How slimy can you get??

[LLT]

Lets all make sure that we keep this conversation civil.

My two cents on this is that there are folks on bith side of the aisle who are being very hypocritical. The blame falls on this mentally unstable idiot...ALONE.

Politicians who want to point a finger at Palin...should reconsider being in bed with the Hollywood left who glorify violence in their films.

Radio hosts who blame Pelosi should reconsider the thought process that equates the right to bear arms with the right to forego a background check.

[Craic]

Is a gun shop owner allowed to use common sense when I guy like this walks into his store?

Would we really be infringing on your 2nd Amendment rights if your doctor just had to verify that you were sane before you got your gun license? And if precautions like this already exist, why did they fail in this instance? I know we can't stop every person with evil intentions, but these are questions I'd really like answered.

I disagree with your response in places, but it was thought out and civil-- Thank you.

Let me just focus on your last point quoted above.

I am going to rephrase your question, and then want to know your answer--

Is it wrong for a white gun store owner to use common sense when a guy like this walks into the store, and not sell him a gun?



I think he would be charged with a violation of the civil rights code, to simply refuse to sell this man a gun because of the way he looked.

[The Patriot]

Patriot, I never said you were defending them. I was only pointing out the blatant un-checked hypocrisy. Like saying the rhetoric must be toned down but only citing something Palin said or a map she published or a sign seen at a tea party rally. The left talks about the hateful rhetoric coming from the right as if we haven't seen 10 times worse coming from the left, and for a helluva lot longer.

You're right. It's just easier for us to focus on the stuff that the other side says and fail to recognize the same stuff coming from our side.

[steeldawg]

I disagree with your response in places, but it was thought out and civil-- Thank you.

Let me just focus on your last point quoted above.

I am going to rephrase your question, and then want to know your answer--

Is it wrong for a white gun store owner to use common sense when a guy like this walks into the store, and not sell him a gun?



I think he would be charged with a violation of the civil rights code, to simply refuse to sell this man a gun because of the way he looked.

I think he means that if you are to own a gun you should have to be cleared by a doctor to do so. However if someone wants to kill someone else i think they will find a way wether they can legally own a gun or not.

[Craic]

I think he means that if you are to own a gun you should have to be cleared by a doctor to do so. However if someone wants to kill someone else i think they will find a way wether they can legally own a gun or not.

That is the second point, his first, was based on observations of the guy. My counterpoint, was that it actually violates the law to make decisions on whether you serve someone in a store based on looks.

On the second point, yes, I have a problem with that as well. It turns the idea of rights on their head. You can ONLY use a right when you prove yourself mentally fit. So, should we subject all voters to mental tests before they vote? Should we subject every person to a mental health examine before they get to exercise free speech, or the right to assemble? This goes back to the foundational concept that a right may only be taken away by the govt. when there is due process that ends with evidence enabling a right to be removed a person.

What is being suggested, is that the govt. is the gatekeeper of rights, only allowing a right to be doled out when they feel comfortable with a person having that right. That means, those who the govt. thinks should have rights, get them, those who they don't think should have rights, don't.

No, I am not comfortable with that at all.


Due process should and does include when a person HAS BEEN diagnosed with a mental illness, they no longer are able to buy a gun. I have no problem with that. Furthermore, I would rather remove the waiting period, have an instantaneous national background check system (which DUMPS the search if it comes up negative), and make handgun classes mandatory for anyone who owns a gun. Heck, the NRA would gladly work hand in hand with the govt. providing the classes and trainers- and trust me, they would do a better job teaching, and creating a safer environment for guns than the govt. in the first place. Because THEY are the ones who will be out in the shooting ranges with people. THEY are the ones that will take their own lives in their hands if they pass some idiot on gun safety that really doesn't know how to use a gun.

[stillers4me]

So, should we subject all voters to mental tests before they vote?

I would have no problem with that.

[HometownGal]

So, should we subject all voters to mental tests before they vote?

No . . . not everyone. Just those who put Obaaaaama into office and subjected the rest of us to his idiocy.

[Doc_Holiday]

So, should we subject all voters to mental tests before they vote?

Thankfully this violates federal law. And to jokingly claim we should only test anyone who voted for a guy we don't like is just stupid.

[Borski]

Thankfully this violates federal law. And to jokingly claim we should only test anyone who voted for a guy we don't like is just stupid.

Relax

[GoSlash27]

I disagree with your response in places, but it was thought out and civil-- Thank you.

Let me just focus on your last point quoted above.

I am going to rephrase your question, and then want to know your answer--

Is it wrong for a white gun store owner to use common sense when a guy like this walks into the store, and not sell him a gun?



I think he would be charged with a violation of the civil rights code, to simply refuse to sell this man a gun because of the way he looked.

The standard when an enumerated right is involved is "strict judicial scrutiny". Adjucated mental incompetence falls under that, but requiring a mental health evaluation? That can't legally happen.
The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutionally protected right, not a privilege. IMO we need to be looking at why this guy fell through the cracks. The cops visited his house and he was kicked out of school 'cuz he was nuts.
Literally everybody who knew him knew that he was as crazy as a bucket fulla spiders.
Why wasn't he in the NICS database? This is why we have the Brady check in place.

[The Patriot]

I disagree with your response in places, but it was thought out and civil-- Thank you.

Let me just focus on your last point quoted above.

I am going to rephrase your question, and then want to know your answer--

Is it wrong for a white gun store owner to use common sense when a guy like this walks into the store, and not sell him a gun?

I think he would be charged with a violation of the civil rights code, to simply refuse to sell this man a gun because of the way he looked.

Yeah, I understand how that could cause some problems. You can't refuse to sell because of somebody's race or how they dress, but this guy was known to mumble nonsense constantly, and right now Marshals are reporting that he sits in his cell silently for hours staring at the wall smirking, I kid you not.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/12/l...hind-bars.html

Now, he might have not been that obvious on the day he bought the gun, but gun shop owners should be obligated somehow to call authorities if they're suspicious of somebody's sanity. You can't prevent a sane person from buying a gun and doing something evil, but you can at least try to spot somebody who is mentally unstable.

That is the second point, his first, was based on observations of the guy. My counterpoint, was that it actually violates the law to make decisions on whether you serve someone in a store based on looks.

On the second point, yes, I have a problem with that as well. It turns the idea of rights on their head. You can ONLY use a right when you prove yourself mentally fit. So, should we subject all voters to mental tests before they vote? Should we subject every person to a mental health examine before they get to exercise free speech, or the right to assemble? This goes back to the foundational concept that a right may only be taken away by the govt. when there is due process that ends with evidence enabling a right to be removed a person.

What is being suggested, is that the govt. is the gatekeeper of rights, only allowing a right to be doled out when they feel comfortable with a person having that right. That means, those who the govt. thinks should have rights, get them, those who they don't think should have rights, don't.

No, I am not comfortable with that at all.


Due process should and does include when a person HAS BEEN diagnosed with a mental illness, they no longer are able to buy a gun. I have no problem with that. Furthermore, I would rather remove the waiting period, have an instantaneous national background check system (which DUMPS the search if it comes up negative), and make handgun classes mandatory for anyone who owns a gun. Heck, the NRA would gladly work hand in hand with the govt. providing the classes and trainers- and trust me, they would do a better job teaching, and creating a safer environment for guns than the govt. in the first place. Because THEY are the ones who will be out in the shooting ranges with people. THEY are the ones that will take their own lives in their hands if they pass some idiot on gun safety that really doesn't know how to use a gun.

I'm not suggesting you need to take an IQ test, but your personal doctor is a reliable source and somebody you have probably known for a while and trust. A quick phone call to check for mental illness could easily clear you. Like I said, if you're sane and you want to do something sinister, there is nothing a doctor can do. That's just the reality of the world we live in. But if a doctor suspects that a patient with a mental illness hasn't been taking his or her medicine, he's legally obligated to inform somebody if that person has a history of crime/disorder. The legal obligation applies if a patient indicates that they might be suicidal.

All I'm saying is a doctor could easily verify whether or not you are sane.

[GoSlash27]

Lets all make sure that we keep this conversation civil.

My two cents on this is that there are folks on bith side of the aisle who are being very hypocritical. The blame falls on this mentally unstable idiot...ALONE.

Politicians who want to point a finger at Palin...should reconsider being in bed with the Hollywood left who glorify violence in their films.

Radio hosts who blame Pelosi should reconsider the thought process that equates the right to bear arms with the right to forego a background check.

LLT,
This conversation lost any semblance of civility when one side attempted to capitalize on mass-murder to score cheap political points. That was about 15 minutes after it happened.
That's not a left vs. right thing; but simply objective fact.
All I ask is that everybody keep it firmly in mind that there are real people involved here who have lost something that can never be replaced.
This conversation is something that needs to happen and maybe we can pull something positive out of this tragedy, but we *NEED* to park the politics for that to happen.

So...
No map on either side had anything to do with this. It's not Palin's fault. It's not Moulitsas' fault. It's not the level of rhetoric. It's about a mentally unstable individual who did something that should never have happened. Let's discuss that.

[Doc_Holiday]

I was stunned when Palin used the "Blood Libel" comment. Of all the phrases to use, her ghost writer wrote that and she said it - What the Deuce?!? How in this day and age would anyone use that term and not know its meaning.

Addressing your point, there's bogus detail that it was a known fact the gunman was nuts. He wasn't yet and hasn't still, at least not legally speaking. And that the Sheriff had him in custody which is an out right lie.

A Fish & Game officer pulled him over for blasting through a red light prior to the event didn't suspect anything odd and let him go. And the note left was not known prior to the attack - another lie.

We're being fed fuel of utter crap because it feeds our fears. Yes there are reports that he did some freaky things in school and that would describe half of my fraternity.

But we can't just brush aside that someone who may indeed be unstable was not influenced by outside issues if that proves to be the case. I mean that's how we got to find Manson guilty. Remember, he didn't murder anyone - legally known - but we found him guilty anyway.

Don't deny that the fuel of "If ballots don't work, bullets will" or "Don't retreat, reload" are just benign comments. Talk radio is pushing this kid as the poster child for the Liberal Agenda as we speak.

Read Rollins' article on this. He spells it out beautifully and I guarantee you he's no Democratic.

[The Patriot]

LLT,
This conversation lost any semblance of civility when one side attempted to capitalize on mass-murder to score cheap political points. That was about 15 minutes after it happened.
That's not a left vs. right thing; but simply objective fact.
All I ask is that everybody keep it firmly in mind that there are real people involved here who have lost something that can never be replaced.
This conversation is something that needs to happen and maybe we can pull something positive out of this tragedy, but we *NEED* to park the politics for that to happen.

So...
No map on either side had anything to do with this. It's not Palin's fault. It's not Moulitsas' fault. It's not the level of rhetoric. It's about a mentally unstable individual who did something that should never have happened. Let's discuss that.

Why don't you save those crocodile tears. The conversation took a downturn when you started spouting that people in this thread who are upset with the gun rhetoric don't care about the deceased. I never accused Palin or her rhetoric of being accessory to this crime. You seem to have confused some people on TV who are looking to politically capitalize off this event with anybody on this forum who disagrees with you about the gun rhetoric.

You're the one who is using this event as a shield from the criticism some people have of the distastefulness of some of today's political gun rhetoric. Now, 7SteelGal pointed out that some inappropriate rhetoric was ignored when it was coming from the left during the Bush Administration, Preacher pointed out that other politicians have used target maps: that's civil discussion. You just assumed that by being upset with Palin's map, I was blaming her for the actions of this killer. This map upsets me. This map upset me 3 months ago. Rightly or wrongly, you should be able to deal with other people's opinions without having to demonize them.

I don't like to get this personal in political discussions, but I'm not gonna let somebody accuse me of flinging the death of a 9 year-old around, when clearly I'm not. So next time know who you're talking to before you take the moral high ground and tell someone to STFU.

[GoSlash27]

You're acting as if this nut needed direct influence from Palin for a map like this to be irresponsible. It's clear he acted out of his own delirium but anyone with eyes can see that these instances (like in Pittsburgh) of already mentally unstable people acting up are a result of the heated political climate. Someone in Palin's position shouldn't be using this ambiguous language that some nut could use as an excuse to commit violence.

^ Those were your words. "Crocodile tears"? You can rest assured that I am truly and sincerely pissed off over this.

[venom]

Souvenir 'Together We Thrive' Logo T-Shirts Placed on Chairs at "Memorial"

Is it a memorial or an Obama rally? Last night , souvenir t-shirts emblazoned with the logo for the 'Together We Thrive' gathering at the University of Arizona were placed on chairs at the arena ahead of the memorial.

Liberalism, using the dead for political gain

[Dino 6 Rings]

I've been avoiding politics for a while now...started the make fun of Obama and Democrat thread way back in 08 on the other site...but lately, I've just been sitting back...chilling on it.

what is clear...and I mean completely clear, is that the Talking Heads in the media no longer report the news and are actually trying to, and successfully creating news, and taking real news stories and getting them to fit into personal political idealogical boxes that they can then spoon feed to their viewers. Its gotten to the point, where it is almost impossible to find, just the news, on a national level.

My local yocal news guy actually reports the news. "Man robs bank, cops searching" "child missing, call if you see them" "car accident on 540, find alternative route" "donations pour in for local food banks"...

on a national level its "man goes crazy shoots up Discovery building...who's to blame!" "guy flies plane into IRS Building, was he in the Tea Party! (no, actually he wasn't)" "oil spill! Big Oil under Bush caused this!" um...ok...but he's been out of office for over 18 months? "Still Bush!" or from the other side "Obama plays golf while people die in the gulf!"

its no longer Reporting. Its all agenda driven at this point at the national Level. It might be time to just start a news station, 100% non-political, and just report news. "Asteroid crashes into Australia, 3 kangaroos dead, kryptonite found" "Pilot saves lives of passengers landing plane safely into the Ocean after a terrorist tries to take it over and fails" Stuff like that. No agenda, just the news.

No Talking Points, No Worst Person Ever, No Ex Politicians brought in to be "experts" on subjects.

That's all I'm saying...this entire thing is just out of hand. And it isn't the Politicians I blame as much as I do the Media, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS and even FOX has its bad moments. But usually Fox is busy defending itself from the other 4...which is also insane in itself.

[HometownGal]

Souvenir 'Together We Thrive' Logo T-Shirts Placed on Chairs at "Memorial"

Is it a memorial or an Obama rally? Last night , souvenir t-shirts emblazoned with the logo for the 'Together We Thrive' gathering at the University of Arizona were placed on chairs at the arena ahead of the memorial.

Liberalism, using the dead for political gain

Actually, V, I watched a portion of that Memorial Service and Obaaaaaaaamie had an excellent speech prepared and I thought he came across as extremely sincere. Several times they showed his wife wiping tears from her eyes and I believe that was genuine too. As much as I don't like either of them, they were right there mourning those tragic losses as much as everyone else who attended and the entire nation. I cried like a baby when Obaaaama was talking about the elderly gentleman who died when he dove on his wife to protect her from the gunfire, as well as that poor little 9 year old girl.

While our nation may be politically divided, when a tragedy like this strikes, we all become one nation in mourning.

[fansince'76]

Actually, V, I watched a portion of that Memorial Service and Obaaaaaaaamie had an excellent speech prepared and I thought he came across as extremely sincere. Several times they showed his wife wiping tears from her eyes and I believe that was genuine too. As much as I don't like either of them, they were right there mourning those tragic losses as much as everyone else who attended and the entire nation. I cried like a baby when Obaaaama was talking about the elderly gentleman who died when he dove on his wife to protect her from the gunfire, as well as that poor little 9 year old girl.

While our nation may be politically divided, when a tragedy like this strikes, we all become one nation in mourning.

Slightly off-topic - is it just me, or has Obama's hair gotten REALLY grey in the last 2 years?

[Just George]

Slightly off-topic - is it just me, or has Obama's hair gotten REALLY grey in the last 2 years?

It is well documented, being President of the United States will make your hair turn gray practically overnight. More accurately, it took President George W. Bush 8 years to achieve his grand graydom. President Clinton also turned the way of the gray late in his second term. Flash forward to our current President, [COLOR=#0000ff !important][COLOR=#0000ff !important]Obama[/COLOR][/COLOR], he has gone gray goose in only a year and a half.

http://thecount.com/2010/10/03/presi...s-obama-early/

[The Patriot]

It is well documented, being President of the United States will make your hair turn gray practically overnight. More accurately, it took President George W. Bush 8 years to achieve his grand graydom. President Clinton also turned the way of the gray late in his second term. Flash forward to our current President, [COLOR=#0000ff !important][COLOR=#0000ff !important]Obama[/COLOR][/COLOR], he has gone gray goose in only a year and a half.

http://thecount.com/2010/10/03/presi...s-obama-early/

He needs "Just for Men: Touch of Gray"

His hair says experience! . . . . . While his Hair says energy!

[zulater]

He needs "Just for Men: Touch of Gray"

His hair says experience! . . . . . While his Hair says energy!

Yeah it's amazing how much that job ages a man.

[Borski]

Actually, V, I watched a portion of that Memorial Service and Obaaaaaaaamie had an excellent speech prepared and I thought he came across as extremely sincere. Several times they showed his wife wiping tears from her eyes and I believe that was genuine too. As much as I don't like either of them, they were right there mourning those tragic losses as much as everyone else who attended and the entire nation. I cried like a baby when Obaaaama was talking about the elderly gentleman who died when he dove on his wife to protect her from the gunfire, as well as that poor little 9 year old girl.

While our nation may be politically divided, when a tragedy like this strikes, we all become one nation in mourning.

I agree, while I am not an Obama Fan that is one of the best heartfelt speeches I have heard from a president in my lifetime.

[zulater]

Actually, V, I watched a portion of that Memorial Service and Obaaaaaaaamie had an excellent speech prepared and I thought he came across as extremely sincere. Several times they showed his wife wiping tears from her eyes and I believe that was genuine too. As much as I don't like either of them, they were right there mourning those tragic losses as much as everyone else who attended and the entire nation. I cried like a baby when Obaaaama was talking about the elderly gentleman who died when he dove on his wife to protect her from the gunfire, as well as that poor little 9 year old girl.

While our nation may be politically divided, when a tragedy like this strikes, we all become one nation in mourning.

Excellent post!

[HometownGal]

Slightly off-topic - is it just me, or has Obama's hair gotten REALLY grey in the last 2 years?

It HAS. If you were married to his wife, your hair would be grey too.

I noticed that by the end of his first term, Bush's hair got pretty grey too.

[Craic]

Yeah, I understand how that could cause some problems. You can't refuse to sell because of somebody's race or how they dress, but this guy was known to mumble nonsense constantly, and right now Marshals are reporting that he sits in his cell silently for hours staring at the wall smirking, I kid you not.

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/12/l...hind-bars.html

Now, he might have not been that obvious on the day he bought the gun, but gun shop owners should be obligated somehow to call authorities if they're suspicious of somebody's sanity. You can't prevent a sane person from buying a gun and doing something evil, but you can at least try to spot somebody who is mentally unstable.



I'm not suggesting you need to take an IQ test, but your personal doctor is a reliable source and somebody you have probably known for a while and trust. A quick phone call to check for mental illness could easily clear you. Like I said, if you're sane and you want to do something sinister, there is nothing a doctor can do. That's just the reality of the world we live in. But if a doctor suspects that a patient with a mental illness hasn't been taking his or her medicine, he's legally obligated to inform somebody if that person has a history of crime/disorder. The legal obligation applies if a patient indicates that they might be suicidal.

All I'm saying is a doctor could easily verify whether or not you are sane.

And that goes back to my last post. The foundational understanding of this nation is that rights are not bestowed by the govt. They are bestowed by a creator, whomever that may be (yes, even the spaghetti monster) according to the dec. of indep. Based on that precept, the constitution establishes what rights may be taken away by due process, and that process to take them away.

What you are suggesting, is a reversal of that foundational understanding of human rights in our nation. That a person is bestowed a right only when they pass a test. I categorically reject that because it is a setup for bigotry of all kinds.

On top of that, think about how it will practically play out. 1. Every doctor who says "yes", he may own a gun, will now be subjected to a lawsuit when that gun is used to kill someone, since killing a person (not in self defense) can be considered a psychological problem. 2. Every doctor who is afraid of such lawsuits, or every doctor who is against gun ownership, now UNEQUIVOCALLY has the right to deny a constitutionally guaranteed right to a fellow citizen, simply based on his position. 3. Protecting doctors from lawsuits by making them exempt, will only empower those who are against gun ownership to deny the right to people. 4. There will arise a different class of doctors who are pro-gun ownership. Anyone and everyone can go to that doctor once, then turn in THAT doc's name for a references. 5. If you put time limitations on it, then what happens when your doctor of 30 years dies? Are you now unable to own a gun until you have established a record with a new doctor?

Also, think how this law would be absolutely classist. The middle and upper classes will still be able to own guns. The lower class however, will now find it much more difficult, especially the poorer one is. Why? Because they have to spend MORE money to be seen by a doctor and establish a relationship before they can buy one. The concept of "My Doctor" isn't as prevalent as it used to be. Docs move, people move, insurances change. Furthermore, those who are too poor to have insurance must go to county health. You never are guaranteed the same doctor. So what happens? Will those who cannot see the same doctor never be able to own a gun? Should the inability to buy health insurance preclude your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own a gun?

No, I do not agree at all with that law. Instead, what we have here is a failure of officials to use laws already in place to stop a crime. Furthermore, that same issue is what caused the Virginia Tech shootings. The judged declared Seung Hui Cho mentally unstable. However, his name was not entered in the database for national background checks.

No, the problem isn't laws. ONce again, it is the inefficiency of govt.

[GoSlash27]

Actually, V, I watched a portion of that Memorial Service and Obaaaaaaaamie had an excellent speech prepared and I thought he came across as extremely sincere. Several times they showed his wife wiping tears from her eyes and I believe that was genuine too. As much as I don't like either of them, they were right there mourning those tragic losses as much as everyone else who attended and the entire nation. I cried like a baby when Obaaaama was talking about the elderly gentleman who died when he dove on his wife to protect her from the gunfire, as well as that poor little 9 year old girl.

While our nation may be politically divided, when a tragedy like this strikes, we all become one nation in mourning.

I agree. I think Obama gave an excellent speech and I believe he truly meant what he said. But that audience!! All the cheering and enthusiasm was completely wrong for the occasion. It should've been much more somber and respectful. That made it weird, and I think the President felt it too.

[Doc_Holiday]

I agree. I think Obama gave an excellent speech and I believe he truly meant what he said. But that audience!! All the cheering and enthusiasm was completely wrong for the occasion. It should've been much more somber and respectful. That made it weird, and I think the President felt it too.

I hated the audience; this wasn't a G-D Pep Rally. I was never sure of the President when he was voted in; but we'll just have to wait to see if he pulls the economy around.

[venom]

On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives, deposed Speaker, Nancy Pelosi (D-Mars), called the deliberate and premeditated killing of six people – the Tucson massacre – an “accident.” Specifically, Madame said, quote:

“This resolution is a fitting tribute. It is a great resolution. Please, read it again and again. Carry those names in your heart. Remember, each of these people because, again, a tragic accident took lives, wounded people in the expression of ideas.”

Unreal

[Godfather]

I agree. I think Obama gave an excellent speech and I believe he truly meant what he said. But that audience!! All the cheering and enthusiasm was completely wrong for the occasion. It should've been much more somber and respectful. That made it weird, and I think the President felt it too.

Agree. I saw a transcript of O's speech and there was nothing wrong with anything he said.

But I don't like what I heard about the crowd's behavior. It reflects poorly on their parents for not teaching them what's appropriate and inappropriate.