Merged Rep. Giffords Shot In Tucson

Thunder said:
that's cute.

the wager is still good, by the way.

if anyone can find evidence of someone calling for the amending of the 1st Amendment, I will Paypal them $20.

and yes, it has to be an honest statement. it can't be a typo, error, misprint, mistake, etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

So, let me get this straight...I can make $20 if I

1) Call for the amending of the 1st Amendment
2) Direct you to my post

Awesome!

I'll do it now!
 
BenBurch said:
And that would matter to my argument how, exactly?

If Loughner was not so-influenced, others certainly HAVE been;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting
http://www2.dailyprogress.com/news/...of_perriello_brother_under_investig-ar-75186/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Britton_(doctor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing

And the point is that sometimes you CALL for violence, or use violent rhetoric, and you GET it. And therefore it is irresponsible to call for it. Because people like Adkisson and Rudolf and Loughner are insane and it is predictable that such people exist in the population and predictable that sometimes they will hear those words and be motivated to do terrible things.
Click to expand...

Who is responsible for violent acts? Would you in any way attempt to curb, via legal measures, rhetoric? If yes, how? If no, then you are left focusing on those who actually commit violent acts and not those using words.
 
applecorped said:
Who is responsible for violent acts? Would you in any way attempt to curb, via legal measures, rhetoric? If yes, how? If no, then you are left focusing on those who actually commit violent acts and not those using words.
Click to expand...

Responsibility does not rest with a single person in cases like that.

And you know that.

Are you actually saying to me that the ayatollah who declared the fatwa on that Danish cartoonist bears no responsibility whatsoever for the axe attack that was carried out against him?

Are you saying that the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie did not cause the failed attempt to kill him with a bomb?

I don't believe that you would take either of those positions, because no intelligent person would.
 
BenBurch said:
Responsibility does not rest with a single person in cases like that.

And you know that.

Are you actually saying to me that the ayatollah who declared the fatwa on that Danish cartoonist bears no responsibility whatsoever for the axe attack that was carried out against him?

Are you saying that the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie did not cause the failed attempt to kill him with a bomb?

I don't believe that you would take either of those positions, because no intelligent person would.
Click to expand...

Well...the Liberal DailyKos did issue a fatwa of sorts when they declared Rep. Giffords was a "target" with a "bullseye" on her.

yes, I see what you're saying now.
 
BenBurch said:
Responsibility does not rest with a single person in cases like that.

And you know that.

Are you actually saying to me that the ayatollah who declared the fatwa on that Danish cartoonist bears no responsibility whatsoever for the axe attack that was carried out against him?

Are you saying that the Fatwa on Salman Rushdie did not cause the failed attempt to kill him with a bomb?

I don't believe that you would take either of those positions, because no intelligent person would.
Click to expand...

Focus. Would you in any way attempt to curb, via legal measures, rhetoric? If yes, how?
 
I think this is the right thread for this. My Bloomberg news told me that extended clip Glocks are flying off the shelves all over the US at about $500 USD a pop.

My question is this to gun-owners who I've seen make many claims about being such great targets that it's one-shot/one-kill: Why is everyone buying up 33-round clip guns?

A] People are expecting their homes to be invaded by 34 people (you throw the weapon at the 34th intruder and knock him or her out cold).

B] People are not as good shots as they always claim on the internet.

C] People saw how effective an extended clip is and want one in case a politician visits their local shopping mall.

It can only be one of those three options. Which one?
 
stilicho said:
I think this is the right thread for this. My Bloomberg news told me that extended clip Glocks are flying off the shelves all over the US at about $500 USD a pop.

My question is this to gun-owners who I've seen make many claims about being such great targets that it's one-shot/one-kill: Why is everyone buying up 33-round clip guns?

A] People are expecting their homes to be invaded by 34 people (you throw the weapon at the 34th intruder and knock him or her out cold).

B] People are not as good shots as they always claim on the internet.

C] People saw how effective an extended clip is and want one in case a politician visits their local shopping mall.

It can only be one of those three options. Which one?
Click to expand...

D] People are again worried that lawmakers will try to ban them again

E] People would rather have extended clips when using them for recreational target practice
 
BenBurch said:
I can't even do that NOW.

In the crowd at the AZ shooting was a fellow with a holstered weapon. He did not get it un-holstered before the shooting was all over.

If you think your piece gives you an assurance of safety, you probably shouldn't be carrying one.
Click to expand...
What it does is make me responsible for my own safety. That is it, trying to justify a Gun ban whilst the supreme court rules that the police have no obligation to protect you is not an argument grounded in reason.


As far as the "he didn't get it un-holstered before the shooting was all over" bit, I call BS on that. More likely he did not choose to un-holster it at the sound of the first shot becuase he had not yet identified the shooter in a crowd of freighted people and was smart enough to realize he could be mistaken as the shooter if he whipped out his gun right then and right there. It takes me less then a second to un-holster my weapon, another half a second to put it on target, it takes longer to fire a full magazine of rounds then it takes to draw and fire a single shot. The situation at hand is not a situation that favors gun bans, or gun control, or gun rights, it does not favor anything, it is senselessly tragic. Killing someone offers the possible penalty of death, having a banned gun would carry a lesser penalty, in what way would banning guns stop murders, or illegal gun ownership?
 
Last edited:
deepatrax said:
D] People are again worried that lawmakers will try to ban them again

E] People would rather have extended clips when using them for recreational target practice
Click to expand...

F] If some other Liberal pothead is gonna threaten me or my family at a public event, I want to be armed at least as well as he is to defend myself.
 
deepatrax said:
D] People are again worried that lawmakers will try to ban them again

E] People would rather have extended clips when using them for recreational target practice
Click to expand...

Has to be one of the three I mentioned. This phenomenon occurred after Virginia Tech, too. In a way, both incidents do qualify as recreational target practice so I'll put you down for Option "C".
 
stilicho said:
Has to be one of the three I mentioned. This phenomenon occurred after Virginia Tech, too. In a way, both incidents do qualify as recreational target practice so I'll put you down for Option "C".
Click to expand...

ok, put me down as C since I must be restricted to your answers and since you answered for me.

Now, my question to you:

Who's rhetoric is responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon?

A] The Left

You must pick one of the one I mentioned.
 
Watched some Glenn Beck on this. I'm convinced that he has to be doing performance art, as suggested previously in this thread.

First, he says the shooter was unstable and neither left or right.. just a crazy guy for thinking the government controls minds and brainwashes people.

Then Beck goes on to say that the "liberals" want to ban guns, bad language and bad thoughts using this assassination attempt as an excuse.........
 
deepatrax said:
ok, put me down as C since I must be restricted to your answers and since you answered for me.

Now, my question to you:

Who's rhetoric is responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon?

A] The Left

You must pick one of the one I mentioned.
Click to expand...

Sure. I really don't follow the politics of various nuts in the US. I was more interested in why Glock sales peaked today.

Your response is noted.
 
deepatrax said:
Who's rhetoric is responsible for the tragedy in Tuscon?
A] The Left
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that liberals are a bunch of "pansy, wimpy, peace-loving hippies."

Until something like this happens, and then liberals are a bunch of crazy, violent nutcases that like to shoot people.....:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom