Congresswoman Gabby Giffords Shot in Head

[Grave_n_idle]

I hate to sound ignorant but being new around here, I pretty much am as far as political discussion goes.

This is not an appropriate case to make blanket statements about gun ownership. He is schizophrenic, and the most I can say about any legal alteration is that guns should not be allowed in the hands of those who can not positively demonstrate sanity, but that's just my opinion.

As for the case itself, it freaks me out a bit that I had discussions with Jared Loughner by way of another forum. The things he posted were so strange I thought he was Asian and didn't have full mastery of English, and that perhaps he was kinda strange.

Despite having had one of my childhood friends go off the deep end with schizophrenia which transformed him from a nice kid to a severely disturbed sadist, I didn't recognize this for what it was. Even the dude's closer friends didn't see it.

This was a social failure before it was a political failure, and it bothers me quite a bit despite only barely knowing the guy.

Where is the evidence for 'social failure'?

[Caninope]

How about no? I rather like my rights.

OK, no then. Keep your horribly-worded, ambiguous amendment and rely on future courts to interpret it your way. If your rights rely on that, good luck buddy.

But that heads wide of the subject. What say you to licensing, which is a background check done right? I say that the limited resources government applies to checking background (which would never have prevented Loughlin buying a gun, given his non-violent and rather trivial criminal record) would be better applied ONLY to those who apply to own a gun. What say you?

Circumstances change, therefore it needs to be ambiguous. Furthermore, apply to own a gun? No. I don't want to apply to own something that I have a right too.

[Nobel Hobos]

I hate to sound ignorant but being new around here, I pretty much am as far as political discussion goes.

This is not an appropriate case to make blanket statements about gun ownership.

Well said.

No single case is appropriate to make statements about gun ownership. I shouldn't have done that.

He is schizophrenic, and the most I can say about any legal alteration is that guns should not be allowed in the hands of those who can not positively demonstrate sanity, but that's just my opinion.

As for the case itself, it freaks me out a bit that I had discussions with Jared Loughner by way of another forum. The things he posted were so strange I thought he was Asian and didn't have full mastery of English, and that perhaps he was kinda strange.

Despite having had one of my childhood friends go off the deep end with schizophrenia which transformed him from a nice kid to a severely disturbed sadist, I didn't recognize this for what it was. Even the dude's closer friends didn't see it.

This was a social failure before it was a political failure, and it bothers me quite a bit despite only barely knowing the guy.

With only two posts, I really have no way of knowing if you tell lies or not.

But the opportunity to hear from someone who conversed with him is too good to pass up. What site did you read him on, and how did you know his name?

Here, I think we have equally nutty people just to judge by their posts. But they don't give real-world names.

[Buffett and Colbert]

OK, no then. Keep your horribly-worded, ambiguous amendment and rely on future courts to interpret it your way. If your rights rely on that, good luck buddy.

But that heads wide of the subject. What say you to licensing, which is a background check done right? I say that the limited resources government applies to checking background (which would never have prevented Loughlin buying a gun, given his non-violent and rather trivial criminal record) would be better applied ONLY to those who apply to own a gun. What say you?

Circumstances change, therefore it needs to be ambiguous. Furthermore, apply to own a gun? No. I don't want to apply to own something that I have a right too.

Having to apply for something doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. You have a right to shelter, water, etc. That doesn't mean you need to fill out forms for you house and utilities.

[Farnhamia]

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 but revolutions have to start somehow. and a precipitating event such as assassination is often thought to be that start.

how else do the masses know that the revolution is starting?

You never heard of television? Or Twitter?

[Nobel Hobos]

You have a right to shelter, water, etc.

If only it were so. The homeless show that it is not.

[Grave_n_idle]

OK, no then. Keep your horribly-worded, ambiguous amendment and rely on future courts to interpret it your way. If your rights rely on that, good luck buddy.

But that heads wide of the subject. What say you to licensing, which is a background check done right? I say that the limited resources government applies to checking background (which would never have prevented Loughlin buying a gun, given his non-violent and rather trivial criminal record) would be better applied ONLY to those who apply to own a gun. What say you?

Circumstances change, therefore it needs to be ambiguous. Furthermore, apply to own a gun? No. I don't want to apply to own something that I have a right too.

You don't have a 'right' to it. You have a theoretical right, based on whether or not you qualify.

The question is only really about who should bear the responsibility - the person trying to sell the gun, the person trying to monitor the sale, or the person trying to buy. Placing the burden at the buyers end limits excessive paperwork, by limiting the pool of required assessments to only serious (potential) transactions.

[United Dependencies]

Circumstances change, therefore it needs to be ambiguous. Furthermore, apply to own a gun? No. I don't want to apply to own something that I have a right too.

It's probably best if the government be able to limit what kinds of guns people can buy and who can buy them. If you have a clean record what's the big deal with getting a permit or having a backround check?

[Georgism]

You never heard of television? Or Twitter?

The Revolution will not be televised.

[Fartsniffage]

You never heard of....Twitter?

They tried that in Iran.

They all got shot.

[Grave_n_idle]

You never heard of television? Or Twitter?

The Revolution will not be televised.

In this day and age of media saturation?

It seems unlikely that something that would guarantee bums on seats would not be televised.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Like Legos.

You can build guns with lego.

Can you do that with misdemeanors?

I hope not. I already got ideas from that lego clip that'll get me in enough trouble.

[Farnhamia]

You never heard of....Twitter?

They tried that in Iran.

They all got shot.

I seem to recall something about trees needing to be watered with the blood of patriots. Maybe they don't have the right kind of trees in Iran. Or enough patriots. Or enough bullets.

[Farnhamia]

The Revolution will not be televised.

In this day and age of media saturation?

It seems unlikely that something that would guarantee bums on seats would not be televised.

Truly. The danger is, it will be televised but everyone will be watching "Survivor: Iceland Volcano" or "Dancing With the Stunt Doubles" and the Revolution will go unnoticed.

[The Bleeding Roses]

Half this guy's rantings on ATS were about NASA...

Gifford's husband is an Astronaut and she is on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

Interesting.

[Fartsniffage]

I seem to recall something about trees needing to be watered with the blood of patriots. Maybe they don't have the right kind of trees in Iran. Or enough patriots. Or enough bullets.

You need the blood of tyrants for the magic to work.

No one managed to wing the dinner jacket so the spell failed.

[Caninope]

Circumstances change, therefore it needs to be ambiguous. Furthermore, apply to own a gun? No. I don't want to apply to own something that I have a right too.

Having to apply for something doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. You have a right to shelter, water, etc. That doesn't mean you need to fill out forms for you house and utilities.

Aha. I have a right to a gun, under the Constitution. I, on the other hand, have no right to shelter, water, food, etc.

Would you be opposed if we had to apply to make a speech or exercise freedom of expression?

[Caninope]

yeah but revolutions have to start somehow. and a precipitating event such as assassination is often thought to be that start.

how else do the masses know that the revolution is starting?

You never heard of television? Or Twitter?

The revolution will be televised.

[Farnhamia]

Half this guy's rantings on ATS were about NASA...

Gifford's husband is an Astronaut and she is on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

Interesting.

See? You keep reading it and eventually ...

[Caninope]

Circumstances change, therefore it needs to be ambiguous. Furthermore, apply to own a gun? No. I don't want to apply to own something that I have a right too.

You don't have a 'right' to it. You have a theoretical right, based on whether or not you qualify.

The question is only really about who should bear the responsibility - the person trying to sell the gun, the person trying to monitor the sale, or the person trying to buy. Placing the burden at the buyers end limits excessive paperwork, by limiting the pool of required assessments to only serious (potential) transactions.

I have a right to a gun, allowing certain restrictions on me and the weapons I might own, providing they aren't overly restrictive.

[OrangeCats]

Where is the evidence for 'social failure'?

They're mopping it up off the Safeway parking lot...

[United Dependencies]

Having to apply for something doesn't mean you don't have a right to it. You have a right to shelter, water, etc. That doesn't mean you need to fill out forms for you house and utilities.

Aha. I have a right to a gun, under the Constitution. I, on the other hand, have no right to shelter, water, food, etc.

Would you be opposed if we had to apply to make a speech or exercise freedom of expression?

I believe that you have to let people know if you are planning on having a large protest or gathering in their town.

[Caninope]

Circumstances change, therefore it needs to be ambiguous. Furthermore, apply to own a gun? No. I don't want to apply to own something that I have a right too.

It's probably best if the government be able to limit what kinds of guns people can buy and who can buy them. If you have a clean record what's the big deal with getting a permit or having a backround check?

Except the government already does this, to an extent. But I don't want permits or background checks because they infringe upon a freedom enshrined in the 2nd amendment.

What if you had to get a permit to exercise free speech?

[You-Gi-Owe]

Anyone want to take bets as to whether or nor the shooter was a teabagger?

I hear his favorite book was "The Communist Manifesto", so he's obviously a "fill in the blank".

[Georgism]

Half this guy's rantings on ATS were about NASA...

Gifford's husband is an Astronaut and she is on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.

Interesting.

...Very interesting. I must read into this.