Liberals here want to blame conservatives for Ariz shooting?

[Chesapeake Bill]

Jim,

I apologized for appearing to stereoype you with others I expect the same in return. As a responsible gun owner, including an AR-15 (M16 is such a cliche) and numerous hgandguns with large magazines I do not appreciate being "lumped" into the same sentence with pedophiles. Put your stones away, my friend, less the glass house come crashing...

[scottw]

never waste a good crisis...is this a new low?...fundraising on the backs of the victims of a shooting? Maybe Patrick Leahy should talk to his friend...


Sanders Fundraises Off Arizona Murders
3:20 PM, Jan 11, 2011 • By STEPHEN F. HAYES
There has been no shortage of individuals and institutions that have sought to capitalize on the shootings in Tucson. Add Vermont senator Bernie Sanders to that list.

This afternoon Sanders sent out a fundraising appeal, seeking to raise money to fight Republicans and other “right-wing reactionaries” responsible for the climate that led to the shooting.
....................
Leahy must be referring to things like this :

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy accused Republicans Sunday of playing the race card on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

“You have one leader of the Republican Party call her the equivalent of the head of the Ku Klux Klan. Another leader of the Republican Party called her a bigot,” the Vermont Democrat(Leahy) said on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

Leahy should wash his own mouth out with soap before climbling on his soapbox....

..................

atta boy Patches.........


Patrick Kennedy: Blame Palin, Tea Partyers
Tuesday, 11 Jan 2011 05:53 PM

Former Rep. Patrick Kennedy, whose uncles John and Robert Kennedy both fell to assassins’ bullets, says there is a direct connection between Sarah Palin and the shooting rampage in Arizona that killed six people and wounded 14 others, including critically injured Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Kennedy indicated that he also blames the tea parties for the tragedy.

In an interview published on Politico Tuesday, Kennedy states:" When the vitriol and the rhetoric is so violent, we have to connect consequences to that.”

In the Politico interview, an animated Kennedy appeared to come to Loughner’s defense, saying he and others had been unfairly stigmatized.
“When I hear terms about the alleged shooter in this case, pejorative terms like psycho, lunatic, or they say ‘He’s crazy.’ These are terms we use to describe someone’s mental health?

“This is a rare opportunity to take all the stigma and stereotyping,” Kennedy said, “and take the terms like crazy and psycho, that are being bandied about by reputable people who should know better, and use this as an opportunity to have some enlightened debate about better public policy that can help respond to the real need."



WOW!

I get it now.... you sink to the lowest depth of depravity to villify your "enemy" and then race to call for "civility".......

[Fly Rod]

In Massachusetts I would say that a large marjority of permitted gun holders have the large capacity pistol permit, I most cerntainly do. There is 30,000 people in my city, a six shooter just won't do it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Chesapeake Bill

Jim,

I apologized for appearing to stereoype you with others I expect the same in return. As a responsible gun owner, including an AR-15 (M16 is such a cliche) and numerous hgandguns with large magazines I do not appreciate being "lumped" into the same sentence with pedophiles. Put your stones away, my friend, less the glass house come crashing...

Bill, I didn't lump you in with pedophiles. What I said was, if something is "fun", that does not mean it's good public policy. In my opinion, and I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with this, our society would have less blood on its hands if we outlawed these things. Pistols for target shooting, fine. Hunting rifles, fine. I don't like assault rifles, which are designed for one, and only one, purpose - to kill as many human beings as possible in a short time. No one other than the police and the military have any need for such things.

You want to get your rocks off shooting assault rifles, do what I did and serve a hitch in the service..

I just don't see the appeal of that stuff, no more than I would own a rattlesnake or tiger for a pet. Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. When ownership of those things reduces the life expectancy of innocent people living around you, we need to have a mature conversation about what's more important.

That's my opinion. I think it's very reasonable.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Bill, I didn't lump you in with pedophiles. What I said was, if something is "fun", that does not mean it's good public policy. In my opinion, and I'm not sure how anyone can disagree with this, our society would have less blood on its hands if we outlawed these things. Pistols for target shooting, fine. Hunting rifles, fine. I don't like assault rifles, which are designed for one, and only one, purpose - to kill as many human beings as possible in a short time. No one other than the police and the military have any need for such things.

You want to get your rocks off shooting assault rifles, do what I did and serve a hitch in the service..

I just don't see the appeal of that stuff, no more than I would own a rattlesnake or tiger for a pet. Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. When ownership of those things reduces the life expectancy of innocent people living around you, we need to have a mature conversation about what's more important.

That's my opinion. I think it's very reasonable.

It's not.. Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others. It's been proven over and over again.

You are basing your opinion on emotion "Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. "
Very liberal of you

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

It's not.. Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people. I don't know how you could disagree with that. Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others. It's been proven over and over again.

You are basing your opinion on emotion "Some people have some voyeuristic, fantasy-based attraction to dangerous things. "
Very liberal of you

"Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others."

Very few things bother me as much as what you just did. I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns. That may make it easier for you to refute me, but it has zero intellectual honesty, because that's not even close to what I said. See if you can respond to what I actually say, OK? I said explicitly that I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles.

"Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people"

Wow, that's deep. EARTH TO BUCKMAN. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who is law abiding and who is sociopathic. Therefore, do we make the tools of mass murder readily available to everyone, including the secretly deranged, so that some would-be tough guys can live out their fantasies by dressing up like Rambo in front of the mirror?

I agree, if we ban extended magazines and assault rifles, shooting sprees will still occur. But they will be harder to carry out, and the body counts will be less. That's irrefutable. You can't kill as many people with a revolver as you can with an automatic weapon, you just can't. There is a reason why this kook did not bring a muzzle loader to that supermarket. So how many beautiful 9 year old gilrs are you willing to sacrifice, so that a bunch of guys with small wee-wees can get their jollies by owning an Uzi?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns.

Welcome to the Political Forum.......thats pretty standard fair here

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Banning guns will not prevent thugs and nut cases from killing others."

Very few things bother me as much as what you just did. I disagree with you on the ownership of assault rifles and extended magazines, and you portray me as an anti-gun extremist who wants to ban all guns. That may make it easier for you to refute me, but it has zero intellectual honesty, because that's not even close to what I said. See if you can respond to what I actually say, OK? I said explicitly that I have no problem with pistols and hunting rifles.

"Innocent people are not killed by law abiding people"


Wow, that's deep. EARTH TO BUCKMAN. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing who is law abiding and who is sociopathic. Therefore, do we make the tools of mass murder readily available to everyone, including the secretly deranged, so that some would-be tough guys can live out their fantasies by dressing up like Rambo in front of the mirror?

I agree, if we ban extended magazines and assault rifles, shooting sprees will still occur. But they will be harder to carry out, and the body counts will be less. That's irrefutable. You can't kill as many people with a revolver as you can with an automatic weapon, you just can't. There is a reason why this kook did not bring a muzzle loader to that supermarket. So how many beautiful 9 year old gilrs are you willing to sacrifice, so that a bunch of guys with small wee-wees can get their jollies by owning an Uzi?

I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by buckman

I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist . Try to relax a bit.

Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing. Your rantings, although appealing to emotional liberals, which you don't like, don't belong in a well thought out debate in solving the problem.

FYI alot of people new this guy was a sociopath.

"I did not portray you as an anti-gun extremist ."

I said I was in favor of handguns and hunting rifles. You responded directky to my post by saying that banning all guns doesn't end gun violence. What other way can we take your reply, other than to infer that you think that my position is that all guns should be banned? To me, that's a radical position, and it's not even close to what I said.

"Banning the number of bullets a gun can hold, pick a number, won't stop this sort of killing"

Again, it seems like you are putting words in my mouth. I specifically said that banning these weapons would not eliminate these killing sprees. I did say this, see if you can respond to what I'm ACTUALLY SAYING...

Banning assault rifles and extended magazines will not put an end to these killing sprees. They will make them less deadly, however. Because the more frequently a would-be mass murderer has to stop and re-load, the better the opportunity for potential victims to get away or subdue the attacker.

If banning extended magazines meant one less person in AZ would have been hurt or killed, to me it would be worth it. I can only assume you disagree (please say if I'm wrong).

Cars kill people, but I wouldn't say ban cars, because cars add so much utility and value to our lives. I don't see how you can say the same thing about assault rifles and extended magazines. I have never, not once, heard of a person successfully defending themselves with these tools, in a situation where a normal firearm would not have sufficed. From what I can see, the only benefit is that some people get a kick out of owning them. And I have to say I can see why, they are fun to shoot. But I don't think that thrill is worth a single human life.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If banning extended magazines meant one less person in AZ would have been hurt or killed, to me it would be worth it. I can only assume you disagree (please say if I'm wrong).

We can make all sorts of thing illegal and save many lifes. Make a list for me.