Congresswoman Gabby Giffords Shot in Head

[Galloism]

I was making a point that inflammatory speech has been argued over and over again, on this very forum no less, by none other than you and me and bottle, cannot cause or be blamed for rape, even if it occurred immediately prior to the event.

I feel similarly about other crimes, such as assault, battery, and murder.

As soon as you can quote either me or Farnhamia threatening, encouraging or advocating violence against those who disagree with us, then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, however, I will call your suggestion that I, for one, have ever done such a thing an outright lie, and I will thank you to keep your equivocating justifications to yourself.

You're not reading again. This thread is not about you.

Tell me where I accused you of anything.

[Farnhamia]

Bzzzt, wrong. I didn't say they were responsible for murder, I said they were responsible for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems."

Somehow a novel that one reads in private seems different than someone in a perceived position of authority, as the former Governor of a state or a candidate for the Senate, using irresponsible language in a public forum. When you have candidates like Congresswoman Giffords' most recent GOP opponent staging events at which people are invited to shoot an M-16 to symbolize the assault on Ms Giffords' campaign, or candidates airing ads in which George Washington solemnly tells the viewers, "Gather your armies," the wiggle room drops to zero. At least, I think so. Politicians really do need to step back and think about what they're saying and posting and tweeting and all.

Here's where you have to stop waffling around and come out and say what you're thinking. Do you think that Palin should be arrested for inciting murder: Yes or No?

No, of course not. I do think she does have some responsibility - do I have to put this in my signature in huge letters, so I don't have to type it over and over? - responsibility for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems"? Absolutely. And I think she feels a little responsible, too, else why did that page come off her site so fast?

[Farnhamia]

As soon as you can quote either me or Farnhamia threatening, encouraging or advocating violence against those who disagree with us, then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, however, I will call your suggestion that I, for one, have ever done such a thing an outright lie, and I will thank you to keep your equivocating justifications to yourself.

You're not reading again. This thread is not about you.

Tell me where I accused you of anything.

I agree, you didn't. I didn't read your post that way, at least. I think you're wrong, though.

[The Black Plains]

Here's where you have to stop waffling around and come out and say what you're thinking. Do you think that Palin should be arrested for inciting murder: Yes or No?

No, of course not. I do think she does have some responsibility - do I have to put this in my signature in huge letters, so I don't have to type it over and over? - responsibility for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems"? Absolutely. And I think she feels a little responsible, too, else why did that page come off her site so fast?

To answer the question you asked: Did you WATCH the disgraceful display of the 2008 election? I think that would be enough to make Ms. Palin cautious around the media and more than eager to vindicate herself before the next performance of saturday night live.

[Galloism]

Here's where you have to stop waffling around and come out and say what you're thinking. Do you think that Palin should be arrested for inciting murder: Yes or No?

No, of course not. I do think she does have some responsibility - do I have to put this in my signature in huge letters, so I don't have to type it over and over? - responsibility for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems"? Absolutely. And I think she feels a little responsible, too, else why did that page come off her site so fast?

Umm, let me be the first to point this out, since you're not familiar with it.

Among the right, the "2nd amendment remedy" means revolution. Assassination is something completely different.

Sure, they both involve killing people, but it's a matter of scope and intent.

[Muravyets]

Bzzzt, wrong. I didn't say they were responsible for murder, I said they were responsible for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems."

Somehow a novel that one reads in private seems different than someone in a perceived position of authority, as the former Governor of a state or a candidate for the Senate, using irresponsible language in a public forum. When you have candidates like Congresswoman Giffords' most recent GOP opponent staging events at which people are invited to shoot an M-16 to symbolize the assault on Ms Giffords' campaign, or candidates airing ads in which George Washington solemnly tells the viewers, "Gather your armies," the wiggle room drops to zero. At least, I think so. Politicians really do need to step back and think about what they're saying and posting and tweeting and all.

Here's where you have to stop waffling around and come out and say what you're thinking. Do you think that Palin should be arrested for inciting murder: Yes or No?

Speaking for myself because I'v been making the same argument as Farnhamia, of course the hell not. But Palin should be held responsible for what she actually does, which is foment an atmosphere of hatred and violent ideation against political opponents among the public. In and of itself, that is a bad thing. The risk of encouraging lunatics or terrorists to act on their impulses, thinking they have the support of public figures, is only one of the reasons it is bad should be stopped.

Further, those who think as I and Farnhamia do have our own responsibility, which is not to let such violent rhetoric go unchallenged anymore. Those who are seeking to drive wedges between the American people need to be called out for that destructive behavior.

[Muravyets]

As soon as you can quote either me or Farnhamia threatening, encouraging or advocating violence against those who disagree with us, then you might have a leg to stand on. Until then, however, I will call your suggestion that I, for one, have ever done such a thing an outright lie, and I will thank you to keep your equivocating justifications to yourself.

You're not reading again. This thread is not about you.

Tell me where I accused you of anything.

You did it in the bolded part of your post - EDIT: below. Though I have to correct myself - it was Bottle you also named, not Farnhamia.

So either you are saying that you, I and Bottle have all condoned or advocated violence at some point here in NSG, or you are drawing yet another comparison with something that has nothing to do with the topic, no resemblance to the topic, and no relevance to the topic, and thus fails to carry your point for your, just like your failed rape victim analogy.

So when I said that as soon as you can show any of us doing anything that this thread topic is about, then you'd have a leg to stand on, I meant that as soon as you can show how you are on topic, then we'd have something to discuss. I was reminding you what the topic is.

I was making a point that inflammatory speech has been argued over and over again, on this very forum no less, by none other than you and me and bottle, cannot cause or be blamed for rape, even if it occurred immediately prior to the event.

I feel similarly about other crimes, such as assault, battery, and murder.

[OrangeCats]

I don't know what to make of the politicos calling for less heated rhetoric as a response to this tragedy, since the shooter seems to me to have been a raving lunatic and not someone just hopped up on angry debate.

I'm always for cooler discussion, but I'd hate for that to distract people from the simple fact that this guy was a nut who got off on things like Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto. He was a nut. From looking at the things he wrote and said before he went nuts it's clear to me he was unhinged.

It's not Sarah Palin's fault.
It's not Keith Olberman's fault.
It's not Barack Obama's fault.
It's not Rush Limbaugh's fault.

It's no the fault of the Second Amendment or the Healthcare System. It's not Gabrielle Giffords' fault. It's not the fault of the cops or the Government of Arizona or of the United States.

Blame the delusional nut. Gabrielle Giffords' wounding isn't a political football.

[Farnhamia]

No, of course not. I do think she does have some responsibility - do I have to put this in my signature in huge letters, so I don't have to type it over and over? - responsibility for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems"? Absolutely. And I think she feels a little responsible, too, else why did that page come off her site so fast?

To answer the question you asked: Did you WATCH the disgraceful display of the 2008 election? I think that would be enough to make Ms. Palin cautious around the media and more than eager to vindicate herself before the next performance of saturday night live.

DId you pay attention in 2008? She appeared on SNL. Anyway, this is just another "All the other kids do it, why shouldn't I?" excuse for something you know has gotten out of hand. I might believe you if former Governor Palin issued a statement saying, "This rhetoric has gotten out of hand and I pledge to take a calmer, less belligerent line in my public statements. I call on everyone in American politics to join me in doing so, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. And further, if you come to a rally where I'm speaking carrying a gun, you are not welcome. If you attend a protest carrying a gun, I repudiate you. In the America I know, we do not make political changes at the point of a gun."

[Juristonia]

It's sad to see that it takes a nut and a tragedy for people to finally start realising that the rhetoric has been going too far.

[Galloism]

You're not reading again. This thread is not about you.

Tell me where I accused you of anything.

I agree, you didn't. I didn't read your post that way, at least. I think you're wrong, though.

I'm sure, and that is your right.

I just believe in personal responsibility. If a woman murders a shitty ex-boyfriend, it's because she's a murderer, not because a movie made her do it by portraying it as ok.

If a man rapes a woman, it's because he's a rapist, not because she was dressed slutty, or her friends told him she liked him.

If a man commits assault and battery against another man in a barfight, it's because he's a criminal, not because he watched Bonanza too many times.

If a person is caught speeding, it's because they are a speeder, not because Cannonball Run portrayed it as OK.

I don't understand how the world doesn't think as I do on this... but whatever.

[Black Plains Food Inc]

To answer the question you asked: Did you WATCH the disgraceful display of the 2008 election? I think that would be enough to make Ms. Palin cautious around the media and more than eager to vindicate herself before the next performance of saturday night live.

DId you pay attention in 2008? She appeared on SNL. Anyway, this is just another "All the other kids do it, why shouldn't I?" excuse for something you know has gotten out of hand. I might believe you if former Governor Palin issued a statement saying, "This rhetoric has gotten out of hand and I pledge to take a calmer, less belligerent line in my public statements. I call on everyone in American politics to join me in doing so, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. And further, if you come to a rally where I'm speaking carrying a gun, you are not welcome. If you attend a protest carrying a gun, I repudiate you. In the America I know, we do not make political changes at the point of a gun."

Bullshit. If she said that you'd claim she was doing it for a political agenda, which is what every single liberal in the media would claim, which is why, if she had the idea to do it, she never would. Sorry, the liberal media shut off discourse like that from Palin pre-emptively. I just thought that was the way you wanted it too, Farn.

[Muravyets]

No, of course not. I do think she does have some responsibility - do I have to put this in my signature in huge letters, so I don't have to type it over and over? - responsibility for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems"? Absolutely. And I think she feels a little responsible, too, else why did that page come off her site so fast?

Umm, let me be the first to point this out, since you're not familiar with it.

Among the right, the "2nd amendment remedy" means revolution. Assassination is something completely different.

Sure, they both involve killing people, but it's a matter of scope and intent.

Yeah, assassination means just killing one person at a time (though in this case, 20 collateral targets). Revolution can mean killing thousands or even millions, depending on how it goes.

[Farnhamia]

No, of course not. I do think she does have some responsibility - do I have to put this in my signature in huge letters, so I don't have to type it over and over? - responsibility for "fomenting an atmosphere in which people seem to think we've gotten to the point where 'Second Amendment remedies' are viable solutions to the nation's problems"? Absolutely. And I think she feels a little responsible, too, else why did that page come off her site so fast?

Umm, let me be the first to point this out, since you're not familiar with it.

Among the right, the "2nd amendment remedy" means revolution. Assassination is something completely different.

Sure, they both involve killing people, but it's a matter of scope and intent.

"No, Officer, we were just defending our rights against an oppressive government, we weren't assassinating anyone."
"Alright, well, just try to keep the noise down and make sure you don't block traffic. I'll let you off with a warning this time."

[Black Plains Food Inc]

Umm, let me be the first to point this out, since you're not familiar with it.

Among the right, the "2nd amendment remedy" means revolution. Assassination is something completely different.

Sure, they both involve killing people, but it's a matter of scope and intent.

Yeah, assassination means just killing one person at a time (though in this case, 20 collateral targets). Revolution can mean killing thousands or even millions, depending on how it goes.

Not if it is a peaceful revolution, in which case only the government can inflict casualties.

[Galloism]

You're not reading again. This thread is not about you.

Tell me where I accused you of anything.

You did it in the bolded part of your post - EDIT: below. Though I have to correct myself - it was Bottle you also named, not Farnhamia.

So either you are saying that you, I and Bottle have all condoned or advocated violence at some point here in NSG, or you are drawing yet another comparison with something that has nothing to do with the topic, no resemblance to the topic, and no relevance to the topic, and thus fails to carry your point for your, just like your failed rape victim analogy.

So when I said that as soon as you can show any of us doing anything that this thread topic is about, then you'd have a leg to stand on, I meant that as soon as you can show how you are on topic, then we'd have something to discuss. I was reminding you what the topic is.

I was making a point that inflammatory speech has been argued over and over again, on this very forum no less, by none other than you and me and bottle, cannot cause or be blamed for rape, even if it occurred immediately prior to the event.

I feel similarly about other crimes, such as assault, battery, and murder.

Note the commas. It has been argued, by us, that inflammatory speech cannot cause nor be blamed for rape, even if it directly preceded it, and the rape likely would not have occurred absent it. The rapist is still the cause.

Seriously, if you're not going to read my posts, why respond to them?

[Free Soviets]

think currency is bad? again, either way. because it isn't backed by gold? far right.

Again as I said, I don't think this is true at all. For instance, would you call someone like Taleb far right? What about fringe elements of the Zeitgeist movement?

alright, let me clarify. the pedigree of the gold-currency idea in the united states is way skewed to the side of far right conspiracy mongering. the best explanation, in the context of rants against the illegitimacy of the federal government and barring other evidence, is that anyone talking about it has picked it up via those channels.

further, that weird stuff about grammar and thought control seems closely related to stuff floating around among certain extra-crazy portions of the 'sovereign citizens' movement - though obviously there is some orwell influence happening there as well.

[Muravyets]

Yeah, assassination means just killing one person at a time (though in this case, 20 collateral targets). Revolution can mean killing thousands or even millions, depending on how it goes.

Not if it is a peaceful revolution, in which case only the government can inflict casualties.

Hence I said it CAN mean that. But if you're going to try to tell me that "Second Amendment remedies" is code for peaceful revolution, like what they had in the Czech Republic in '89, then I'm afraid I'll just laugh at you.

[Farnhamia]

DId you pay attention in 2008? She appeared on SNL. Anyway, this is just another "All the other kids do it, why shouldn't I?" excuse for something you know has gotten out of hand. I might believe you if former Governor Palin issued a statement saying, "This rhetoric has gotten out of hand and I pledge to take a calmer, less belligerent line in my public statements. I call on everyone in American politics to join me in doing so, Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative. And further, if you come to a rally where I'm speaking carrying a gun, you are not welcome. If you attend a protest carrying a gun, I repudiate you. In the America I know, we do not make political changes at the point of a gun."

Bullshit. If she said that you'd claim she was doing it for a political agenda, which is what every single liberal in the media would claim, which is why, if she had the idea to do it, she never would. Sorry, the liberal media shut off discourse like that from Palin pre-emptively. I just thought that was the way you wanted it too, Farn.

"I'd like to issue a statement like that person on NationStates said, but ... hmmm ... the liberal media is just going to accuse me of doing it for political advantage, and I hate that ... It might gain me the moral high ground, I suppose, but then again, it might also encourage that Tina Fey person to go back on Saturday Night Live ... hell, I don't know, better not say anything, I guess."

Give it up.

[Galloism]

Umm, let me be the first to point this out, since you're not familiar with it.

Among the right, the "2nd amendment remedy" means revolution. Assassination is something completely different.

Sure, they both involve killing people, but it's a matter of scope and intent.

"No, Officer, we were just defending our rights against an oppressive government, we weren't assassinating anyone."
"Alright, well, just try to keep the noise down and make sure you don't block traffic. I'll let you off with a warning this time."

I'll admit it.

I chuckled.

[Farnhamia]

"No, Officer, we were just defending our rights against an oppressive government, we weren't assassinating anyone."
"Alright, well, just try to keep the noise down and make sure you don't block traffic. I'll let you off with a warning this time."

I'll admit it.

I chuckled.

Good. Did you also get the point that "scope and intent" in the matter of killing someone is just the difference between manslaughter and murder?

[Muravyets]

Note the commas. It has been argued, by us, that inflammatory speech cannot cause nor be blamed for rape, even if it directly preceded it, and the rape likely would not have occurred absent it. The rapist is still the cause.

Seriously, if you're not going to read my posts, why respond to them?

Don't blame me because you not only make invalid comparisons but also do so in needlessly convoluted sentences that are hard to follow. And as for this comparison that you think makes your point, now that you've made it clear, I give you two responses:

1) I refer you back to my post in which I explained how Catcher in the Rye =/= the inflammatory rhetoric this thread is about. Your example you just explains falls under the same objection.

2) No one is blaming pols who use inflammatory rhetoric for the shooting. We are blaming them for creating an atmosphere that encourages violent thinking in general, which in and of itself is a bad thing. The shooting on Saturday is only our trigger for doing so at this time, but in fact, we and many others have been complaining about it for a long time now.

So on the grounds that (a) the two situations are not analogous and (b) no one is blaming A for the actions of B, but rather blaming A for the actions of A only, I reject your argument.

[Galloism]

I'll admit it.

I chuckled.

Good. Did you also get the point that "scope and intent" in the matter of killing someone is just the difference between manslaughter and murder?

Yes.

Did you get that the gunman in the OP didn't utilize his "2nd amendment option" the way that the vast majority of people who talk about it think about it and mean it?

[Muravyets]

Good. Did you also get the point that "scope and intent" in the matter of killing someone is just the difference between manslaughter and murder?

Yes.

Did you get that the gunman in the OP didn't utilize his "2nd amendment option" the way that the vast majority of people who talk about it think about it and mean it?

I got it. He only aimed at a few dozen people, hitting 20, probably intending to kill just one.

If he had invoked his 2nd Amendment Remedy option the way you say it is really meant, he would have killed far more people than he did.

EDIT: Of course, he was attempting to reload when he was tackled, and one account I read in the press suggested he had at least 3 of the extended magazines with him, and as far as I know he has not expressed his intent clearly to the investigators, so who knows what his intention really was at this point?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Umm, let me be the first to point this out, since you're not familiar with it.

Among the right, the "2nd amendment remedy" means revolution. Assassination is something completely different.

Sure, they both involve killing people, but it's a matter of scope and intent.

"No, Officer, we were just defending our rights against an oppressive government, we weren't assassinating anyone."
"Alright, well, just try to keep the noise down and make sure you don't block traffic. I'll let you off with a warning this time."