# "Second Amendment Solutions" (the \[hopefully civil\] GD version) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 8, 2011, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921 "2011-01-08T21:39:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/221 "2011-01-11T05:30:48Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Can you give us some examples of these historical figures and how they compare to the likes of Sarah Palin? My point is that demagoguery and polemics are influential to individuals susceptible to their message. I don’t need to show equivalency between Sarah Plain and Dumb and Osama bin Laden in order to argue that point, any more than I need to show that Mussolini’s speeches were equivalent to John Brown’s or Che Guevarra’s. The only equivalency lies in the drawing of lines, scapegoating and absolutism of the worst offenders. “Democrats want to have death panels to decide if your grandmother lives or dies” is essentially the same message as “the Jews control international banking and are enemies of the German working classes” just with different villains and different existential threats to the Homeland (or Fatherland). The degree to which a demagogue becomes truly dangerous depends on the degree to which he or she manages to channel the background anger of the society they’re working within and attain followers and admirers. But even if they don’t achieve their Great Cause or even minor political success, they’re capable of swaying fellow travellers into acts of stupidity and destruction. It seems to me a healthy political process and a sane political party would be wary enough of eliminationism, absolutism and fear mongering to place real checks on such rhetoricians. What with the ideological fires of the 19th and 20th centuries still smoldering. > [@](#): > > Oh, and what are talking about when you refer to “literature”? Are we now using fictional characters to prove our points? If you try a little harder to condescend, you could probably miss my point a little more efficiently. My point being “provocative speech is provocative,” as backed up by millenia of history and referenced by the literature of most human societies. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/222 "2011-01-11T05:42:01Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > **godix** , you are answering as a matter of _law_. I know of no one here who is stating that even Angle’s comment should be _illegal_ speech. But there are many things that are legal that are still wrong. Then what is the debate here? If everyone agrees there should be no legal consequence, what makes this thread more than an overglorified ‘Do you like what Palin, Beck, etc said YES/NO’ poll? And why the many references to if a private citizen would be investigated for what Palin did or not? > [@](#): > > You have a crowd that believes the other side is evil; a threat to their way of life and their core values I’m sorry, are we talking about democrats or republicans here? The sentence true regardless of which way I read it. [quote] who equate Obama to Hitler and put up billboards to that effect, and who would definitely have killed Hitler if they had had the chance. [quote] You mean signs much like those that Code Pink and other protestors had comparing Bush to Hitler for 8 years? If those signs had an effect, why didn’t the effect show up then? > [@](#): > > I do believe that she, and those other of us who felt that, would be called sane by most, and we see that rhetoric as irresponsible, in this context. Except this very thread shows that many who feel Palin crossed the line do not see it as irresponsible. Look at all the hand waving away whenever an example of democrats doing this sort of thing pop up. ‘Oh no, that is a bullseye, it doesn’t have crosshairs. Entirely different. Nevermind that bullseyes are commonly used on marksmans targets’ or "Well yeah, Obama talked about bringing guns to a fight, but that’s entirely different’ or ‘Oh well sure, that ad used a crosshair, but in context…’. Yes, in context it was entirely different, in context it put a crosshair on a specific persons face rather than on a map. I context, it was WORSE than what Palin did. It would be a lot easier to believe people are outraged about over the top rhetoric if people didn’t check if there’s an R or D after a persons name before feigning outrage. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/223 "2011-01-11T05:45:47Z")
Your point is that “provocative speech is provocative”? Next you’re going to tell me that if A=B and B=C then A=C! Really, if that was your point, then I’m at a loss as to why you felt it was necessary to post it. ---
**Author:** ![Kozmik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/8dc957/32.png) [@Kozmik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kozmik)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/224 "2011-01-11T05:54:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Your point is that “provocative speech is provocative”? Next you’re going to tell me that if A=B and B=C then A=C! > > Really, if that was your point, then I’m at a loss as to why you felt it was **necessary to post it**. Probably because it was provocative (which _itself_ is provocative). ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/225 "2011-01-11T06:02:36Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Your point is that “provocative speech is provocative”? Next you’re going to tell me that if A=B and B=C then A=C! > > Really, if that was your point, then I’m at a loss as to why you felt it was necessary to post it. After you’ve participated in every ongoing thread about the AZ shootings and questioned that assertion when it’s applied to _right wing_ provocative speech, I doubt you’re really at a loss. Particularly when your last post before that one asked for examples of provocative speech equivalent to Palin’s that actually provoked someone, because presumably you’re having trouble believing it could happen. > [@godix](#): > > Then what is the debate here? If everyone agrees there should be no legal consequence, what makes this thread more than an overglorified ‘Do you like what Palin, Beck, etc said YES/NO’ poll? Because there’s enormous right wing pushback going on that denies the rhetoric of Palin, Beck, and other highly compensated professional commenters that’s tinged with violent images and paints a very specific group of people as THREATS TO YOUR EXISTENCE!!!1! could possibly influence anyone to do anything bad. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/226 "2011-01-11T06:09:59Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Your point is that “provocative speech is provocative”? Next you’re going to tell me that if A=B and B=C then A=C! > > Really, if that was your point, then I’m at a loss as to why you felt it was necessary to post it. Go back and read the most relevant part of his post again: > [@xenophon41](#): > > If you try a little harder to condescend, you could probably miss my point a little more efficiently. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/227 "2011-01-11T06:27:31Z")
Thanks **Cisco**. **John** , I used the tautological restatement as a gross simplification device in responding to your question about my reference to literature, and also to make the point that you’re arguing against a phenomenon that is, frankly, _inarguable_. You can (and obviously do) disagree with the various instances of rhetoric that have been cited as “over the top”, but the focus of your questioning has been to make those of us arguing to tone it down prove incontrovertibly that Palin’s ramblings (or Angle’s or Beck’s or Coulter’s, etc.) **have** had an effect on the actions of individuals. That’s the wrong standard, and that’s why we still have an argument. But at least you’re not pretending it’s exclusively about crosshairs on a political map. ---
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/228 "2011-01-11T12:37:02Z")
**godix** , if at this point you do not get how this is not about liking or disliking one public figure or another, or agree or disagree with what they said, and how this is not about what is _illegal_ speech, then I certainly do not possess the ability to explain it to a degree that you will. Perhaps others will have the right words. But indeed, if, oh say a HRC or a Pelosi, in the context of trying to rev up a base of Code Pink supporters who were calling Bush a Hitler, had put his name up in a gunsight and used words like “reload” while other prominent public figures were saying things like “exercise your second amendment rights”, then indeed that would have been crossing the line. Do you honestly think it wouldn’t have been? ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/229 "2011-01-11T13:47:04Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > But indeed, if, oh say a HRC or a Pelosi, in the context of trying to rev up a base of Code Pink supporters who were calling Bush a Hitler, had put his name up in a gunsight and used words like “reload” while other prominent public figures were saying things like “exercise your second amendment rights”, then indeed that would have been crossing the line. Do you honestly think it wouldn’t have been? Depends on the context. If there was an obvious objective, and that objective was peaceful, then I doubt I’d even notice. For example, if she did this during an election season with the clear goal of prompting people to peacefully vote Republicans out of office. I may roll my eyes at how over the top it is, I often do that at electioneering, but rhetoric like this is so common that I honestly doubt it’d even occur to me that there is a line to cross. Now if it were done without a clear goal then I’d be more concerned. For example, if Pelosi did it tomorrow against Palin and she gave no indication of what she expects the people she riles up to do, that would trip alarm bells. In a situation like that, I suspect it would trip law enforcements alarm bells as well. It should be needless to say, but if it were done for an obvious violent objective then it crosses the line. Like if it were done to a black target while Pelosi was wearing a white hood, burning a cross, and chanting ‘white power’ then I’d want to see her in handcuffs. I don’t think anything republicans said rises to this level, although I will agree the second amendment solution comment (and ONLY that comment) comes kinda close. As a side note to all of the above, if I were in a thoughtful mood, rather than worrying about a line I would worry that the news media won’t cover public figures unless they act extreme. For example, a congresswoman who quietly meets with her constituents in a shopping center doesn’t get any coverage because the media are too busy chasing after Steele in an S&M club or a comedian holding a rally to restore fear. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/230 "2011-01-11T14:01:07Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Because there’s enormous right wing pushback going on that denies the rhetoric of Palin, Beck, and other highly compensated professional commenters that’s tinged with violent images and paints a very specific group of people as THREATS TO YOUR EXISTENCE!!!1! could possibly influence anyone to do anything bad. As a liberal contrarian, let me offer up my pushback as well. Tactics like these are truly revolting and disgusting, no doubt, but they’re empty threats. In some cases they’re designed to make liberals fret, so conservatives can paint them as a bunch of pantywaists. In other cases they’re designed to make liberals back down and avoid a fight. Those most invested in the rhetoric are fat, untrained armchair Guevaras who are less dangerous than you think… small, bitter people who never served the nation in any capacity, especially anything requiring physical courage such as the military or police.\* They’re wusses and they aren’t going to do anything more than shake their fists at the television, but they’re greatly emboldened when we pretend they’re a concern. After I got over the shock of the news in Tuscon, I did have a ray of hope that Sarah Palin might be held to account for things she’s been saying, but that vanished once it became evident that the shooter is a textbook mental illness case. He could have been reacting to anything. We shouldn’t be trying to use this incident as an example of the results of violent rhetoric, because it’s simply not what happened, and it’s distasteful to push that debate “while we’re on the subject.” - Based on my fellow officers in my Army service, they are conservative and hold Democrat politicians in contempt, and are likely to be involved in the Tea Party or other peaceful activist groups. However nothing would disgust them more than a citizen rebellion against a constitutionally elected government. I can only imagine that the police feel similarly if for no other reason than the mountain of paperwork involved in putting down a revolution. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/231 "2011-01-11T14:27:54Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > Thanks **Cisco**. > > **John** , I used the tautological restatement as a gross simplification device in responding to your question about my reference to literature, and also to make the point that you’re arguing against a phenomenon that is, frankly, _inarguable_. You can (and obviously do) disagree with the various instances of rhetoric that have been cited as “over the top”, but the focus of your questioning has been to make those of us arguing to tone it down prove incontrovertibly that Palin’s ramblings (or Angle’s or Beck’s or Coulter’s, etc.) **have** had an effect on the actions of individuals. That’s the wrong standard, and that’s why we still have an argument. > > But at least you’re not pretending it’s exclusively about crosshairs on a political map. And I used the A=A reference to challenge your premise. We have to establish what “A” is. You want us all to skip that step. I don’t accept that “A” is “anything anyone might say that references violent imagery”. But there’s a better thread on that subject going right now in GD, so you might want to try your arguments there. It’s the thread where someone asks if he is a liberal hypocrite. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/232 "2011-01-11T14:38:20Z")
**Cosmic Relief** , it’s not the intent of the pundits that is of concern, it really is the cumulative effect of their rhetoric on the worst elements in their base that’s worrisome. When someone hears a message over and over from the leaders and news sources they’ve selected as most trustworthy and most representative of their interests, it becomes an article of faith. And when that message is that a particular group and some named individuals in that group are a major threat to the things and ways they hold most dear, then they may take action if they have means to do so. Who cares if it’s empty threats from keyboard brigade and the gasbags on tv? Those pundits have an audience, and some of that audience contains truly scary individuals. Particularly for themes of anti-intellectualism, patriotic fervor and xenophobia. ---
**Author:** ![HMS\_Irruncible](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hms_irruncible/32/7394_2.png) [@HMS\_Irruncible](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HMS_Irruncible)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/233 "2011-01-11T15:08:45Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > [Who cares if it’s empty threats from keyboard brigade and the gasbags on tv? Those pundits have an audience, and some of that audience contains truly scary individuals. I disagree. I think most of the effective audence is merely other gasbags/keyboard brigadiers, people who like to think they’re backed by something powerful. Anyone truly capable of armed violence is already years ahead of the game, not just sitting on a hair trigger waiting for Sarah Palin to say something. The Tuscon shooter himself was merely mentally ill and cannot be judged as connected to any of it. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/234 "2011-01-11T15:15:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > And I used the A=A reference to challenge your premise. We have to establish what “A” is. You want us all to skip that step. I don’t accept that “A” is “anything anyone might say that references violent imagery”. But there’s a better thread on that subject going right now in GD, so you might want to try your arguments there. It’s the thread where someone asks if he is a liberal hypocrite. Really? You’re going to be more receptive to argument in a thread where I have to explain to someone who already believes A=A why it’s valid? No thanks, I’ll restate my argument here. First, it looks like you are saying the argument rests on the question of whether the rhetoric of the right can be called _provocative_ in the first place, or at least whether there’s enough in it beyond the violent imagery to _make_ it truly provocative. If that’s the case, then I don’t think showing you even more egregious examples of current rhetoric and discussing why and how they butress the violent imagery will convince you. I think the argument rests on whether you accept the concept of eliminationism as a political weapon, whether you agree that there are identifiable necessary elements of eliminationist rhetoric, and whether you then see those elements in current right wing rhetoric. Because if you don’t accept that premise, then of course you won’t see the danger where I see it, you’ll just continue to be mildly disgusted by the ‘pollution of political discourse’ as something unpleasant and irritating, and go back to sipping your tea. [Eliminationism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliminationism) was coined by political scientist Daniel Goldhagen as a term to describe systematic messaging that isolates a particular group from the greater society and shows it as a threat that must be excised from society. Goldhagen was writing about how the Holocaust was able to be perpetrated by the Nazi regime with broad cooperation from German society. You don’t have to agree wholeheartedly with Goldhagen (who lately claims eliminationism as root cause for every mass murder event since WWII) to accept the term as used to describe deliberate rhetorical ‘targeting’ of a political or social group using specific elements of _separation_, _fear_ and _elimination_ of that group to promote social change for the good of the whole. If you accept the term in its limited application, we can discuss whether such rhetoric is sufficiently provocative to you, and whether current right wing rhetoric contains those elements. And maybe we’ll then make this thread suit your high standards without liberals having to invite charges of hypocrisy. You know, by defining the rhetorical behavior which troubles us and showing where it is and isn’t practiced. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/235 "2011-01-11T15:22:09Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > I disagree. I think most of the effective audence is merely other gasbags/keyboard brigadiers, people who like to think they’re backed by something powerful. Anyone truly capable of armed violence is already years ahead of the game, not just sitting on a hair trigger waiting for Sarah Palin to say something. The Tuscon shooter himself was merely mentally ill and cannot be judged as connected to any of it. Well, I believe there’s more to civil unrest and violent outbursts than lone actors sitting at home already locked and loaded. But I’d like to pursue that argument in the way I just described to **John Mace**. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/236 "2011-01-11T15:45:16Z")
> [@xenophon41](#): > > …the focus of your questioning has been to make those of us arguing to tone it down prove incontrovertibly that Palin’s ramblings (or Angle’s or Beck’s or Coulter’s, etc.) **have** had an effect on the actions of individuals. That’s the wrong standard, and that’s why we still have an argument. Presumably that can’t be the standard, because there’s been no showing that Loughner was ever exposed to statements by those individuals. For all we know, he may have been a regular viewer of Olbermann and the Daily Show. So what is the standard? And why is the call to tone it down coming after the Giffords shooting and not, say, the Ft. Hood shootings? > [@xenophon41](#): > > But at least you’re not pretending it’s exclusively about crosshairs on a political map. Given the distinctions made in this thread and others between crosshairs on a political map and bullseyes on a political map, the use of the word “target” in text versus a crosshairs image, and “bring a gun” versus “reload,” the significance of “crosshairs on a political map” is that it’s the only identifiable increment of difference between Palin’s rhetoric and the presumably standard rhetoric of her political opponents. ---
**Author:** ![xenophon41](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xenophon41/32/253_2.png) [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/237 "2011-01-11T15:54:16Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > So what is the standard? Whether the rhetoric promotes responsible behavior (like using democratic processes and engaging in social dialogue) or not (like enforcing 2nd amendment remedies). > [@](#): > > And why is the call to tone it down coming after the Giffords shooting and not, say, the Ft. Hood shootings? Do you not believe there have been consistent calls to tone down the rhetoric prior to this shooting? Should I provide citations? Honestly, this is work I don’t feel I should need to do. Even in most of the Giffords stories, they quote the congresswoman herself calling for toned down rhetoric. This is a non starter. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/238 "2011-01-11T15:54:23Z")
> [@Cosmic Relief](#): > > I disagree. I think most of the effective audence is merely other gasbags/keyboard brigadiers, people who like to think they’re backed by something powerful. Anyone truly capable of armed violence is already years ahead of the game, not just sitting on a hair trigger waiting for Sarah Palin to say something. The Tuscon shooter himself was merely mentally ill and cannot be judged as connected to any of it. I take it you missed you the story of Byron Williams recently? Williams had a freeway shootout with police on his way to murder people from the Tides Foundation-- a favorite target of Glenn Beck. [The Washington Post:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100805640.html) > [@](#): > > “I would’ve never started watching Fox News if it wasn’t for the fact that Beck was on there,” says . . . Byron Williams. “And it was the things he did, it was the things he exposed, that blew my mind.” > > “Beck is going to deny everything about violent approach, deny everything about conspiracies,” Williams told the freelance journalist John Hamilton, who did the interview to be published by Media Matters. “But he’ll give you every reason to believe it. He’s protecting himself, and you can’t blame him for that. So, but I understand what he’s doing.” > > Beck, who has encouraged his followers to hear what he is saying “between the sentences” he actually utters, gave legitimacy to Williams’s conspiracy theories. > > “So now they’ve got Beck labeled as this guy that is trying to incite violence, and what I say is that if the truth incites violence, it means that we’ve been living too long in the lies,” Williams told Hamilton. “You know, when you become unemployed, desperate, you can no longer pay your bills… what do you think is gonna happen? You know, for crying out loud. It’s gonna get worse, and more and more people are gonna get desperate.” ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/239 "2011-01-11T16:21:36Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > So what is the standard? And why is the call to tone it down coming after the Giffords shooting and not, say, the Ft. Hood shootings? Seriously? We’ve been invading countries and bombing the crap out of people within the borders of our ostensible allies and imprisoning and torturing people without trial precisely to put an end to the influence of violent Islamic ideologies. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [January 11, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/240 "2011-01-11T16:59:07Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > I take it you missed you the story of Byron Williams recently? Williams had a freeway shootout with police on his way to murder people from the Tides Foundation-- a favorite target of Glenn Beck. > > [The Washington Post:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/08/AR2010100805640.html) And Eric Pidrman, who left a death [threat](http://www2.tbo.com/content/2010/sep/16/161553/spring-hill-man-gets-prison-for-threatening-congre/news-breaking/) against a Republican Congresswoman after her vote against the health care bill. He told the court that he watched a lot of MSNBC and then apparently left the threat while in an alcoholic blackout. His defense lawyer blamed excessive TV-watching. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921.md?page=13)