This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: The Giffords Shooting Changes Nothing

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Giordano Bruno of Neithercorp Press

The Giffords Shooting Changes Nothing

Generally, when one is in the midst of national tragedy, unspoken but
expected rules of social conduct tend to take effect. These rules
require us to engage in a chorus of collective theater in which every
person must act out their best teary-eyed monologue. We suddenly feel
obliged to showcase for the world how much more empathetic we are to the
plight of the victim or victims than others, or, we simply silence our
dissent so that we might avoid appearing “insensitive” to the fads of
cultural grieving. That is to say, if you dare to question the honesty
behind the sobs, the outrage, or the reactionary zealotry of the
ideologues hell bent on exploiting the latest calamity to their own
benefit, then you are usually branded as monstrous as the villain or
villains who carried out the terrible event in the first place.

Frankly, I could care less about such conventions. The truth takes precedence over all things, even tragedy…

While the murder of 6 bystanders, the wounding of 14 people, and the
attempted murder of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is indeed a horrible
smear in the history of the America, it is but one of many. This fact
seems to have eluded the mainstream media, which is declaring (rather
prematurely) that the very political climate of our nation will be
irrevocably altered by said event. Before any dead had been put to
rest, before Jared Loughner had even been officially charged, the MSM
unleashed a hailstorm of editorials linking the shooting to the Tea
Party, conservatives, gun rights advocates, Constitutionalists,
Libertarians, Sarah Palin (as if she has any real influence), and
“divisive political rhetoric” overall. Yet again, the media thrust it
sinewy index finger of doom at the Liberty Movement, and yet again I had
to see the sniveling sourpuss of SPLC representative Mark Potok spewing
lines from his standardized anti-Constitutionalist playbook. Of
course, as it turned out, Loughner’s political beliefs were decidedly
left-leaning, and his affiliations with the groups the establishment
accused were non-existent.

After several incidences over the past few years involving “lone
gunman”, or random over-medicated psychotics, it has become clear that
the DHS and corporate run news sources have endeavored to immediately
link any domestic shooting or bombing event with grass-roots
organizations which are fighting for limited government. The Giffords
shooting is a perfect example of how insincere establishment pundits
are, and how willing they will be to exploit every random (or
engineered) tragedy to their own ends. I discussed this phenomenon last
spring in my article ‘One Day Soon, We’ll All Be “Homegrown
Terrorists”’

http://neithercorp.us/npress/2010/04/one-day-soon-we%E2%80%99ll-all-be-%E2%80%9Chomegrown-terrorists%E2%80%9D/

To be blunt, what the MSM is desperately searching for is another
Timothy McVeigh, and another massive body count. In order to defuse the
fast growing Liberty Movement, its image would have to be tarnished
beyond recognition and its participants shamed into silence. This is
what occurred in 1995 after the Oklahoma City bombing, as many pro-civil
militia and Constitutionalist groups disbanded purely on the fear that
they would be found guilty by association. Not association with McVeigh
himself, but mere association with McVeigh’s claimed beliefs!

The very idea that an entire movement or cultural philosophy should
somehow be held responsible for the actions of a single maniac is
ludicrous, to say the least. There are extremists at the far ends of
the spectrum of every political body or movement on Earth (most
especially in governments), but it seems that only governments and their
affiliated media feel it necessary to use these extremists to classify
opposing political movements in broad strokes designed to defame. Are
the personal beliefs of Timothy McVeigh or Jared Loughner really
relevant to the greater debate and the greater disaster taking place in
our country today? Do these men matter at all in the grand scheme of
things? The answer is no, they do not, unless we allow the
establishment to fashion them into convoluted symbols used to manipulate
the wider conflict.

Loughner was a bust for the MSM. His views are too random and too
“leftist” to be used against the Liberty Movement. However, eventually,
they WILL find their new McVeigh. Someone, somewhere, with enough
psychological baggage, some conservative beliefs, and a track record of
visiting websites like this one, will one day pop out of the woodwork
and shoot somebody. Will we see a repeat of 1995? Will the event be
wielded like a precision blade to cut down the Liberty Movement and the
independent educational apparatus we have worked so hard to build? Not
this time…

Today’s circumstances are far different from 1995. Neither the
Giffords shooting, nor any other nationally condemned attack will derail
the current social climate, or the Liberty Movement itself. Here’s
why…

Constitutionalism Going “Viral”: The desire for
smaller, transparent, non-intrusive government is becoming wildly
popular and will continue to do so the more the DHS attempts to tighten
its stranglehold on civil liberties. Sovereignty is the new focus for a
large percentage of Americans from every conceivable background. The
Liberty Movement can no longer be accused of representing a “fringe”
element of the “far right”, composed of rednecks and gun nuts. Today,
our membership includes insightful leaders in the business community,
top minds of alternative economics, health professionals disenchanted
with the unseemly medical bureaucracy, scientists and engineers who
realize their great talents are being misapplied or misused, veterans
and servicemen who have awakened to the fact that the government they
take marching orders from does not truly represent the people they are
sworn to protect, and even many in law enforcement who see corruption in
the legal system everyday and are finally fed up. The “fringe”
accusation was weak to begin with, now, it’s laughable. The people
involved in this movement are aware of their prominence. No arbitrary
label is going to frighten them off, or shut them up.

Seeing The Big Picture: Twenty years ago, an
attempt on the life of a U.S. Rep or a similar event would have
dominated every waking moment of the average American for months on end.
The water cooler discussions would be relentless and the made-for-TV
movies would flow like a flash flood. Today, though, I rarely hear a
word in passing about the tragedy in Arizona, and I’ve never heard
anyone use the names “Giffords” or “Loughner” in those brief exchanges
that do arise. Does this mean that the public has finally gone
completely cold and passive towards violence and disaster? Not
necessarily. We live in an age of crossroads. We stand at a nexus of
social tribulation, where so much danger and instability is present that
we no longer have time to obsess over one sad but ultimately less
important incident. Americans have much more pressing and immediate
concerns than they did in decades past, including the collapse of the
global economy, the end of the dollar, the total centralization of
financial and political power into the hands of an elite minority, and
the complete dissolution of their cherished freedoms. Its not that the
public does not care about Giffords, but they certainly aren’t reacting
as hastily as they have during previous ill periods. For many,
perspective has tempered our fears, and made us less malleable to the
hypnotic suggestions of mass panic.

Legitimate Concerns, Not “Rhetoric”: The primary
talking point of the past few days has been to suggest that the Giffords
shooting was product of “angry or violent political rhetoric”. Some in
Washington D.C. have even had the nerve to assert that it is the
vitriol of those on the hill that has caused all the heartache in the
heartland, as if the American people simply take all their emotional and
philosophical cues from the deadbeats in the capitol. While I would
never deny that there are plenty of people in this country who do not
know how to think for themselves, I feel it far more likely that those
folks take their emotional cues from television rather than the puppet
show in Washington. The real reason behind the rhetoric talking point
is to perpetuate the myth of the false left right paradigm, as well as
to lure Americans towards the doldrums of false “moderation”. The
“vitriol” in Washington is mostly for show, being that the leaderships
of both major parties end up voting for the same bills and policies
regardless of how they pretend to fight with one another. Moderation,
in the eyes of the establishment, means inaction. When the MSM or the
government calls for a “calming of rhetoric”, what they really want is a
pacification of the anger in the citizenry present because of
legitimate concerns. Does the establishment really believe that using
the Giffords shooting as political leverage will somehow embarrass
independent Americans, or shock them into diluting their challenges to a
system which is on the verge of self destruction? I can only hope they
are that out of touch with the U.S. mindset…

Anti-Gun Movements Now Sterile: The 90’s were the
very pinnacle of the anti-gun movement, and gun control legislation was
highly effective during that period, mainly because Americans at that
time treated gun ownership as a political lynchpin. Gun rights were
associated with Republicans alone, and because Clinton was the flavor of
the week, the 2nd Amendment went out the window. Today, gun ownership
is breaking through the false left/right paradigm, and even
dyed-in-the-wool democrats are taking to the shooting range. The
majority of Americans like to know they have the ability and the right
to defend against any adversary, and they aren’t going to take that
right lightly again. Crime rate numbers were completely unaffected by
the assault weapons ban, and even plummeted after the ban expired. Guns
are used approximately 2.5 million times each year to STOP crimes in
progress. Imagine if more people surrounding Gabrielle Giffords had had
their own firearms at the time of Loughner’s attack; could he have been
stopped before shooting 20 people? Would he have attacked at all if he
had suspected half the crowd might be armed? The bottom line is that a
vast portion of the public is now questioning the validity of the
anti-gun position, and its progress has been effectively buried. The
Arizona shooting is not going to reawaken anything, despite the tired
calls of disarmament politicians. Once again, Americans are not going
to allow the actions of one man to dissolve the rights of all men. We
just don’t have the patience or the tolerance for this brand of circular
thinking anymore.

Rights Taking Precedence Over “Safety”: Independent
men have always been safer in the long run than dependent men, but
there are some out there that believe that government can and should
protect them from all danger. This is a childish fantasy. These same
people constantly use catastrophes like the Arizona incident to
reinforce their belief that more control is needed, more rights
relinquished, more authority figures present, but really, all these
events reinforce is the fact that no system has the ability to stop
crime, even a system as vast and well funded as the DHS. When in the
midst of a criminal event, whether or not you or your family become
victims is in most cases entirely dependent on you. THAT is the root
problem that overly dependent people don’t want to face. However, many
Americans are beginning to accept reality. Calls for more invasion of
privacy, more freedoms traded, and even more government expansion, are
meeting heavy resistance. One hundred Loughners would not change the
fundamental question; does trading our liberties away for the promise of
safety actually lead to any tangible benefits? Given the inability of
the system to actually stop violence from occurring, and the growing
threat of dysfunctional violence from the system itself, any sensible
person would have to disagree.

True Humanitarians Promote Freedom

Pro-establishment lackeys love to position themselves as
compassionate reformers and humanitarians, especially when innocent
people are suddenly subject to a volley of bullets, but do these “good
intentioned” altruists really care two cents for those caught in the
sights of a psychopath? Or, are they more interested in the
opportunities such death creates? If they are merely concerned citizens
trying to make the world a better place, then why do they find it
necessary to twist every tragedy into a weapon to be used against their
political rivals? Why do they choose to ignore the facts behind the
events or the people involved? Why do they lie to the public straight
faced and outright? Are these the methods of “humanitarians”, or
something else?

Under closer examination, we find that the goals of
anti-Constitutionalist circles are actually contrary to their stated
mission to stabilize and enrich our nation. Their tactic of muscling
Americans into a mindless mode of reactionary thinking damages our
ability to reflect, or to consider the future consequences of our
fixation with immediate disaster. Their co-option of ruinous events for
their own ends warps our sense of history and obscures the truth.
Their principles are driven by short term gains which benefit only a
select few at the expense of long term prosperity for all. They
oversimplify the complex, and overcomplicate that which is simple. They
make us weaker as a people.

At bottom, legitimate humanitarians inspired by real compassion
inevitably seek to help men become more responsible for themselves, not
less. Compared to this mission, the Loughners of the world are only a
distraction, a media game which does not need to be played. While it is
important to safeguard against events like that which took place in
Arizona, it is even more important to safeguard against the exploitation
of these events by those who would do much greater harm. The wider
view requires a respect for the enduring benefits of freedom, which
eclipse our momentary lapses of human character. The Liberty Movement’s
interest lay not just in the chaos of the present moment, but in the
clarity of a possible future; one in which man’s individual sovereignty
is valued, rather than feared.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:30 | Link to Comment Dr. Sandi
Dr. Sandi's picture

Personal responsibility. What a quaint concept. Too bad most of us are too immature to make it a lifestyle.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:46 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Like people who choose to be responsible for their actions when they drive intoxicated.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:12 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Driving while intoxicated should not be a criminal offense, if that's what you are referring to.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:43 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Really?  Buying a handgun after you have been committed for being a danger to yourself and others should be legal too, right?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:46 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

Completely separate issue.  Stay on topic.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 17:10 | Link to Comment Golden monkey
Golden monkey's picture

I think a gentleman here has something to say about your lawmakers :

http://snardfarker.ning.com/video/fred-phelps-thanks-god-for-the?xg_sour...

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:14 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Too bad most of us are too immature to make it a lifestyle.

 

How is it a matter of immaturity?

Selective responsibility is superior to personal responsibility in the framework built by the US.

One goes farther when able to claim any positive of one's action while rejecting negative (US example) than when taking responsible for the whole package. Worst is people who are stripped of the positive of their actions to be associated with the negative only. A kind of population required in the US framework to allow the first category to exist.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:20 | Link to Comment johnnynaps
johnnynaps's picture

Personal responsibility doesn't pay enough to survive in this country anymore. And, to add insult to injury, most working, money-bagged Americans have a responsibility to be ethical within their professions.......yet most aren't.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:30 | Link to Comment kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Well said.  Lack of respect for an honest day's work explains many layers of problems.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:40 | Link to Comment Alex Lionson
Alex Lionson's picture

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves" - Abraham Lincoln

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:56 | Link to Comment Mark Medinnus
Mark Medinnus's picture

This is a tiresome bit of Abetry.  Passing from the United States are to the United States is was the constitutional perversion central to Lincoln's legacy.

Now, from the article:

"While the murder of 6 bystanders, the wounding of 14 people, and the attempted murder of U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, is indeed a horrible smear in the history of the America, it is but one of many."

A horrible smear, perhaps, if one were picking historical nits.  Consider:

1. 350,000 Native Americans exterminated by the US government

2. 620,000 American Civil War deaths in Lincoln's war for a new birth of freedom (and this, from a total population 10% of current numbers)

These are two statistics among many and ZH readers may enlarge this list at their leisure.  My point: this Loughner moment is lilliputian, neither a national tragedy nor a historical smear.   

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:43 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Well said all around Giordano. 

But all well said-ness aside, the truth is that there is no hiding behind a return to constitutionality. Can any good student of American history tell me when it was exactly 9or around about) that the constitutional basis of the US was undermined? What about the men who wrote said constitution? Do we know the truth of them and their times or mere eulogistic historical accounts of who they were perceived to be or more importantly how they were meant to be perceived? A lot of my reading says that many of the Founding Fathers were not great or even good men. You can do your own research. Enough books and articles pointing counter to school taught history abound.

I think what this article points to is a very fundamental question, namely, what is governance and what is freedom?

Tribal societies worked because they we small, manageable and had contiguous histories.

Anything larger has always proven to be un-managable except though some flavour of despotism.

I see a return to tribalism and welcome it.

ORI

http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2010/07/27/evolution-devolution-involution/

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:46 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

Screw tribalism.  A little more LIBERTY and lot less freedom would be fine by me.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:56 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Cossack, any collective experiment equals compromise. Liberty, fine word, but most people's definition of it suggests the loner life. 

tribes represent optimal collective living. Anything larger (even a village) begins to show cracks and despotism in some flavour.

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:11 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

The problem with Tribal living is that it favors the breeders, and unless the family is very wealthy, the breeders tend to be poor and uneducated (as you need wealth to educate and provide for children.)

I'd recommend solving the worlds problems by requiring a licence to breed.  This will reduce the population of people unfit to participate in society.  The ignornant will likely call me statist, but their children will thank me.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:16 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

I have no problem with tribal living so long as it is a voluntary association.  Freedom and voluntaryism are inseparable.

Who would issue the license to breed?  I would think sound money would take care of that on its own.  Specifically, your safety net consists of your family and (maybe) a few friends within the tribe or neighborhood.  If you are on your own, well, you will have to save $$$ before reproducing.  I mean, can you imagine?  Saving for something before purchasing/investing?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:24 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

I'd recommend solving the worlds problems by requiring a licence to breed.  This will reduce the population of people unfit to participate in society.  

 

This is a non sense. People have much, much troubles to get with the program.

The program is one of an unsustainable model of functioning.

The only people who must be deemed to participate in such kind of society are people who could provide a key to turn the model sustainable.

Current number: zero.

Every one is a person who is pushing more or less the model to its lethal end.

It is a classic reflex of expansionists. Usually, expansionists progress by pushing others out of their resources. Issue comes when there are no more people  to push out of their resources. At this point, expansionists are unable to notice that the tables have turned, that the people who were pushed out of their resources are the ones able to expand.

 

You cant solve an overconsumption trouble (unsustainability of the model) by kicking out people who consume less, do not consume. It never works.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:32 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

I apologize for the agony you put into this heartfelt response, as I was trolling.  Obviously allowing the state to explicitly decide who can breed is a mistake.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:48 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

It might be not.

If a rowing boat is sinking, the mistake, as it is done now, is to blame bystanders looking at the scene from the banks. Done many, many times.

Pushing over the smaller people might buy time. Pushing over the bigger people, might stop the boat from sinking.

State or not.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:34 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

Sadly, I must concur with P-T-I (which normally freaks me out).  Tribes tend to grow into nations which leads us back to HERE. Only a matter of time.  Darwin/Malthus may have been right, it is only a question of how, when, and by whom.  Otherwise, please, tell me, what is the maximum sustainable population of this particular iron ball, 1 ea., blue in color.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:45 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Cossack, tribes do not grow into nations. Just take native american tribes as a great example. They stayed independent even in the face of the white man.

Most tribes faded into oblivion due to genocide by invaders or defeat at the hands of an insider supported by invaders.

Tribes as a unit survived a few 100,000 years. The nation state is a young, failed experiment.

Always god to ponder why something survived that long. usually had something going for it.

Not sure I understand your blue colour iron ball (you mean the earth?) question?

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:51 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

But Tribes failed.  Would you rather live in Afghanistan or Canada?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:05 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Afghanistan, prior to American occupation, anyday.

You do realize that the American/Nato occupation forces have distorted that nation beyond what it's tribal origins were? Soviets did that back in the 70's 80's?

Not a good choice set. Try again?

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:28 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Check-mate.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:31 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

I must disagree with above premise.  Many Indian nations united to destroy the murdering cur Custer at Little Big Horn.  Once the reason for unification was removed they went back to their seperate lands.  Lawrence was equally disappointed in his vision of a United Arabia at the end of WW1.  Ended up as a despondant green grocer. 

Granted, the nation state usually results in millions getting it in the neck, but it looks like thats the current game in progress for the at least forseeable future.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:00 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Look to Africa, then tell me how tribalism helped an entire continent resist those societies that left tribalism behind.  Too many humans, not enough humans using their brains, after all, thinking is hard work -- doing what the chief tells you to involves very little thought!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:36 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

No screw this. I won't live in anything other than a tribal society. It's not perfect but it's a damn site better than this. I want to cooperate with people who have the SAME GOALS as me. I want to judge people I have a good deal of experience with and we are much more intimately acquainted than this fucking strangers doing everything in our fucking lives. Forcibly including you in monetary sytems. Laws rules which are not laws or rules at all they are fucking games of I win you lose. Calling indians and blacks idiots and lower because they won't operate outside of tribal systems of government and won't EVOLVE. Because they are better and more satisfying for more of the participants. Brutalizing and then ridiculing them all along the path of haha you lost our gangs are bigger and we can legitimize and illigitimize force and violence better than you.

These systems do nothing but create systems, make them honest and forthright, this is the tradiitionalizing stage. Then they corrupt them but keep the tradition.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:47 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

ORI, leaving no opportunity unspent to push his agenda.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:52 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Interesting pan, what agenda do you perceive? Please do tell.

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:06 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Tribalism?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:36 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Hmmmmm..... maybe you see a trend that I don't in what I'm saying.

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:36 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Hmmmmm..... maybe you see a trend that I don't in what I'm saying.

If you really understood my agenda, I think you'd pop an artery. ;-)

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:38 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

I've some arteries to spare, go for it.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:53 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Butlerian jihad. Takedown of the current industrial paradigm, deeply flawed in it's very origins.

In-ovation of a new energy/tech-no-logical paradigm, perfect harmony between man/machine/nature.

A re-evolution (in-volution) leading to the quest for the  discovery of the 'self" as the true basis/reason for our existence.

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:21 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

feudalism?  serfdom? 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:39 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I believe ORI will defend the Caste system.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:26 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

ORI, as a Deist I have no argument with your vision.  It is currently apparent that both your vision and my vision of Liberty are both probably not going to happen, hope springs eternal.  The interesting occurrence is that both of our visions of a better world are not mutually exclusive.  I just think our species has yet to evolve enough to "see" it.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:45 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

Awesome Cossack. So interesting to discover inner worlds of seemingly anonymous people, eh?

our vision and it's roots are a lot, a whole lot closer than you think. ;-)

Well met.

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:51 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

You both scare the shit out of me. :)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:03 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Sure, feel free to stuff all the Djinnis in their respective bottles.  All things must pass -- Time marches on.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:21 | Link to Comment Mark Medinnus
Mark Medinnus's picture

"Can any good student of American history tell me..."

History, American or otherwise, may not hold the key.  Poetry suggests the antecedents: Of man's first disobedience and the fruit of that forbidden tree/Whose mortall taste cliffnotes of sadness lent/To each Leviathanic public woe  

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:32 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

nice Mark. Thanks. Good to read classical english. Who wrote it? Not familiar.

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:54 | Link to Comment Mark Medinnus
Mark Medinnus's picture

Hi OHI!

It comes from Palgrave's Book of Twisted Lyrics.

BTW, for eighteen months now I've lived with my family on a Native American reservation as a health care provider.  The atmosphere here is tribal and familial.  This is fine.  But the other day I felt very outsider.  This made me feel sad.  I'm neither Native nor part of the tribal family.  And although my professional position has prescribed levels of respect and responsibilities, my authority was successfully undermined by a Native staff member well under my supervision.  I have much to learn.  Blessings, Mark       

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:18 | Link to Comment Oh regional Indian
Oh regional Indian's picture

So interesting to hear that Mark. And thanks for the book reference.

Interestingly enough, I find that kind of disconnect you mention here in india, being an indian. My "foreign returned" past has forever made me another, different. Very interesting feeling.

ORI

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 14:43 | Link to Comment Mark Medinnus
Mark Medinnus's picture

Forgive me, ORI.  I was kidding about the book reference.  The quote comes from the opening line of Milton's Paradise Lost, which I twisted in the words that followed.

I value your insight.  Yes, being somehow "another" or "different" is an interesting feeling.  Of course, I'd like to feel welcomed as a member of the community.  In time, perhaps, I may become so.  This is my hope.  Take care, Mark  

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:44 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Let no opportunity to exploit a high profile event go to waste.  Reframe it and use it to push your agenda.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:56 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

You mean like Bruno is pushing the NRA's?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:05 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Pick an agenda, I'll provide a Laughner related sound-bite.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:33 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

NORML

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:49 | Link to Comment pan-the-ist
pan-the-ist's picture

Had Mr. Laughner been allowed to experiment with drugs in the mainstream, he would not have mixed with the criminal underground, which, no doubt, assisted his descent into insanity.

His psychotic symptoms may also have been recognized by the family doctor and dealt with sooner, as the family would not have been afraid to seek help.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:57 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Well-played. ;)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:49 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

I understand the Federal judge who died was a big 10th Amendment fan and ally of Sheriff Mack.  That, IMHO, is the REAL POLITICAL loss. The nine-year old is the tragedy.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:45 | Link to Comment Azannoth
Azannoth's picture

"Loughner was a bust for the MSM. His views are too random and too “leftist” to be used against the Liberty Movement" - exactly that is why they tell us 'move along nothing to see' because they can't use him for their purposes (and that he's jewish does not help either)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:57 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Where 'leftist' is defined as "anything my Repugnicant daddy says is bad, m'kay".

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:54 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

It was interesting to see him violate his own basic premise by asserting the lunatic's "leftist" orientation.  Of course, in trying to exploit this empty notion, he did demonstrate the relentless temptation to exploit extraneous factoids to serve political ends. 

Nonetheless a very impressive piece of work, however, imo.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:01 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

I think it's a bit loony to ascribe political 'leanings' to the idiot in either 'direction' (we need more axes!) anyway as he was obviously too immature to have formed any kind of cogent worldview on which to base them. Anyone who takes the 'favorite books' declared by someone his age verbatim is foolish...kids say all kinds of outrageous crap to get attention (although obviously not enough to get him help).

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:35 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Agreed.  Just another nut. 

I think that these incidents cry for their proper use as "teachable moments."  When is somebody going to make it clear to the entire population that in these situations the proper action is to rush the crazy mother fucker before he squeezes off 20 rounds?

This should be promoted just as simply and strongly as "Stop, Drop and Roll." 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:08 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

But, but...That's why we pay policemen (and FBI, DEA, NSA, DIA, US Army, Marines, etc)!  Advocating responsibility and personal iniative -- that's crazy talk -- say, you don't own a gun do you?  Hang on, I gotta make a phone call...

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:49 | Link to Comment lamont cranston
lamont cranston's picture

It was no coincidence that the current administration floated the concept of a "federal internet ID#" this weekend. Plus the collective mantra that "things were better back in the old days when there were only 3 major news sources (CNBS)".

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:50 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

Three major news sources and ZERO major truth sources.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:53 | Link to Comment Drag Racer
Drag Racer's picture

very well said TD.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:56 | Link to Comment pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

Thanks Tyler  nice piece!

 

Howardbeale, it's not to late to apologize.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 20:15 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

"Howardbeale, it's not to late to apologize."

Did I miss a lefty's head exploding?...maybe next time.

Can I still say "lefty's head exploding" without Big Sis knocking on my door? ;-)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 08:58 | Link to Comment Chartist
Chartist's picture

I don't see any need for handguns, period.  If you want to protect yourself, buy a pump shotgun.  I think all guns should be at least 22" in length.  Gun magazines should be limited to four rounds including the loaded chamber.  Obviously I support hunting but this business of using the second amendment to support concealed carry is an outdated idea. 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:14 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Of course open carry of same would be approved the same day correct?  Or are you saying I have the right to defend myself at home but anywhere else my handgun protecting me and my family is just too dangerous for society?

Research is your friend, please look up criome stats in states where concealed carry is the norm and others you will see a large difference.

How does defending oneself become an outdated idea?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:35 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Ever seen anyone killed by a drive-by fistfight?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:34 | Link to Comment Robert Neville
Robert Neville's picture

I saw a bar owner nearly beaten to death by a meth junkie. We all just stood there and watched because we didn't have guns.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:10 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

What can be said to defend that proposition?  A craven crowd with their hands in their pockets?  Sounds like a bigger problem that a lack of guns to me.  A world where such people are turned loose with guns as their only answer sounds like an extremely and unnecessarily dangerous place to me--and I'm pretty much neutral on the subject otherwise.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:23 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Cowardly.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:46 | Link to Comment Robert Neville
Robert Neville's picture

Actually more like it was over before anyone could get there. One brutal punch to the face and a couple of quick kicks to the head put the guy in the hospital. I was engaging in hyperbole with my comment you are making a judgement without all the facts.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:38 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

You have obviously never been to the places I have been..  You would cry for your momma or a handgun, I think a handgun.  If you cannot handle the responsibility to use a weapon properly why restrict my right to do so?  Hopefully I will be there to protect you and yours when you need it.

Frankly your fears are not relevant to me or mine, enforce them on your family.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:26 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

I have no desire restrict your right to stupidity, but I feel for your family and how they live under your 'enforcement'.

I don't need anyone else to protect my family...or a gun to do it. I'm truly sorry you're inferior in that respect.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Ha, my family safe & warm.. Yours, living in a dream world of infinite safety and delusion..  Explain exactly how you would protect them if two men with axes mistake your home and kick in your door or are you saying that is impossible one or the other snowball.  Fire up that brain, think the unthinkable you won't melt, promise..

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:11 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Glad to hear you "Don't Fear the Reaper."  Guns or no, NO ONE gets out of here alive!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:52 | Link to Comment Chartist
Chartist's picture

I am saying no hand guns, period....The province of Ontario Canada doesn't allow them and no one gets killed with a handgun....I live in a 2 million population area and never feel the need to carry a weapon...If you live where you need to carry a gun to feel safe, you otta think of moving.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:42 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Right.. They get stabbed and instead of that battered wife having the means (handgun) to defend herself she meekly dies so you can feel safe.  Seems like a good Canadian tradeoff to me..  She dies you feel good, socialist nanny Government at its finest..

"A preliminary hearing has been scheduled for Aug. 27 in the case of an Ontario man accused of stabbing a young girl and her father in May at Dave and Buster's in the Ontario Mills mall."

Why should this father be able to protect his daughter in a Dave & Busters, you might feel unsafe, squeeze out a few tears for us..

http://www.insidesocal.com/sb/iecourts/2009/08/preliminary-hearing-scheduled.html

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:14 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

When knives are outlawed...(outlaws will resort to baseball bats, maybe large Gold bricks, wrapped round with a slice of lemon!)

Logic is so overrated, no wonder so many don't use it.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:47 | Link to Comment romanko
romanko's picture

yeah, ok, there are no gun-related crimes committed in Toronto, you must live in the Jane/Finch area, lucky for you.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:05 | Link to Comment AuShoot
AuShoot's picture

Charge the Glock with murder, and the magazine as an accessory - free poor Loughner!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:09 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

that's because you live in CANADA, dumbshit.

Try moving somewhere there are brown people

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:24 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I feel your right to free speech should be limited to four words per day. 

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:11 | Link to Comment Blano
Blano's picture

I'm either amazed or appalled that I have to state the obvious to you, but it's much easier to defend yourself with a handgun than a shotgun. 

And the larger the magazine, the better.  If you're going to come after me, I'm going to pump you full of as much lead as possible.  Period.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:19 | Link to Comment Pants McPants
Pants McPants's picture

"I don't see any need for handguns, period."

Fine, then don't buy one.  But please let others make their own decisions on this matter...which I suspect you would hesitate to do. 

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:00 | Link to Comment bank guy in Brussels
bank guy in Brussels's picture

Alternate perspective on this -

Interesting article from Ireland, « Top US Federal Judge Assassinated After Threat To Obama Agenda »

Says that US federal Judge John McCarthy Roll was the real target in the shooting of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the dear little child and the many others.

Says that Judge Roll was assassinated by US government elements (like JFK etc.), because Roll was about to issue a ruling against the US government, re US confiscation of US citizens' private assets ... The shooter being one of the many who have been turned into CIA mind-control drones, and who clearly had a 'handler' involved.

There is logic to this ... the media is downplaying the murder of the federal judge, yet any US federal judge is a lot more powerful than most any single Congress-person, in the judges' potential ability to gum up the works of the US fascist oligarchy. ... And the YouTube material of the alleged shooter, is quite consistent with the mind-control thesis, even using the term.

The murder of Judge Roll could be a powerful message to any other US judges who think of stepping out of the pro-oligarchy line ... it is well-known there is little justice in US courts except for the rich and powerful and well-connected. The US gov't killing a federal judge or two, could well make the rest more submissive.

Irish article, « Top US Federal Judge Assassinated After Threat To Obama Agenda »

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1438.htm

Also related, from another perspective:

« Americans Murdering Their Judges, and the US Crisis of Judicial Corruption »

http://www.banned-in-america.net/americans-murdering-their-judges.html

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:19 | Link to Comment downwiththebanks
downwiththebanks's picture

Don't know about the other stuff, but whitewashing the judge's assassination has seemed to me the media's agenda from the outset.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:20 | Link to Comment Twindrives
Twindrives's picture

The right to bear arms keeps the federal government under control.   Enough said.  

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:30 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Sure it does; because your .50 cal toys are going to be so effective while your house is being lit up with Whiskey Pete. It was and is an important principle, but the US populace taking on the US Army today would have about the same chances as a rufie-dosed North Korea.

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:34 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Never fight a land war in Asia.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:36 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:00 | Link to Comment Ralphie
Ralphie's picture

@snowball--Yeah, but there's something like 4 guns for every man, woman, child, dog and goat in the United States.

If it ever came down to the Army using incendiary ordinance against Americans at home, you'd have a general uprising on your hands. The military doesn't have enough missiles, tanks, bullets--and people willing to employ them against their countrymen--to kill all the armed citizens who would be mobbing the checkpoints and (I hope I'm only joking) FEMA camps.

If neither the government nor the citizens can easily do away with each other, then you have a viable Republic, IMHO.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:38 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

You're talking an average there; one guy with a collection of 100 guns will need 99 friends to put up a meaningful resistance. And while many in the military would bolt at such offenses to the Constitution they swear to defend, it wouldn't take many Kent States before the sheeple fell in line. The DoD knows one hell of a lot more about prosecuting war than we do (you have a spy satellite?).

I dig the idea of a dissolution of power projection to the masses, but it is a false limiter in the age of modern warfare.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:45 | Link to Comment AuShoot
AuShoot's picture

Modern warfare like we're waging with the Taliban insurgents?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Your straw men fall down of their own accord..

"The DoD knows one hell of a lot more about prosecuting war than we do (you have a spy satellite?)."  No vets on our side? 

Go hide, you cannot convince us to disarm or to become a hoplophobe like you so go away.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:49 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

WP outlawed in Iraq but the US army will use it against civilians in the US.. Thats all you got?  In that case we are in the midst of a civil war anyway and you and yours are starving and cold so whats the difference?

What if they use nukes man..  What should we do then..  The gun banners ran out of arguments rather quicker this time we are making progress.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:31 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Uh huh. Please be first in line to 'get some'.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:38 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The right to bear arms keeps the federal government under control.   Enough said.  

 

History has been (and is) showing that it is not the case.

The compulsion of US citizens to get armed is easy to understand. It is the same as any thief anywhere in the world.

Thiefs know that, as they steal, they need to protect themselves from people wanting to copy them or get back their  property.

Thiefs have to refer to another  set of laws and rules than non thiefs.  People who dont steal from each other can claim they do need to protect their property. The troubles is that thiefs know perfectly well they dont belong to people who dont steal. So it is broken for them.  

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:21 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Please feel free to use your sizeable intellect to "persuade" any rabid dog that chances your way to seek medical attention!  BTW, I suggest YOU do the same!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:31 | Link to Comment Devout Republican
Devout Republican's picture

It the unions and those global warming nuts that are destroying the number 1 nation in the world!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:38 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Jesus hates trolls.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:50 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

No he hates libs with no compass

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:41 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

He's a moron who is making a career of posting these stupid one liners about unions.  He could even be a liberal troll just trying to discredit that viewpoint.  Think about it: "Devout Republican."  No way to tell--but he's a troll without question.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:39 | Link to Comment snowball777
snowball777's picture

Good thing for you he still loves stupid people.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:39 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

Liberal statists like Mr. / Mrs. snowball here can always be identified with a simple test:  They want to force you to do or not do things.  Snowball would force you if if possible to be defenseless against those with bigger better muscles.  He does not simply defer from using guns to protect himself he must compel others to do the same.  If his simple insults and arrogance cannot convince one to embrace his force he gets angry. The left once unmasked from their mantle of goodness and welfare are nothing but Governmental brute force brought to its logical conclusion.  Honor America, piss off a statist today.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:30 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal/progressive doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal/progressive is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal/progressive non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

+1

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:42 | Link to Comment CulturalEngineer
CulturalEngineer's picture

Regarding the duopoly (Republicrats and Demicans): Brick walls have no ears!

 

Regarding the electorate: Intentionally confused and distracted voters are convenient for a plutocracy that wants some topics ignored... 

We’ve not really been facing a simple Left/Right or Democrat/Republican issue.

And the constant cramming of the debate into this mold is distraction from the real problem… and serves to perpetuate it. (THANKS MSM!)

ALL decisions made by a tribe, a nation or even a social club… involve a balancing of the interests of the individual vs. the group… and the weighing of the need for change vs the value of tradition. (these are the general ‘memes’ used by each side)

A pragmatist will understand that neither side of that scale should always outweigh the other.

The growing alienation and division in this country are NOT because of a failure to follow one or the other of these polarities as political ‘religions’… 

What (e.g.) BOTH Ron Paul and Ralph Nader fans (and increasing numbers in between) are beginning to realize is that there’s an Establishment GROUPTHINK embraced by BOTH parties that will doggedly refuse to look at what many of us are seeing as a fundamentally flawed path being taken in the areas of global finance and governance…

And that we have fundamental problems in the perversion of decision in BOTH BIG GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS! And both institutions are degrading the role of BOTH the individual AND the communities within which they operate.

These are (in related but not identical forms) that have afflicted civilizations repeatedly and led to collapse.

Tainter ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Tainter ) is correct in suggesting that it relates to complexity and the diminishing returns on investment in it…

What Tainter misses is (I believe) the ROOT of the problem of WHY this largely un-definable complexity leads to collapse in human societies.

The complexity that does civilizations in (generally, but not always… you can’t necessarily avoid environmental factors) isn’t the complexity of its physical technologies or logistics…

But rather the failure of its SOCIAL TECHNOLOGIES (law, finance, government, etc.) to keep up with the ramifications of power imbalances that inevitably arise over time.

THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL SCALING ISSUE IN HUMAN SOCIETIES ASSOCIATED WITH NATURAL HUMAN COMMUNITY SIZE (Dunbar’s Number), THE ALTRUISM PROBLEM (there’s an unavoidable discontinuity between biological and intellectual altruism) AND COGNITIVE LIMITS (the “attention economy”).*

In short… our personal networks are smaller than the social organism of which we are a part. This is both unavoidable and problematic. And frankly, its this realization, whether conscious or otherwise that is driving both the Tea Party as well as those looking for ways to develop localized, co-operative economies

Social Networks & The Social Organism: Healing the Breach
http://culturalengineer.blogspot.com/2009/05/social-networks-social-organism-healing.html

* I believe this is why no formal conspiracies are required… but that’s a longer argument related to the role of drives and the social environment in cognition. (A very much simplified example might be to consider how a decision-maker considering a trade agreement might treat labor-rights depending on whether or not his own children would be working under them. Over time and in aggregate these biases merit more attention than they receive. “Objectivity” is often a self-serving illusion.

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:30 | Link to Comment pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

Thanks for that post cultural engineer!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:57 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Very astute.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 09:48 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Do you feel safe? Why?

By LINDA GREENHOUSE

 

Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.  snip.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:09 | Link to Comment Ralphie
Ralphie's picture

@Rodent Freikorps--Thank you! That should end the debate right there.

If YOUR TOWN COPS have no duty to protect you, then who does, Joe John Sixpack-Public esq.? You have thirty seconds...(cue Jeopardy music)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

The police have a duty to put you in jail if you protect yourself. Don't worry about thinking or straining your brain. Whatever you do is wrong.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:35 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

If the Police have no duty to protect citizens, then WTF do THEY need guns for??  This ruling leads to the logical conclusion that ALL of us need to strap on six-shooters!

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:00 | Link to Comment High Plains Drifter
High Plains Drifter's picture

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
Ben Franklin.

Liberty movement????? There is no such animal that I am aware of.

Gun sales in Arizona are up.

http://www.theage.com.au/world/shooting-prompts-surge-in-gun-sales-acros...

Rep. Jim Clyburn blames conservative rhetoric and second amendment, for Giffords shooting

http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/09/2008129/clyburn-blames-conservativ...

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:09 | Link to Comment Chartist
Chartist's picture

by all means, protect your home ....and use a gun if necessary....and for nearly all people, no gun is better than a pump shotgun for protection...the sound alone is universal and known to bad guys.  And as long as you don't mind cleaning a big mess at the end, a nice pump 12 guage is all you need.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:27 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

And further...I think you should only be allowed four shotgun shells on your premises at any one time. You like limits, obviously, so let's go for broke. And only four pellets per shell. Yeah, that's the ticket.

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:07 | Link to Comment Calmyourself
Calmyourself's picture

I missed your reply to my post above re: the unprovoked double stabbing in the Ontario mall.. What was that father supposed to do to protect his daughter chartist?  Cry for a policeman to save him as your scared of guns?

Tell us how to handle absurdities like this using your hoplophobic world view.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:17 | Link to Comment Dragline
Dragline's picture

I agree the Tuscon shootings should not be used to advance agendas.  Like this one.

And what the heck is the capital "L", capital "M" group-think "Liberty Movement".Sounds like something the author just produced in his digestive tract.  And he needs more fiber and less bile.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:38 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

Um, what is the Tea Party?  I'll take "Limiting Leviathan Govt and restoring Liberty" for $600, Alex...

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:26 | Link to Comment low_frequency_trader
low_frequency_trader's picture

Nevada Tea Party darling and Republican Senatorial Candidate Sharon Angle: "[T]he nation is arming. If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?"

From the October 8 Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel:

"Armed with handguns and AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles, the members of the Southeast Broward Republican Club abandoned the usual community center for their club meeting this week, and gathered at a gun range where they fired bullets instead of political bombshells. . . . One of the shooters at the Tuesday evening event was Robert Lowry, a Republican candidate hoping to unseat U.S. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, D-Weston. Lowry's target had the letters "DWS" next to the silhouette head. Lowry said he didn't know who wrote Wasserman Schultz' initials on his target, but said he knew they were there before he started shooting."

Facebook posting by Brad Goehring, Republican Candidate for California's 11 Concressional District: "If I could issue hunting permits, I would officially declare today opening day for liberals. The season would extend through November 2 and have no limits on how many taken as we desperately need to 'thin' the herd."

Texas 30th Congressional District Republican candidate Stephen Broden: "If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary." [A]sked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government, Broden replied: "The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms."

Just a random slaughter, folks. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:33 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

I tend to distrust posts that do not include a link.

Don't you mean MoveOn?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:31 | Link to Comment Bob
Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:38 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Google is evil. But I appreciate the link.

I hope the congressperson survived the trauma. Sounds like tempest in tea cup.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:00 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

Agreed--Google is a useful enemy.  Looks like the link I gave you left out the juicier part.  Check this one:

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-01-10/news/bs-ed-schaller-20110110...

Looks like pols are gonna have to be a little more "diplomatic" going forward.  I don't see it substantively altering the public discourse, fwiw.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 12:09 | Link to Comment Rodent Freikorps
Rodent Freikorps's picture

Especially if they want to get elected, it seems.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:09 | Link to Comment pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

Here is one for you... Democrat Paul Knajorski calling for the shooting of Florida Republican Governor Rick Scott.  Saying he should put up against a wall and shot!

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/dem-con...

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 15:23 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

The outcome will be that politicians no longer use this kind of language.  Can't see that it will be missed, all in all.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 16:13 | Link to Comment pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

+1

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 10:34 | Link to Comment pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

Now do a search on the Democrats using the same language and post them as well and then you will sound more credible.... your still stuck in the left/right thinking.

Read engineers post above.

Yes I junked you.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:41 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

If we don't win at the ballot box, what will be the next step?

Um, that would be the bullet box!  Someone already quoted JFK on this:  "When the Govt does away with peaceful solutions, they leave only violent ones"  (or words to that effect).

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:57 | Link to Comment Madhouse
Madhouse's picture

Its very likely that the guy never even heard of Sarah Palin. Sure. But the event did not stop her from taking down the crosshairs from her website targeting certain congressional districts (you see, she is laying the foundation for 2012 in a positive manner) and the "reload" statement from her Twitter, just in case... She is a nut on a much larger scale.

Tuscon is an insane area of the country in general where politicians try to out do themselves as far as their own "caliber" of firearms advocacy. There is legislation in debate whereby college students would allowed to have loaded guns in class - so the fringe is at an absurd level.  Microcosm: Just as if you gave a speech on the floor of the Senate and stated that spending a trillion dollars a year on defense is ruining the country, Tuscon politicians would never be caught advocating any level of gun restriction. It would be political suicide.

Second amendment is great, but must we allow the gun lobby (a couple hundred wanks) to profit from selling Uzi automatic weapons to citizens ?  Or, how about at least if you want one of those, you have to get a special permit... Now that idea won't get you elected in AZ, ...

File in the "Move to Canada" folder... (or simply carry a loaded Uzi with you at all times in certain states as the poster seems to suggest as if a bigger shootout will reduce casualties at a mall - sure..or better, don't go to those states)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:44 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

An armed society is a polite society.  Even random nutjobs would think twice about attacking an armed populace.  Enjoy your new life in the Great White North (Hoser!)

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 11:57 | Link to Comment kaiserhoff
kaiserhoff's picture

Hallelujah.  Great post on a difficult subject.  Congrats to team Durden and Bruno.

I knew we were in for 2-4 weeks of emotional gush and anti-gun bull shit, but the dying MSM is still sickening and aggressively stupid.  The Tragedy in Tuscon my royal ass.  The only tragedy is that a very minor celebrity got shot.  As if the deaths or enslavement of countless others matter to the talking heads.

The real lesson here is the cowardice and increasing isolation of the tyrant elites.  They know what honest people think of them, and they are scared shitless. 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 14:08 | Link to Comment DisparityFlux
DisparityFlux's picture

I concur.  Best post on the event I have read so far.

Can you imagine the MSM coverage if the weapon had been a two ton SUV, the driver indiscriminately ploughing through a throng of by-standers to reach the person he held responsible for his unresolved rage?

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 13:58 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Why is this tagged oklahoma? It's got nothing to do with oklahoma.

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 14:41 | Link to Comment jmc8888
jmc8888's picture

"The desire for smaller, transparent, non-intrusive government is becoming wildly popular and will continue to do so the more the DHS attempts to tighten its stranglehold on civil liberties."

 

That is until everyone realizes the things they choose tend to be throwing YOU to the wolves for a corporation's or owner's 'freedom'. 

No, it will continue until Ron Paul and all austrians are shown to be the fascist that in reality they are.

Ron Paul is anti-constitution.  Oh I know his rhetoric, I also know his reality.  You can't be pro-constitution and pro-austrian school.  He has to choose one or the other.  Guess what he's going to choose.  (it's not the constitution)

So until the dumbasses wake up and see fascism in ALL it's current stripes, they will continue picking fools from their suite of metrics of judging candidates based on the banksters metrics they spent decades cooking up and implementing. 

It's not about smaller gov't.

It's not about 'freedom'

It's about making you THINK that's what it's about. As everything crashes around you needlessly, the corporation will use the Rand Paul ideologies already in-show at least ten times over about how he wants to give more 'freedom', but instead gives only corporations more freedom to screw you over.

Oh yes, it will continue, until it doesn't.

When it doesn't, the likes of Ron/Rand 'the sophist austrian' Pauls, Barack 'Nero' Obama, and any supply sider, keynesian, centrist, green fascist, etc will be relugated to the dustbins of history as frauds and charlatans they are.

American Credit System is superior to Ron Paul's (and their movement's)  Fascist Austrian Monetarism.  Don't believe me? It's in the constitution.

 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 16:02 | Link to Comment Bob
Bob's picture

You'll get deservedly junked for being so inflammatory and offensive to Paul followers.  I junked you in good faith on those grounds.  Yet you make a vitally important point about being a follower of anything and anybody on the basis of their rhetorical ideological "purity." 

Wed, 01/12/2011 - 18:48 | Link to Comment StychoKiller
StychoKiller's picture

It's always easier to point fingers and lay blame, providing actual well-thought out solutions -- gasp!  Now I'm asking for someone to use the space between their ears for more than a hat rack -- how insane am I? </sarcasm>

We get that you disagree with Ron Paul -- solution:  Don't vote for him!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!