Arizona Blue Dog Dem shot at public event

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

If this site won't post your work, why do you support it with your time and input? As for people stealing our work, I don't think you would lose much of value if your work were to be copied or stolen.

In a way we are all just writing on the bathroom wall, it is the need to be read not the need for reward that drives most of us here.

I see your post all the time and they are mostly the same old shit. I need to read something you wrote to form a better judgement of your insights on people.

I post using the same scheme advertisers use: rote memorization.

 

[TxRad]

I post using the same scheme advertisers use: rote memorization.

I thought it was annoyance and ridicule.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I thought it was annoyance and ridicule.

This happens every time you try thinking! Leave your thinking to STELLA.

 

[ChrissieLecker]

I too find this thread a bit on the disturbing side, but I find it so for reasons other than those already mentioned.

I find it disturbing because of how people are using this shooting as yet another venue to push their political beliefs.

I don't know, nor does anyone else at this point in time know why the shooter did what he did. Anything we can say at this time is purely speculation on our part. It is only when the facts are in that we can honestly say anything meaningful about his motivations.

Until that time I can only offer my condolences to those who lost loved ones or who were injured.

Thank you for a very well thought and worded contribution.

I wish that more people would think like you instead of throwing around blame and expressions of personal dissatisfaction.

I can only add my own condolences and hope that their suffering will not be instrumentalised just to further other people's political agendas.

 

[michchick98]

I too find this thread a bit on the disturbing side, but I find it so for reasons other than those already mentioned.

I find it disturbing because of how people are using this shooting as yet another venue to push their political beliefs.

I don't know, nor does anyone else at this point in time know why the shooter did what he did. Anything we can say at this time is purely speculation on our part. It is only when the facts are in that we can honestly say anything meaningful about his motivations.

Until that time I can only offer my condolences to those who lost loved ones or who were injured.

Cat

I agree with you, Cat. Above all else, human lives were lost. Who cares if they were Republican or Democrat, Gay or Straight, Black or White? They were HUMAN beings.

Those of you who spout on and on about who's to blame and why the shooter did what he did should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm appalled at reading some of the remarks here. A woman was gravely injured, people died, yet all most of you can do is point fingers and hurl insults. Yeah, hold your heads high. Be proud of yourselves.

My condolences go out to the families of the dead and my prayers go out to the injured.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Momma says the shooter hangs out on THE DAILY KOS.

 

[amicus]

]"You are the one who is intolerant of traditional and conventional interpretations of the Laws of the Land, it is you who are intolerant of the status quo and it is you who are attempting to use violence and subvert the laws of the land in realize your Bohemian and baseless morality.

It is your total inability to comprehend that we are a nation of laws, not left wing utopian concepts. It is you who are intolerant of all the civilized laws of man that have evolved over the centuries."

Amicus

If I have a relationship with my God that forbids me to have an abortion or to marry someone of the same sex, then I need to follow my God’s laws. Freedom of religion allows for this. However if we have freedom of religion then you have to let some faiths do things that might be true to their religion but violate your views. It is the tolerance to allow your fellow Americans to follow their faiths that prove we are a free nation. Your God is un-American if he won’t judge you on your actions alone not your neighbors actions. When your beliefs are allowed to over-shadow mine then I don’t have freedom of religion.

Abortion is legal. Same sex marriage should be too. Yet the rights hate speech and the nuts who listen to it have made an abortion hard to get through fear. That ain’t the America I fought for.

You seem to be 100% sure that your views are the only ones that matter. I would think that you and JBJ are the two worst ones here for spouting the views of the right. JBJ is allowed certain latitude because he is a bit weak above the neck. But you seem to be a man some experience and should know better.

BTW I can’t find James B Johnson in the authors list. Why is he in this forum?[/[/I]QUOTE]

~~~

Mikey...you display a malady that seems to infect many; that of a feeling of moral superiority that condescends any one who disagrees with your pronouncement of that which is moral and that which is immoral.

Secondly, again like many here, you avoid presenting the substance of an argument and you focus your hate speech on the individual, in this case, myself and JBJ, or on a part of the political spectrum, 'the views of the right'.

I personally do not derive my moral tenets from any religion or faith; JBJ may speak for himself. Rational people utilize their minds to determine that which is right and that which is wrong, moral or immoral, good or evil, and can present an objective, reasoned explanation or defense of their perceptions and conceptual foundations. Those who base their moral tenets upon a faith, or a belief, have no place in a rational discussion of moral issues because at the very best you can say only 'I believe...' or that there are no 'moral' absolutes, all is relative and subjective, nothing in inherently right or wrong.

In the United Statss, your right to the faith of your choice is protected; your rights to take a life are not protected, regardless of the source of your moral imperatives; quite the opposite, all life is protected by law, and decent people have a common sense respect for human life at any stage of its existence.

Here is an absolute moral tenet that draws substance from neither religion or law, but reality: sentient life is the fundamental value upon which all other values or moral tenets are based. Without life, there are no values; thus to protect and nurture life, is the fundamental human characteristic that defines our humanity.

A woman conceives and bears a child, a new human lfie, for nine months and her entire life is directed at bringing that new life into existence. Her diet is directed at nurturing the child in the womb, her entire physiology changes almost from the instant of conception as her body directs almost its entire effort to nurturing in the womb and protecting the physical existence of the new life.

That is a natural law; one need not labor mightily to create a moral or political framework to justify one's basic tenet.

On the other hand, you, at a whim, or as a convenient means to rid yourself of an unwanted child, take it upon your self to terminate the life of that child as a method of birth control and then have the audacity to claim a superior moral position of 'choice', when, in reality, your choice ended when you opened your legs.

The second issue is even more clear; two men can't make a baby, anymore than two women can, thus nature illustrates in the clearest and most fundamental terms of all, that a valuable and intimate union between a man and a woman exists independent of your faith or belief. That 'union' from the beginning of time, has been institutionalized, formalized and codified in every society that has ever existed, as fundamental to the well being of family and culture.

Yet you toss it aside and claim that any relationship between any people, regardless of he number or the gender, has equal value.

You are wrong.

You won't even attempt to defend terminating the life of a child, or marriage other than man/woman, because your positions cannot be rationally defended and all you could ever muster would be blurts about your faith or belief.

There are some pretty good minds on this forum, and more that have come and gone, and not a single one, not even one of the best, 'Pure', can put forth a reasoned argument for abortion or gay marriage; not one.

But you may try, if you wish.

Amicus

 

[michchick98]

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

You argue about abortion and gay marriage and Right and Left, but none of you seem to care about anything else. You rant on and on about things you have no control over or haven't got the ability to change. You hurl insults disguised as 'intelligent debates' and essentially tell everyone who doesn't agree with you how you would do things if you were in charge. And while you do all that, a person fights for her life because quite possibly the person who shot her feels the same you do and was stupid enough to act on it.

This lunatic killed and seriously wounded innocent people and all most of you can do is bitch and whine about politics.

Like I said, hold your heads high. Be proud of yourselves. Let everyone see what patriotic citizens of this great nation you are.

I wonder how any of you can look at yourselves in the mirror after your comments on this thread and be proud of what you see.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people?

You argue about abortion and gay marriage and Right and Left, but none of you seem to care about anything else. You rant on and on about things you have no control over or haven't got the ability to change. You hurl insults disguised as 'intelligent debates' and essentially tell everyone who doesn't agree with you how you would do things if you were in charge. And while you do all that, a person fights for her life because quite possibly the person who shot her feels the same you do and was stupid enough to act on it.

This lunatic killed and seriously wounded innocent people and all most of you can do is bitch and whine about politics.

Like I said, hold your heads high. Be proud of yourselves. Let everyone see what patriotic citizens of this great nation you are.

I wonder how any of you can look at yourselves in the mirror after your comments on this thread and be proud of what you see.

And youre our queen.

Did you know that Gibbons was once a Republicsn?

 

[Boxlicker101]

there is an American solution:


PM ET AZ

Gun Rights Group Wants State To Provide Firearms Training For Lawmakers

A cofounder of the pro-gun-rights Arizona Citizens Defense League tells Slate's Dave Weigel that the group has drafted legislation requiring the state to train members of Congress and their staff in the use of firearms.

Per Weigel:

"Our model legislation is called the Giffords-Zimmerman Act," said Heller. (Giffords staffer Gabriel Zimmerman, 30, was killed on Saturday.) "It would require the Arizona Department of Public Safety to provide firearms training, using firearms confiscated by the state, to members of Congress and people who work for them. Facilities would be made available to them in a way that wouldn't interfere with the training of police and other safety employees."

Heller speculated that a response like this could prevent future attacks on members of Congress. "I don't think having a firearm on her would do Congresswoman Giffords any good," said Heller.

"However, if it was known that members of her staff were well armed, that very well could have dissuaded [the shooter]."

I may be mistaken but I believe that, under AZ law, all the shooting victims except Christine Greene could have ben armed with concealed weapons.

 

[amicus]

Michchick, that is a bit condescending and even more off the mark; in other words, you don't get it at all.

From the beginning Post on this Thread, it has been a politcal issue of two opposing ideologies. Even at this hour, the facts concerning the perpetrator are not known, there has been no 'motive' established, but there has been an avalanche of opinion and finger pointing for political purposes.

My Post was a response to one such political player, trying to place blame based on differing ideologies; I offered opposition to that by illustrating the basic moral concepts involved in those two opposing forces by concentrating on the fundamental issues underlying such accusations.

Whenever an event such as this takes place, be it Columbine or the assassination of John Lennon, people are taken aback and struggle to comprehend, to understand why and how such things happen.

My point and the reason for the response, was to underline why we cherish life and protect it against those who would indiscriminately threaten and destroy life. I think you got the point, I think you understood, you just don't have an answer, so you lash out and call upon the common sorrow to cover over the political barbs thrown thus far.

There are calls for increased security for all Congressional members, prompted by this tragedy. Just as Post 9/11 has brought about inconvenience and security procedures that have threatened some of our very basic freedoms and psychologically assaulted our sense of personal security in everything we do.

There was no crime in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany, people were so frightened of their Government that they dared not walk the streets. That is not what America should be all about, not at all.

In a sense, America is approaching that same level of fear of our Government. Legislation at both the State and Federal levels has become so all pervasive and threatening that the average citizen fears hearing on the news what new restrictions, taxes, controls, rules and regulations will affect them personally and change their lives.

There is a quiet controversy raging even now about book banning and censorship which is, in my eyes, the hand of government and the threat of litigation that has a chilling effect on both creators, publsihers and distributors of material that some have decided must be controlled, restricted, censored, banned or prohibited, to what, protect the general public? From what?

There is political 'hay' being made over this tragic event and I will be damned if it will be one-sided as it always is.

Amicus

 

[The_Fool]

I may be mistaken but I believe that, under AZ law, all the shooting victims except Christine Greene could have ben armed with concealed weapons.

I believe it is the opposite, they could have been armed, but not concealed.

 

[trysail]

I too find this thread a bit on the disturbing side, but I find it so for reasons other than those already mentioned.

I find it disturbing because of how people are using this shooting as yet another venue to push their political beliefs.

I don't know, nor does anyone else at this point in time know why the shooter did what he did. Anything we can say at this time is purely speculation on our part. It is only when the facts are in that we can honestly say anything meaningful about his motivations.

Until that time I can only offer my condolences to those who lost loved ones or who were injured.

Cat

☝​

★★★★★

 

[Pure]

question

Loughner was a lunatic whose lunacy was obvious even to ordinary persons:

In another class [at Pima College], Loughner's sudden outbursts made Linda Sorenson so uncomfortable she emailed one friend: "He is one of those whose picture you see on the news, after he has come into class with an automatic weapon."

"He just made the hairs on the back of my neck stand up. He frightened me,” said Sorenson

In what other 'advanced' or Western country, can an obvious lunatic (though never incarcerated as such) walk in to the nearest sports supply store, purchase a semi automatic handgun capable of firing 15-30 rounds in a very few seconds, and walk out with it?

ADDED: one source says the Glock 19 with 30- or 33-round clip was used. It seems he had more than the standard 15 round clip.

 

[DeeZire]

I agree with you, Cat. Above all else, human lives were lost. Who cares if they were Republican or Democrat, Gay or Straight, Black or White? They were HUMAN beings.

Those of you who spout on and on about who's to blame and why the shooter did what he did should be ashamed of yourselves. I'm appalled at reading some of the remarks here. A woman was gravely injured, people died, yet all most of you can do is point fingers and hurl insults. Yeah, hold your heads high. Be proud of yourselves.

My condolences go out to the families of the dead and my prayers go out to the injured.

FYI, in the mid 90's, a Phoenix AZ politician was wounded by gunfire as she was leaving a City Council meeting. During the trial, the gunman admitted that he shot her because "talk radio said it was time to take her out." Do we address something like this, or sweep it under the rug? In other words, are we responsible for the society in which we live, or do we abdicate responsibility because it's too complicated to deal with?

A Dem congressman from GA was interviewed today, talking about introducing a bill that would extend the ban on threatening the life of the President of the United States to include all elected members of government. The Supreme Court has already said the 1st Amendment does not allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. They have also extended free speech rights to corporations, so apparently, free speech rights can be defined beyond what's in the Constitution. On the one hand, no one wants to see even more government regulations. On the other hand, if the citizens show that they're incapable of acting responsibly, government regulations may be the only means by which we keep from devolving into savages, which some would say is our true nature.

Another part of the discussion is how to deal with the mentally unbalanced. As Sherrif Dupnik said on Dateline last night, 30 years ago, the state of Arizona had mental health programs available to deal with the mentally unbalanced. When Gov Jan Brewer took office in 2009, she eliminated the mental health programs that could have dealt with someone like the Tucson shooter - in the name of balancing the budget. This goes to the issue of what kind of a society we wish to live in.

This is the type of dialogue we need right now. If you see no need to address the deficiencies of the society in which we live - deficiencies that bring about the deaths of innocent people - I'd suggest you're part of the problem. Consider being part of the solution. Thank you.

 

[amicus]

Ah, even the pristine Pure stoops to partisan politics in this tragedy, how sad.

amicus

 

[DeeZire]

I went down to her office this afternoon and took some pictures.

http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab258/d2300/GG-08.jpg

http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab258/d2300/G-G-mom.jpg

http://i869.photobucket.com/albums/ab258/d2300/G-G-06.jpg

 

[sr71plt]

FYI, in the mid 90's, a Phoenix AZ politician was wounded by gunfire as she was leaving a City Council meeting. During the trial, the gunman admitted that he shot her because "talk radio said it was time to take her out." Do we address something like this, or sweep it under the rug? In other words, are we responsible for the society in which we live, or do we abdicate responsibility because it's too complicated to deal with?

A Dem congressman from GA was interviewed today, talking about introducing a bill that would extend the ban on threatening the life of the President of the United States to include all elected members of government. The Supreme Court has already said the 1st Amendment does not allow someone to yell "fire" in a crowded theater if there is no fire. They have also extended free speech rights to corporations, so apparently, free speech rights can be defined beyond what's in the Constitution. On the one hand, no one wants to see even more government regulations. On the other hand, if the citizens show that they're incapable of acting responsibly, government regulations may be the only means by which we keep from devolving into savages, which some would say is our true nature.

Another part of the discussion is how to deal with the mentally unbalanced. As Sherrif Dupnik said on Dateline last night, 30 years ago, the state of Arizona had mental health programs available to deal with the mentally unbalanced. When Gov Jan Brewer took office in 2009, she eliminated the mental health programs that could have dealt with someone like the Tucson shooter - in the name of balancing the budget. This goes to the issue of what kind of a society we wish to live in.

This is the type of dialogue we need right now. If you see no need to address the deficiencies of the society in which we live - deficiencies that bring about the deaths of innocent people - I'd suggest you're part of the problem. Consider being part of the solution. Thank you.

Agree. The statement that "guns don't kill people" is silly. If someone died by bullet, a gun was a large contributing factor to this--and beyond this, easy access to guns, people loosely talking about using guns as political solutions, fomenting of hatred, and crazy people left on the street are all major contributing factors to killing people.

Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to either change or prevent any of that.

If the discussion looks partisan, it's because particular political entities are more guilty than others. That too is just reality.

Neither Palin nor the NRA get a pass this week. The reality is that they are more guilty than most for setting this atmosphere up.

Oh, also, Ami is full of crap.

 

[JackLuis]

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/235940/LOUGHNER-MUGSHOT.jpg

Is the the face of political reason?

Nope, crazy as a outhouse rat. IMHO

Where is DHS? who protects us from this?​

 

[amicus]

Even this minor radio personality had armed guards when I spoke before college audiences....against whom you might ask, The Weather Underground and a host of violent radical leftist groups that were around even back in the 60's & 70's.

What hasn't been said, or I missed it, and should, is the courage of several men and women who tackled the bastard and took his gun and clip. They held him down for almost five minutes until your 'government' police even showed up on the scene.

She should have had a personal armed security person with her, even a volunteer to thwart such left wing crazies.

Your best defense; arm yourself and think defensive, always.

Amicus

 

[sr71plt]

Even this minor radio personality had armed guards when I spoke before college audiences....against whom you might ask, The Weather Underground and a host of violent radical leftist groups that were around even back in the 60's & 70's.

Oh bullshit. It's always about you, isn't it?

I'm quite sure you never were worth a bodyguard.

 

[oggbashan]

Whatever the motive for the shooting, whether there was any motive that can be rationally understood, the deaths of people who went to see their representative should be regretted, and the relatives and friends of those who died and those who were injured deserve our sympathy.

I think that this event will change the way US politicians work with the people they represent.

In the UK, a random knife attack on a Member of Parliament in his constituency office has meant changes to the way many Members of Parliament work. I used to be able to walk in to my local Member of Parliament's office, and if he was there, and I knew when that would be likely, I could speak to him - without appointment and without any security precautions.

Now? I need an appointment just to go to his office even if he isn't there. I have to use an entryphone system and be examined on CCTV before I can enter. Seeing him alone is almost impossible. He has people with him, and a wide desk between him and the visitor. All these are sensible precautions because an attempted physical attack is not just possible but probable at least once a month, even with those precautions in place.

Several of our local councillors have had to endure hate campaigns and physical attacks from disgruntled constitutents, some of whom have ridiculous ideas that they believe are so important that they would attack a representative to get their ideas adopted.

Members of Parliament and Councillors for our District and County have long been used to verbal attacks and have developed repartee to deal with hecklers but they were not ready, nor did they expect, to have their lives on the line just for being politicians.

I think that the long term effect of the shooting will be to make it more difficult for US politicians, of whatever party, to meet the people they represent. That is regrettable because it distances them from the people. One of the complaints about representative government is that the representatives are too detached from the people they represent. If the representatives now have to be surrounded by security details, and access to the representative is to be restricted, democracy suffers, as it has already done in the UK.

Og

 

[Bebeslut]

Here, here.

Whatever the motive for the shooting, whether there was any motive that can be rationally understood, the deaths of people who went to see their representative should be regretted, and the relatives and friends of those who died and those who were injured deserve our sympathy.

I think that this event will change the way US politicians work with the people they represent.

In the UK, a random knife attack on a Member of Parliament in his constituency office has meant changes to the way many Members of Parliament work. I used to be able to walk in to my local Member of Parliament's office, and if he was there, and I knew when that would be likely, I could speak to him - without appointment and without any security precautions.

Now? I need an appointment just to go to his office even if he isn't there. I have to use an entryphone system and be examined on CCTV before I can enter. Seeing him alone is almost impossible. He has people with him, and a wide desk between him and the visitor. All these are sensible precautions because an attempted physical attack is not just possible but probable at least once a month, even with those precautions in place.

Several of our local councillors have had to endure hate campaigns and physical attacks from disgruntled constitutents, some of whom have ridiculous ideas that they believe are so important that they would attack a representative to get their ideas adopted.

Members of Parliament and Councillors for our District and County have long been used to verbal attacks and have developed repartee to deal with hecklers but they were not ready, nor did they expect, to have their lives on the line just for being politicians.

I think that the long term effect of the shooting will be to make it more difficult for US politicians, of whatever party, to meet the people they represent. That is regrettable because it distances them from the people. One of the complaints about representative government is that the representatives are too detached from the people they represent. If the representatives now have to be surrounded by security details, and access to the representative is to be restricted, democracy suffers, as it has already done in the UK.

Og

 

[stephen55]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;

I came across this article on AOL News....

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/11/gun-control-debate-why-do-we-make-gun-violence-so-easy/

Please read the entire article, but this is what I think sums it up....


Maybe crazy people will do crazy things. But why, I ask my country, my president, my representatives in Congress, why do we make it so damned easy?

 

[4glory6]

Here, here.

Hear, hear, even.