Ok it goes like this. 1. Using common well known established idioms and sayings from movies in politics that have to do with violence (she's dead to me, If they bring a knife we bring a gun, hand to hand combat over the health care bill) - obviously could be toned down and isn't particularly helpful in the overall tone. It is no where near as bad as potential campaign managers and party nominees for senate talking very literally about using violence when elections don't go a certain way. 2. Using images that suggest violence such as cross hairs on a district with the congressman's name on the poster/making up bad sketches where you pretend to poison a speaker of the house - worse than number 1, but still not as bad as talking very literally about using violence when elections don't go a certain way. 3. Talking very literally about using violence when elections don't go a certain way - The worst of all the rhetoric being mentioned. There isn't anything as close to politicians suggesting that guns are an acceptable solution to political problems. Yet that's what Angle and Kaufman both did, and some people refuse to criticize. There is no real indication that any of those are responsible for the shooting. There is reason to examine and criticize all of these in an effort to improve the tone of discourse. It was something Congresswoman Gifford believed herself. I'm sorry that basso, ROXRAN, da whopper, Landlord Landry, and others have chosen to make it a game of political team vs. other political team when it shouldn't be. I think anyone should be able to say that any politician that suggests guns are an acceptable solution to political problems should be isolated and shunned. That is true whether the politician is on the left or the right.
neg rep to summarize your post, you're basically saying your side's schit doesn't stink. I call complete BS and bias on your part. Sorry, just being real.
Nobody is saying Dems don't use questionable rhetoric at times or that people who vote Dem aren't sometimes ridiculous in the way they try to make a point. At issue is the frequency of the rhetoric, the reliance on that rhetoric, and the standing of the people who use that rhetoric. It's not close. http://www.csgv.org/issues-and-campaigns/guns-democracy-and-freedom/insurrection-timeline
uhm, i don't think we can count on the unbiased opinion of an organization with an acronym such as "csgv," which stands for what, exactly? as an aside, i support (reasonable) gun control.
I'm amazed how much some of you fail to even attempt to use logic and reason because you feel your party is under attack. Unbelievable. I guess saying the other side does it makes it ok. This country is in trouble.
I think the feelings toward mental health has much more to do with it and that problem might actually be able to be fixed without taking away rights.
I understand that you can't take people's rights away, but there has to be some way to prevent lunatics from acquiring firearms.
D&D is an interesting place and particularly this thread (minus the trolls who spam it). At the end of it all, I pretty strongly feel that people are unfairly attacking Palin. The targets on congressmen isn't a big deal, the metaphor of war is used often in politics, business, sports, and even amongst friends. I can't think of one instance where someone using a metaphor related to war inspired or influenced someone to commit a violent act. And it's very clear this incident has nothing to do with the language politicians use. The only instance I really was surprised by any language was by Angle when she spoke of "2nd Amendment remedies". Of course, she lost badly to Harry Reid partly because of such extremist positions. And that's great, it's good to know that extremist positions on EITHER side don't resonate with mainstream America. What bothers me here is going back to what Jon Stewart pointed out during his Rally to Stop Insanity - that it's the demonization that goes on. It's when Glen Beck tells people that there is this mass conspiracy or pundits say we are right and the other side is evil. That's the stuff that's scary and drives people to do crazy things. I mean, Glen Beck is far far far worse than Palin in any way shape or form. And it's not just the right. It seems that it's the right now because Obama is in power, but when Bush was in power, the extreme left did the exact same thing. They turned Bush and Cheney into some sort of evil villain instead of just saying - we really disagree with their policies. They might have lied about going to war, but heck, what politician doesn't pull that crap? That doesn't make them evil....although I wouldn't be surprised about Karl Rove. This is a tragedy, and it's because of some lunatic who's been basically stalking her for 3 or 4 years, not because of anything Sarah Palin or anyone else said.
please quote the post where I made this a political team versus another. I've said nothing but the opposite.
There is a law that prevents that but the mental health care and feelings toward it greatly hurt it's effectiveness. Your remedy is to have expensive and invasive psychological testing for anyone buying a gun. This would realistically require ceasing all private sales and making all sales from dealers have a long term waiting period for the test appointment and results. I am sure the costs will be transferred to the buyer. It is unrealistic and fighting the secondary problem of tool, rather than the primary problem of mental health. VTech, columbine and this shooting all have in common that the shooters attended public schools and universities. They all showed signs of trouble yet nothing was done. If we get serious about mental health, the "ignore it" solution might go away.
I am not advocating invasive psychological testing. But you are right, testing isn't the ideal solution. There needs to be a way for people to identify mental health issues in universities or the work place and instead of ostracizing those individuals call the need to get them help. And if anyone is having mental health issues, there needs to be a way of preventing them from getting a gun.
Actually throughout this thread I've criticized statements by boths sides. Even in the thread you mentioned (you can't give neg rep) I said regardless of which side said it, can't we all agree that anyone who suggest violence as an acceptable answer to political problems deserves to be shunned and called out.
Then what is? I am sure we will learn where this guy aquired his gun, but this is a question on every gun sold from a FFL dealer.
I am asking you. How would you stop crazy people from getting ahold of firearms? Because I think if a solution can not be found than I hope one day the 2nd amendment will be modified.
yep, looking increasingly like a tea bagger: there was help with cleaning the uranium from the Iran and Iraq war in the 1980’s? Article 33 of the Geneva Convention is the prohibit of pillage. All military invasions with armed forces into a foreign country are war crimes in the Geneva Convention articles of 1949. The Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a military invasion with armed forces into a foreign country. Therefore, Iraq and Afghanistan war of 2010 is a war crime from the Geneva Convention articles of 1949. Ouch! For the thoughts of war. Crap on God! Crap on God! Crap on God! Talk to the toilet seat for a hour.
what is wrong with you people? I have stayed out of these discussions about what happened over the weekend because this was an American tragedy. Not Republican, not Democrat. This was a horrible, terrorist attack against all of us and anyone who tries to gain political gotchas about it should be ashamed of themselves. carry on freaks
When you told me to GTFO when I said that both sides should repudiate comments from people like Kaufman, and Angle who advocated using weapons and violence to solve political problems. I asked you after that to explain what was wrong with that and never got a reply(I know people are busy and don't always have time to respond to every post in a long thread.) But I was merely pointing out the most extreme and literal rhetoric out there. I didn't think anyone would have a problem with denouncing that kind of thing, but apparently you did. If I was mistaken I apologize, but I don't see how I was mistaken.
