Oh, I see. He asked why one was dangerous and one was not.
So, your explanation was it wasn’t dangerous because the gun imagery wasn’t associated with a particular individual.
Is that right?
Which is the position many posters seem to have settled on (even though the OP hasn’t been dismissed by anyone for saying something very different).
Rhetoricians have exceedingly bad taste. Not just in posters, but music and books. Can’t be helped. You can embarrass them for a spell, but they’ll always go lowbrow.
The best thing you can do is improve public policy so future tacky, classless rhetoric fucks up fewer people. It’s much easier to get efficacious policy passed than to get yokel politicians classed.
What the fuck, John? Did someone shoot Missouri?
’
Hopping in and answering for someone else, assuming that you’re talking about the map Bricker posted a while ago from the DLF or something with bullseye targets on various states, well, I’m not going to say it’s absolutely positively 100% non-dangerous. There’s certainly a possibility that there’s some extremely unstable nutcase out there who thinks that the DLF is the one true voice in American politics, and also owns lots of guns and thinks about most things in terms of guns, and the bullseyes on the map were just enough to push him over the edge, and he would open fire on a Republican politician from that state.
Similarly, neither I nor anyone else (as far as I know) said that any particular thing Sarah Palin said or posted was 100% UNsafe. Again, what are the odds that there was a similarly unstable person who thought highly of Sarah Palin, had access to guns, etc., who would be pushed over the edge? Obviously still pretty damn small. But combine the prominence of Sarah Palin, the gun-orientedness of her followers and her rhetoric, and the number of such statements (and web posts) she’s made, and I (and, speaking for them, many other SDMB liberals) think that her statements were multiple orders of magnitude more likely to have such a result.
No, no one shot Missouri. That wasn’t the question, though. Is it OK (or at least “not dangerous”) to use gun imagery as long as it’s not directed at any particular person. That was the question. If you can’t answer it, that’s OK.
Or, we could stop defending and voting for the ass hats who pull these stunts. But I forgot. Anyone who isn’t entirely FOR them needs to be taken out. :dubious:
Enough is enough.
I will be happy to explain that to you as soon as you explain to me how to reload a gun sight. :rolleyes:
Look at what I was responding to, it was not a comment about reloading, it was a comment about cross hairs.
The whole transit thing is an after the fact attempt at denial and damage control.
Here’s a better suggestion, off the top of my head:
Switch the outrage from “OMG a crosshair” to “OMG this man was allowed to buy a gun”.
Give it an equal amount of outrage and oh how the reforms would come rolling in.
It goes like this:
Step 1: Blame Palin
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit!
I got steps 1 and 3 nailed, but I am still unclear on step 2
It’s refreshing to see someone who isn’t in total defense mode when their own political side is put up for scrutiny.
But we do have posters here who are trying to draw bright lines about what is dangerous and what is not. I’m just trying to establish where those people are drawing these lines and why.
Political logic is intransitive.
Done. Let’s go home.
Never said it wasn’t.
but you guys really don’t read for detail do you? The question I was responding to was
I supplied one, and now you are trying to move the goal posts by bringing in reloading.
Nice try, but no. The question was asked and I answered it. Just because you don’t like the answer, that does not mean you get to move the goal posts.
This is not Calvin Ball.
Ha ha! That’s hilarious! No, the reforms would not come rolling in. Instead, we would be having a different conversation, along the same lines as this one, except it would be all about how semi-automatic weapons are perfectly harmless and guns that are bought legally are only ever bought by law-abiding people and why do liberals always have to get their panties in a bunch about MY GODDAMN RIGHT TO COLLECT ROCKET LAUNCHERS!!! IT’S A HOBBY, YOU SECOND AMENDMENT HATER!!!
So we’re all agreed then that transits are not reloadable, and despite what she says now, Palin must’ve been using weapons imagery, and talking about reloading guns? We’re all agreed she’s lying?
An obviously mentally ill man was able to buy a gun and attend a rally armed. People would have been outraged enough to get real shit done, if they weren’t distracted by crosshairs and the guy’s reading list.
I sincerely doubt there are many people, including conservatives, who would dispute that an obviously mentally ill person should not be able to buy a handgun and attend a rally armed.
Well, they tried but missed and now Kansas is bleeding.
That’s not the point. The same obfuscating, denial and spin, spin, spin, spin would be happening by the very same people. The conversation would not be about what is obvious to everyone looking at the situation - that a mentally ill person shouldn’t be able to buy guns, should probably have been in some sort of treatment, and certainly shouldn’t have been allowed to approach a politician upon whom he had an unhealthy fixation while carrying a semi-automatic. The conversation would be spun so that all of these issues that are typically the bastion of the left would be scoffed at and blown off as pantywaisted liberal whining. It’s how rightwing apologists work. And they’ve been given valuable lessons by people like Sarah Palin who, instead of saying, “Oops, you know, it was probably a bad idea to put pictures of crosshairs on the names of individual candidates who are running in opposition to my party” says, “Oh, you’re mistaken. Those are, um, uh…surveying marks! Yeah, that’s it!”
I keep wanting to say, “You know, we’re standing right here. We did hear what you said. We saw the picture ourselves.”
You’ve made an awful lot of assumptions about me and what I meant, all of which are seemingly based on what you mean or what you want to argue against.
Mostly, all you’re doing is showing yourself to be a liar and just generally dishonest, tho.
Damn that’s good posting.
Even though it’s fairly clear now that the shooter was completely off his rocker, the Palins and Angles and Kellys of this world had to see this coming. Someone was going to physically harm one of their opponents, and when they did, fingers would point at them. And it wouldn’t matter if the assailant was wearing an “I love Rush” shirt or not… they would be implicated. They didn’t see that people outside their most rabid base would raise these questions?
Palin, Beck, et al remind me of those goons who hang around fights egging people on to beat the shit out of each other. Then you have people like Giffords trying to break it up… and guess who gets hurt?