restrictive environment greatly reduces the likelihood of further incidents. I can think of three such in the last 30 or so years - Hungerford in 1986, Dunblane in 1995 and Cumbria last year.

At the same time I do also recognise that your current position in the US would make similar restrictions impossible, but please forgive me for thinking that's a shame for the greater safety of the wider population.

[Prospero]

Is the right to bear arms as enshrined in your constitition modifiable only by an amendment to said constitution or could a simple federal law modify it. or indeed could it be changed at state level?

[trish]

I wish assholes would stop guessing at what I would or wouldn't say. If I want to take part in this conversation, I'll deliver my own lines, thank you.

[robertlouis]

Is the right to bear arms as enshrined in your constitition modifiable only by an amendment to said constitution or could a simple federal law modify it. or indeed could it be changed at state level?

As per the discussion so far, Prospero, the theory is almost academic, and the likelihood of anyone attempting to pass such a law getting their head blown off would increase exponentially as a result. I'm exaggerating to make the point, but I hope you see what I mean!

[hippifried]

Is the right to bear arms as enshrined in your constitition modifiable only by an amendment to said constitution or could a simple federal law modify it. or indeed could it be changed at state level?
The Constitution of the United States can only be changed through the amendment process. It's the supreme law of the land, & controls the power of government itself. So, if you want to change it, it's no big deal. All you have to do is convince 2/3 of the Congress (both chambers), & 3/4 of the States.

[robertlouis]

The Constitution of the United States can only be changed through the amendment process. It's the supreme law of the land, & controls the power of government itself. So, if you want to change it, it's no big deal. All you have to do is convince 2/3 of the Congress (both chambers), & 3/4 of the States.

I know that's the process, Hippi, but with this particular issue, is it ever realistically likely to happen?

[Stavros]

The right to bear arms is unlikely to be amended; however what individual states can do, as has been mentioned in other threads here, is regulate the access citizens have to weapons and the types of weapon that can be sold. The language of the constitution makes this clause a slippery one to get hold of, rather like the 'separation' of church and state which one conservative historian David Barton claims is not what the Christian revolutionaries intended...both have historical contexts that have changed: the US is not about to be invaded by the British Army, many Americans are not Christian, and so on. Every age defines its priorities in a context, perhaps that is why the Constitution's occasional lack of specificity has enabled it to last so long.

[hippifried]

I know that's the process, Hippi, but with this particular issue, is it ever realistically likely to happen?
No. But that's not to say that a future SCOTUS can't find fault with this latest ruling from 2008. The old ruling, from the '30s, basically said that the 2nd Amendment was a "State's rights" issue, in dealing with the "well regulated militia", & that it was nver intended as a personal right. That was the ruling that allowed the feds to regulate who could buy & own machine guns, sawed off shotguns, & various types of artillery. Everything's still in the air right now. I don't think anybody knows how far the '08 ruling can be stretched.

[TJ347]

I wish assholes would stop guessing at what I would or wouldn't say. If I want to take part in this conversation, I'll deliver my own lines, thank you.

Past participation makes guessing entirely unnecessary. Or do you not already know more or less what I would say to another one of your attacks on GW? Right... That's what I thought.

[trish]

What??? Just don't put words in my mouth and then pretend you're rebutting my argument...that's all I ask.