# "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:** 5
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/81 "2011-01-09T07:35:02Z")
> [@L. G. Butts](#): > > My question is whether this meme is based in facts, how prevalent are cases of right wing calling for “second amendment remedies?” > > So far I have: > > Sharon Angle (Tea Party/ Republican Candidate for a Nevada Senate Seat): > > Sarah Palin (Republican VP canidate): Plus she uses crosshairs (i.e. rifle sites) on her website to target Democratic districts to retake. > Michele Bachman (Republican House Member from Minnesota): > My guess is there are a lot more examples and I would like to see them. I also guess that we would be hard pressed to find similar examples from left wing politicians, pundits, and talking heads. > [@](#): > > Another Ohio Democrat, Steve Driehaus, clashed repeatedly with Boehner before losing his seat in the midterm elections. After Boehner suggested that by voting for Obamacare, Driehaus “may be a dead man” and “can’t go home to the west side of Cincinnati” because “the Catholics will run him out of town,” Driehaus began receiving death threats, and a right-wing website published directions to his house. Driehaus says he approached Boehner on the floor and confronted him. > > “I didn’t think it was funny at all,” Driehaus says. “I’ve got three little kids and a wife. I said to him, ‘John, this is bullshit, and way out of bounds. For you to say something like that is wildly irresponsible.’” > > Driehaus is quick to point out that he doesn’t think Boehner meant to urge anyone to violence. “But it’s not about what he intended — it’s about how the least rational person in my district takes it. We run into some crazy people in this line of work.” > > Driehaus says Boehner was “taken aback” when confronted on the floor, but never actually said he was sorry: “He said something along the lines of, ‘You know that’s not what I meant.’ But he didn’t apologize.” [Source](http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/matt-taibbi-the-crying-shame-of-john-boehner-20110105?page=4). ---
**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 9, 2011, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/82 "2011-01-09T07:41:48Z")
_In all calm honesty, how many of us predicted this? How often was it discussed that someone could/probably would die from all the rabble rousing that Palin, Beck, Limbaugh, etc have been indulging in lately?_ _We predicted this. It was often discussed that someone could/probably would die from all the rabble rousing that Palin…_ You can pretend that those two paragraphs are different, but they say exactly the same thing. But whatever. Why don’t you tell us what you think? Should/will charges be leveled against Sarah Palin for this incident if the shooter claims he was motivated by SP? I already told you what I think. No. It’s beyond comprehension that anyone could think otherwise. And that would go for you, if you had posted the same thing SP did. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/83 "2011-01-09T13:19:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But that’s not what you said. you said you predicted this and now it’s happened. THAT is a claim of Sylvia Browne level absurdity, and you haven’t been subjected to nearly the sort of ridicule that the claim deserves. > > If your claim was simply that at some point here would be violence against a Democratic politician… then I hereby predict violence against a Republican at some point in the future, and when it happens it will prove the left is unhinged. It’s not remotely a Sylvia Browne level of absurdity, because there’s a cause and effect proposed. It’s closer to the level of absurdity of saying, “My favorite basketball player is no longer on team X, so they’re going to lose the next game,” and claiming vindication when team X loses the game. It’s not scientifically valid, but it’s not claims of supernatural powers, either. You’re excluding the middle here. If you want to make a similar claim to the OP, then point to specific inflammatory statements by Democrats that use violent metaphors to discuss defeating opponents, and predict that someone will commit violence against one of those opponents for apparently political (however crazy, still political) reasons. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/84 "2011-01-09T13:27:52Z")
To me, this does seem like a cheap jab at Palin. These metaphors are used all of the time. I heard a commentator on ESPN this morning say that the Jets/Patriots playoff game next week will be a “war.” If a diehard Jets fan shoots Tom Brady in the head, can people come back on that sportscaster and say “Gee, in this climate of referring to the game as a ‘war’, you’ve got to understand that crazy people might take your words the wrong way”? He also said that the Seattle/New Orleans game was a “shootout.” Good thing he didn’t say that before the game, or Drew Brees could have taken a .45 to the brain and the sportscaster might have been charged with murder, according to some posters here. Where does the insanity stop? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/85 "2011-01-09T14:04:02Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > To me, this does seem like a cheap jab at Palin. These metaphors are used all of the time. I heard a commentator on ESPN this morning say that the Jets/Patriots playoff game next week will be a “war.” I see these as extremely different, because the playoffs are a game. If the Jets were referring to it as a war, AND were talking about the evil unAmerican behavior of the Patriots, and called them socialists, and talked about how they had to take back the country from them, and referenced revolutionary war leaders in discussing what would happen if they didn’t win the game–THEN I’d want them to dial back the rhetoric. I’m certainly not suggesting anyone except the shooter and accomplices is legally culpable for the shooting. But I am suggesting that Palin et al engage in a level of viciousness in their political rhetoric that nurtures and encourages violent thoughts among the wingnuts, and that the country could only benefit from an across-the-board adoption of more respectful and more measured rhetoric. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/86 "2011-01-09T14:20:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That’s what the “Second Amendment remedy” is; a call for assassination. > > And her Tea Party opponent held gatherings where people had the opportunity to shoot at Gifford’s picture with an M-16. I disagree that it has to be that way. I believe in a Second Amendment remedy–but I think it can only be applied when your life is endangered. Even given being mistreated to the level of causing a revolution, I would do as the U.S. did: declare myself free, and only fight if they attacked me for it. As for the rest of this thread: Someone would have to be even stupider that Sarah Palin to take her comments literally. The problem is, there are people dumber than her. I don’t think she is legally responsible, but she morally ought to rein in the rhetoric. I believe her reported faith (which is very close to mine) would say that the blood is on her hands. ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/87 "2011-01-09T15:02:35Z")
I’m just curious, how many political shootings did Crossfire cause? After all, it referenced gunfire right in it’s name. What’s the body could whenever any democrat has said they’re targeting some office or another? Did Olbermann, Code Pink, Daily Kos, etc cause violence when they used flammatory comments against Bush? Whenever a Democrat talks about ‘fighting’ for something, or against something, does that mean they want people to go beat up Republicans? That is, after all, what a fight is. When Jim McDermott, a prominent democrat, said “This is the president’s Gettysburg” about negotiation over Bush tax cut extensions, was he saying Democrats are in open warfare against Republicans and want to inflict 50,000 casualties like the Battle of Gettysburg did? Palin, Beck, etc. do go to extremes with the rhetoric. However, they didn’t invent that and they certainly aren’t the only ones. Blaming them for a fucked up wack job shooting up a mall makes about as much sense as blaming Democrats for John Hinckley. Just by bring up their names in relationship to that fucked up wack job is blaming them, regardless of if you meant to or not. So I’ll agree with those who say it’s time to dial back the rhetoric. Perhaps we can start by not blaming Republicans for a shooting within hours of it happening and with no proof it has anything to do with Republicans… ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 3:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/88 "2011-01-09T15:45:00Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Why don’t you tell us what you think? Should/will charges be leveled against Sarah Palin for this incident if the shooter claims he was motivated by SP? Will they? No. Absolutely not. I am 100% sure of that. I already told you that. Should they? That’s a little more complicated. Free speech currently co-exists with multi-million dollar fines for saying naughty words or showing female breasts on television or the radio (if I understand correctly, the legal justification for this is that the fines are retroactive - they don’t actually stop you from saying anything). Cable tv and the internet are just as public now as tv and radio were when those laws were authored, and I think inciting hatred and violence is a hell of a lot worse than using foul language or showing a boob. Several of my European and Canadian friends have been saying for the last couple years that Palin, Beck, Coulter, etc, would not get away with the shit they say in their country, and no one is accusing those countries of oppressing human rights (no more than the next country, at least. And I’ll grant you that none of these people are lawyers, but it seems to be a widespread sentiment). I don’t think I’d be comfortable with criminal charges for what she’s done, because it hasn’t quite reached the level of shouting fire, but I’m pretty sure I’d be ok with some sort of official censure or fine. And again, this is in the hypothetical situation that Loughner fingers Palin as his motivation, which is beyond what we know of the current realistic situation. ---
**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 9, 2011, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/89 "2011-01-09T16:06:43Z")
[Here’s](http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647) a right-wing blogger collecting bull’s-eye maps used by the DNC and the DCCC. [Here’s](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568) Kos talking about putting a bull’s-eye on Giffords’ district (among others) because she was among Democrats who “sold out the Constitution.” [Here’s](http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html) Obama saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” And Howard Kurtz [suggests](http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-08/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-dont-blame-sarah-palin/) that this sort of metaphor is commonplace: > [@Howard Kurtz](#): > > Let’s be honest: Journalists often use military terminology in describing campaigns. We talk about the air war, the bombshells, targeting politicians, knocking them off, candidates returning fire or being out of ammunition. So we shouldn’t act shocked when politicians do the same thing. Obviously, Palin should have used dots or asterisks on her map. But does anyone seriously believe she was trying to incite violence? It seems to me that the focus on Palin may be confirmation bias. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/90 "2011-01-09T16:29:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > [ Should/will charges be leveled against Sarah Palin for this incident if the shooter claims he was motivated by SP? It is probably more likely that he was motivated by obama, rather than Sarah Palin. If the guys favorite books were Mien Kemp and The Communist Manifesto, then he is obviously no friend of Sarah. ---
**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 9, 2011, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/91 "2011-01-09T16:35:05Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > [Here’s](http://www.verumserum.com/?p=13647) a right-wing blogger collecting bull’s-eye maps used by the DNC and the DCCC. > > [Here’s](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/25/1204/74882/511/541568) Kos talking about putting a bull’s-eye on Giffords’ district (among others) because she was among Democrats who “sold out the Constitution.” > > [Here’s](http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/Obama_brings_a_gun_to_a_knife_fight.html) Obama saying, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” > > And Howard Kurtz [suggests](http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-01-08/gabrielle-giffords-shooting-dont-blame-sarah-palin/) that this sort of metaphor is commonplace: > > It seems to me that the focus on Palin may be confirmation bias. This is exactly what I was thinking about as I was walking down to the coffee shop this AM to get a cup of Joe. War and sports language have been pervasive in politics for as long as any of us can remember. Confirmation bias is exactly what is going on here. I’m waiting for someone like \*\*squink \*\*to come along and post this snippet from the [NYT today:](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/us/politics/09shooter.html?exprod=myyahoo) > [@](#): > > Another former high school classmate said that Mr. Loughner may have met Representative Giffords, who was shot in the head outside the Safeway supermarket, several years ago. > > “As I knew him he was left wing, quite liberal. & oddly obsessed with the 2012 prophecy,” the former classmate, Caitie Parker, wrote in a series of Twitter feeds Saturday. “I haven’t seen him since ’07 though. He became very reclusive.” > > “He was a political radical & met Giffords once before in ’07, asked her a question & he told me she was ‘stupid & unintelligent,’ ” she wrote. I won’t hold my breath, though, since it doesn’t fit the preconceived ideas many posters are bringing to this discussion. ---
**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 9, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/92 "2011-01-09T16:39:11Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > It is probably more likely that he was motivated by obama, rather than Sarah Palin. > > If the guys favorite books were Mien Kemp and The Communist Manifesto, then he is obviously no friend of Sarah. Maybe a clearer picture will emerge eventually, but from what is available now, the guys seems to be all over the map, politically. If you filter the news through your own political biases, you can come up with any number of explanations for this guy’s actions. For the time being, I’m sticking with delusional nut case rather than political operative. ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/93 "2011-01-09T16:42:48Z")
To me, his own right-wing stances hold more weight than what a high school classmate says he believed several years ago (he dropped out in '06). Not to mention I don’t think most high school students can distinguish between right-wing, left-wing, and their own asses. Again, the kid has problems and doesn’t fit nicely anywhere on the spectrum, but calling everything unconstitutional, wanting the department of education abolished, ranting about fiat currency, and shooting a Democrat in the head are all right-leaning positions. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/94 "2011-01-09T16:42:56Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Not sure what that has to do with guns, in Arizona if the courts have declared you mentally ill you can not have guns. What I would expect, but I have very little faith that it would take place, is to see an investigation why this guy was not noticed before as a danger to others and why he had access to guns. > > The point here is that unfortunately for many right wingers that want to avoid any responsibility because the guy was clearly a nut, have to explain why it is also the case that many right wing republicans also oppose new laws that would make it harder for people with mental issues to get or posses guns, or also to oppose giving more free access to mental health help or treatments. > > \*(And I do not blame them for the crime, but for the negligence many do show with their actions against any new controls) I was actually thinking about this earlier today. I’m a strong supporter of private gun ownership. However I also wouldn’t have any problems at all if **any** gun purchase required a license, and that mental competency was a criteria for getting said license. The reason I don’t actually support a legislative agenda that would lead to a strict licensing regime is unfortunately I don’t trust the people who would agree with me. I think they’d mostly be people that, unlike me, were _opposed_ to the private ownership of guns. They’d see a license regime as a “step towards their ultimate goal” of complete annihilation of private gun ownership. If taken out of the reality of American politics though, I’d be very much in favor of a licensing regime for all firearms purchases. However, since in practice such a regime would just make it easier for opponents of gun ownership to erode my rights, I unfortunately cannot support such a licensing regime. I also have secondary fears that the licensing regime itself, which I think should be more like a driver’s licensing system (meaning the default is you _do_ get the license, unless they find specific, statutorily defined reasons to deny it to you) could morph into a super-rigid system in which only retired law enforcement would be eligible to receive licenses. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/95 "2011-01-09T16:50:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > The funny thing is that I’m not putting any blame on the politicians that could had influenced the guy. > > Only that if this goes like in many previous killings nothing much will be done regarding the mental health care angle. > > Of course if it turns to be a politically motivated act, oy!.. I expect many from the right wingers to make a lot of hay with the report that the shooter read the communist manifesto and Mein kampf, it is nonsense, but Glenn Beck and their ilk already have said that liberals are Nazis \*\*and \*\*communists. When I retired from the military I worked briefly in state government and was part of the department that dealt with the mentally ill. The truth of the matter is a lot has changed since just the 30s and 40s (and really since the 60s and 70s.) I won’t blame any particular political ideology but you had a lot of people advocating for the rights of the mentally ill. Namely that they have a right to freedom of movement and freedom of choice about what treatment they were to receive. This lead to widespread closings of state mental hospitals, and now most people who are mentally ill are handled through community level treatment (residential group homes, private residences with minimal supervision, and many of the mentally ill receive no services from government at all.) Most states are now in a situation in which they have very few beds in psychiatric hospitals and civil commitment is generally a much more difficult process than it once was. By and large just because a kid is really, really disturbed, doesn’t mean he gets locked up these days. Most people involved in mental health at the government level view civil commitment as a failure and strongly support community based mental health. Where you have someone who hasn’t done something so egregious that he’s been committed due to criminal behavior, or who hasn’t prompted friends and family to seek his commitment, the current system just simply is not set up to find out about those people. Realistically even under the old regime until someone was actually brought to the attention of the authorities they would not have been committed. Loners like this shooter who apparently lived with his parents and probably had very few friends would probably escape attention as long as his parents did not feel his behavior required further scrutiny. ---
**Author:** ![Susanann](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@Susanann](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Susanann)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/96 "2011-01-09T16:52:22Z")
Originally Posted by Susanann It is probably more likely that he was motivated by obama, rather than Sarah Palin. If the guys favorite books were Mien Kemp and The Communist Manifesto, then he is obviously no friend of Sarah. > [@John\_Mace](#): > > Maybe a clearer picture will emerge eventually, but from what is available now, the guys seems to be all over the map, politically. If you filter the news through your own political biases, you can come up with any number of explanations for this guy’s actions. > > For the time being, I’m sticking with delusional nut case rather than political operative. While it may be true… he is all over the map… it doesnt matter at all, because there is absoluely no way at all he could have been influenced by Sarah Palin. Regardless of anything else about him, his joking about aborting babies, and his love of Mien Kemp and The Communist Manifesto automatically rules out Sarah Palin. Baby killers and communists are obviously totally and completely precluded, and totally excluded, from the Sarah Palin influence. Abortion and communism are “show stoppers” in the Palin camp. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/97 "2011-01-09T16:56:48Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > IIRC, a law was made after the Virginia university shooter killed many, it was a wonder of bipartisanship cooperation, but it had to be passed only after a tragedy took place, it does allow also for mental illness to be a factor in denying guns when background checks are made when purchasing a gun, but you can see already how it can be circumvented, what I see is that to really plug this hole better, then more access to mental health care is needed and to move to deal or monitor people that doctors (not only the state) declare to be a danger. > > Unfortunately one then has to remember the big block in the road to that, can you guess who are the people that would be more against giving free mental health care for the needy or at a discounted rate? > > Yes, but even in state that claims to do so it is clear this effort to wait until someone is declared dangerous until a court decides is not working. People who are mentally ill do not get turned away due to inability to pay. When someone needs mental health treatment, the default is they receive the treatment and the state-level bureaucrats (I was one of them) work on finding out how to pay for it. Where I worked state funds were called “funds of last resort”, which as it sounds just meant we didn’t pay from the state’s budget til other funding sources had been exhausted. A lot of people in our system were on Medicare and Medicaid, a good number also received VA benefits, then you had the rare persons who had family financial support and/or private insurance (since the people most in need of mental health treatment typically won’t maintain long term employment private insurance wasn’t a common thing.) The Federal government gave us an enormous amount of money in the form of block grants. But yeah, I don’t know a lot about the mental health care field but I do know that at least in Virginia the commonwealth didn’t turn people away from treatment because of an inability to pay. The process worked exactly what I said: people got the treatment they needed and then it was left to us to figure out how to pay for it. This is for people who need hospitalization and housing in a residential group home. I will say that for other forms of treatment (substance abuse for example) it was more difficult to get treatment if you lacked any form of personal funding or insurance. ---
**Author:** ![Capitaine\_Zombie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e95f7d/32.png) [@Capitaine\_Zombie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capitaine_Zombie)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/98 "2011-01-09T16:59:14Z")
It’s always nice to see some well informed posts. It is as vomiting to see people soaking their shirt in the victims’blood to already lash at Conservatives that to see Conservatives already playing the chicken game. BTW, Mien Kemp? Way to boost your credibility. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/99 "2011-01-09T17:01:42Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > Will they? No. Absolutely not. I am 100% sure of that. I already told you that. > > Should they? That’s a little more complicated. Free speech currently co-exists with multi-million dollar fines for saying naughty words or showing female breasts on television or the radio (if I understand correctly, the legal justification for this is that the fines are retroactive - they don’t actually stop you from saying anything). Cable tv and the internet are just as public now as tv and radio were when those laws were authored, and I think inciting hatred and violence is a hell of a lot worse than using foul language or showing a boob. Several of my European and Canadian friends have been saying for the last couple years that Palin, Beck, Coulter, etc, would not get away with the shit they say in their country, and no one is accusing those countries of oppressing human rights (no more than the next country, at least. And I’ll grant you that none of these people are lawyers, but it seems to be a widespread sentiment). I don’t think I’d be comfortable with criminal charges for what she’s done, because it hasn’t quite reached the level of shouting fire, but I’m pretty sure I’d be ok with some sort of official censure or fine. And again, this is in the hypothetical situation that Loughner fingers Palin as his motivation, which is beyond what we know of the current realistic situation. Here’s the thing though, America does generally have the strongest right to free speech that exists. You can write a book about how to blow people up and kill them and sell it with impunity. I would never want to model our speech laws after those of many other countries where there are government commissions that have the ability to interrogate you about speech that might be considered “offensive” to certain groups. I honestly would not advocate any sort of punishment for people who even were saying things far more egregious than Palin or Beck. Malcolm X said far worse, for example. I wouldn’t feel that Beck should be punished even if he was saying “I wish someone would murder the President.” Should he lose his job? Sure. But I don’t think that should be a criminal act (and it isn’t–while threatening the President is I don’t believe the theoretical statement above would survive a criminal trial with those charges.) ---
**Author:** ![godix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/278dde/32.png) [@godix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/godix)\ **Post date:** [January 9, 2011, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921/100 "2011-01-09T17:02:43Z")
> [@Susanann](#): > > It is probably more likely that he was motivated by obama, rather than Sarah Palin. > > If the guys favorite books were Mien Kemp and The Communist Manifesto, then he is obviously no friend of Sarah. Oh for gods sake. Just because Cisco decided, with no facts, that this must be a rightwing hit job doesn’t mean the proper counter is deciding, without facts, that this is a leftwing hit job. The shooter is a god damned wacko. He’s motivated by whatever motivates god damned wackos. Whatever political position he holds, it is not representative of either parties politicians or supporters. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/second-amendment-solutions-the-hopefully-civil-gd-version/566921.md?page=6)