Peace loving Progressives

[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-...iving-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...te-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 | February 01, 2011 | ShareThis

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.
—

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

[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 !!!!!!!!!!