OT: Sad day for America

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=afx114]Where did I say owning a gun is a bad thing? I said that mentally disturbed people with a history of erratic behavior owning a gun is a bad thing. Big difference. Are you taking the position that it is a good thing that Jared Lee Loughner was able to purchase a firearm with no questions asked?[/quote]

Afx: I’m not up on Arizona laws regarding firearm purchasing and ownership, but I’m pretty sure that they have to comply with federal regulations, specifically BATF Form 4473, which does have a section on mental health. Yeah, I do understand that simply answering “No” when “Yes” is the correct answer won’t stop the Loughners of the world, but “no questions asked” isn’t correct, either.

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve read plenty on the history of Russia (enough that I don’t read much any more because it’s so depressing.)

You can attribute much of what Stalin did to communism. But much if is is just, well, Russia.

Even Peter the Great was brutal. Long before Lenin.

Here’s a another (personal) data point:

I generally pay attention to current events and don’t live in hole. But I honestly don’t even know who Dylan Ratigan, Randi Rhodes, and Mike Malloy are. They sound familiar, but I had to Wikipedia these names. I think it’s safe to say that their voices, whatever they say, are likely only heard by a very few.

(And Rachel Maddow using using violence in her rhetoric? Can’t confirm 100% because I don’t really watch her, but it certainly doesn’t jive with what I’ve heard or her.)

When it comes to violent rhetoric, there is no “equivalence” between the left and right in American politics today.

The right’s leadership along with their integrated media have been conveying a consistent, coordinated, and institutionalized tone of violence in their message for many years. They have engineered this message carefully and use it purposefully. The leadership doesn’t actually want the violence to happen – it’s not part of their plan. But they know their talk will lead to collateral damage, and they don’t care.

Very different from an occasional quip about “bringing a gun to a knife fight” or the ramblings of obscure media personalities.

EDIT: Just read your link with the rest of the Obama quotes. You’ve got to be kidding. Using term “fight” to describe a political contest is violent? And on the same level as this? http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve read plenty on the history of Russia (enough that I don’t read much any more because it’s so depressing.)

You can attribute much of what Stalin did to communism. But much if is is just, well, Russia.

Even Peter the Great was brutal. Long before Lenin.

Here’s a another (personal) data point:

I generally pay attention to current events and don’t live in hole. But I honestly don’t even know who Dylan Ratigan, Randi Rhodes, and Mike Malloy are. They sound familiar, but I had to Wikipedia these names. I think it’s safe to say that their voices, whatever they say, are likely only heard by a very few.

(And Rachel Maddow using using violence in her rhetoric? Can’t confirm 100% because I don’t really watch her, but it certainly doesn’t jive with what I’ve heard or her.)

When it comes to violent rhetoric, there is no “equivalence” between the left and right in American politics today.

The right’s leadership along with their integrated media have been conveying a consistent, coordinated, and institutionalized tone of violence in their message for many years. They have engineered this message carefully and use it purposefully. The leadership doesn’t actually want the violence to happen – it’s not part of their plan. But they know their talk will lead to collateral damage, and they don’t care.

Very different from an occasional quip about “bringing a gun to a knife fight” or the ramblings of obscure media personalities.

EDIT: Just read your link with the rest of the Obama quotes. You’ve got to be kidding. Using term “fight” to describe a political contest is violent? And on the same level as this? http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve read plenty on the history of Russia (enough that I don’t read much any more because it’s so depressing.)

You can attribute much of what Stalin did to communism. But much if is is just, well, Russia.

Even Peter the Great was brutal. Long before Lenin.

Here’s a another (personal) data point:

I generally pay attention to current events and don’t live in hole. But I honestly don’t even know who Dylan Ratigan, Randi Rhodes, and Mike Malloy are. They sound familiar, but I had to Wikipedia these names. I think it’s safe to say that their voices, whatever they say, are likely only heard by a very few.

(And Rachel Maddow using using violence in her rhetoric? Can’t confirm 100% because I don’t really watch her, but it certainly doesn’t jive with what I’ve heard or her.)

When it comes to violent rhetoric, there is no “equivalence” between the left and right in American politics today.

The right’s leadership along with their integrated media have been conveying a consistent, coordinated, and institutionalized tone of violence in their message for many years. They have engineered this message carefully and use it purposefully. The leadership doesn’t actually want the violence to happen – it’s not part of their plan. But they know their talk will lead to collateral damage, and they don’t care.

Very different from an occasional quip about “bringing a gun to a knife fight” or the ramblings of obscure media personalities.

EDIT: Just read your link with the rest of the Obama quotes. You’ve got to be kidding. Using term “fight” to describe a political contest is violent? And on the same level as this? http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve read plenty on the history of Russia (enough that I don’t read much any more because it’s so depressing.)

You can attribute much of what Stalin did to communism. But much if is is just, well, Russia.

Even Peter the Great was brutal. Long before Lenin.

Here’s a another (personal) data point:

I generally pay attention to current events and don’t live in hole. But I honestly don’t even know who Dylan Ratigan, Randi Rhodes, and Mike Malloy are. They sound familiar, but I had to Wikipedia these names. I think it’s safe to say that their voices, whatever they say, are likely only heard by a very few.

(And Rachel Maddow using using violence in her rhetoric? Can’t confirm 100% because I don’t really watch her, but it certainly doesn’t jive with what I’ve heard or her.)

When it comes to violent rhetoric, there is no “equivalence” between the left and right in American politics today.

The right’s leadership along with their integrated media have been conveying a consistent, coordinated, and institutionalized tone of violence in their message for many years. They have engineered this message carefully and use it purposefully. The leadership doesn’t actually want the violence to happen – it’s not part of their plan. But they know their talk will lead to collateral damage, and they don’t care.

Very different from an occasional quip about “bringing a gun to a knife fight” or the ramblings of obscure media personalities.

EDIT: Just read your link with the rest of the Obama quotes. You’ve got to be kidding. Using term “fight” to describe a political contest is violent? And on the same level as this? http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

[Anonymous]

Allan, I’ve read plenty on the history of Russia (enough that I don’t read much any more because it’s so depressing.)

You can attribute much of what Stalin did to communism. But much if is is just, well, Russia.

Even Peter the Great was brutal. Long before Lenin.

Here’s a another (personal) data point:

I generally pay attention to current events and don’t live in hole. But I honestly don’t even know who Dylan Ratigan, Randi Rhodes, and Mike Malloy are. They sound familiar, but I had to Wikipedia these names. I think it’s safe to say that their voices, whatever they say, are likely only heard by a very few.

(And Rachel Maddow using using violence in her rhetoric? Can’t confirm 100% because I don’t really watch her, but it certainly doesn’t jive with what I’ve heard or her.)

When it comes to violent rhetoric, there is no “equivalence” between the left and right in American politics today.

The right’s leadership along with their integrated media have been conveying a consistent, coordinated, and institutionalized tone of violence in their message for many years. They have engineered this message carefully and use it purposefully. The leadership doesn’t actually want the violence to happen – it’s not part of their plan. But they know their talk will lead to collateral damage, and they don’t care.

Very different from an occasional quip about “bringing a gun to a knife fight” or the ramblings of obscure media personalities.

EDIT: Just read your link with the rest of the Obama quotes. You’ve got to be kidding. Using term “fight” to describe a political contest is violent? And on the same level as this? http://mediamatters.org/research/200505180008

[Anonymous]

DJ,

You do know that Obama’s gonna take your guns away?

He’s never said much about gun control or proposed any new legislation. And his voting record as a Senator shows no sign of favoring additional gun control legislation.

But he’s gonna take your guns away.

[Anonymous]

DJ,

You do know that Obama’s gonna take your guns away?

He’s never said much about gun control or proposed any new legislation. And his voting record as a Senator shows no sign of favoring additional gun control legislation.

But he’s gonna take your guns away.

[Anonymous]

DJ,

You do know that Obama’s gonna take your guns away?

He’s never said much about gun control or proposed any new legislation. And his voting record as a Senator shows no sign of favoring additional gun control legislation.

But he’s gonna take your guns away.

[Anonymous]

DJ,

You do know that Obama’s gonna take your guns away?

He’s never said much about gun control or proposed any new legislation. And his voting record as a Senator shows no sign of favoring additional gun control legislation.

But he’s gonna take your guns away.

[Anonymous]

DJ,

You do know that Obama’s gonna take your guns away?

He’s never said much about gun control or proposed any new legislation. And his voting record as a Senator shows no sign of favoring additional gun control legislation.

But he’s gonna take your guns away.

[jstoesz]

That study is simply asinine. If you believe violent action is NEVER justified, you are a complete moron or totally immoral. All that study shows me is that there are more conscientious objectors amongst the left (which should surprise no one), or more historically ill informed people amongst the left. This experiment we have with a constitutional democracy is not all that long running, when compared to historical governments. There is little certainty that one day, violent action will be more than justified. Anyone who says it is now, is pain stupid, but no one can predict the grizzly future, 40 years from now, or even 5…

BTW I do not own a gun, I am a cube dwelling engineer, who tends to be a bit of a social liberal, but I for one am glad the gun nuts exist.

[jstoesz]

That study is simply asinine. If you believe violent action is NEVER justified, you are a complete moron or totally immoral. All that study shows me is that there are more conscientious objectors amongst the left (which should surprise no one), or more historically ill informed people amongst the left. This experiment we have with a constitutional democracy is not all that long running, when compared to historical governments. There is little certainty that one day, violent action will be more than justified. Anyone who says it is now, is pain stupid, but no one can predict the grizzly future, 40 years from now, or even 5…

BTW I do not own a gun, I am a cube dwelling engineer, who tends to be a bit of a social liberal, but I for one am glad the gun nuts exist.

[jstoesz]

That study is simply asinine. If you believe violent action is NEVER justified, you are a complete moron or totally immoral. All that study shows me is that there are more conscientious objectors amongst the left (which should surprise no one), or more historically ill informed people amongst the left. This experiment we have with a constitutional democracy is not all that long running, when compared to historical governments. There is little certainty that one day, violent action will be more than justified. Anyone who says it is now, is pain stupid, but no one can predict the grizzly future, 40 years from now, or even 5…

BTW I do not own a gun, I am a cube dwelling engineer, who tends to be a bit of a social liberal, but I for one am glad the gun nuts exist.

[jstoesz]

That study is simply asinine. If you believe violent action is NEVER justified, you are a complete moron or totally immoral. All that study shows me is that there are more conscientious objectors amongst the left (which should surprise no one), or more historically ill informed people amongst the left. This experiment we have with a constitutional democracy is not all that long running, when compared to historical governments. There is little certainty that one day, violent action will be more than justified. Anyone who says it is now, is pain stupid, but no one can predict the grizzly future, 40 years from now, or even 5…

BTW I do not own a gun, I am a cube dwelling engineer, who tends to be a bit of a social liberal, but I for one am glad the gun nuts exist.

[Author]

Posts