"Second Amendment Solutions" (the [hopefully civil] GD version)

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Cisco

Now it’s time for you to answer a question. Do you seriously believe that if I created a hit list (joking or not; metaphorical or not), posted it all over the internet, and someone on that list was shortly thereafter shot in the head, that I would not be investigated? Because it is going to be very difficult to take anything else you say seriously if you double down on that stance.

I seriously believe you would not be investigated, IF it were clear that your “hit list” were metaphorical, and that you were engaged in an extended to defeat someone in a totally legal contest.

For example, if you were organizing a political campaign, and you created a document called “hit list” with the names of political opponents on it, and then you organized campaign contributions to defeat those opponents in their reelection bids, it would be a massive waste of police resources to investigate you for anything if one of those people were attacked physically.

In this case, I’ll be fairly irritated if the FBI or whoever investigate Palin for this crime. I mean, what do you propose–do you think she had any idea who this guy was, do you think she met with him, do you think she did anything except use an obnoxious, crass, hateful metaphor? What crime exactly do you think she should be investigated for?

If we propose someone created a document called “hit list” and had the names of people on it who later were killed, and we propose that the FBI had no further information, then sure–investigate. But that’s not our situation. We KNOW what Palin’s document was about. And at the point in your hypothetical where the cops find out that the hit list described a legal activity, the police might roll their eyes, talk shit about the asshole who’s engaging in such crass behavior, but they sure better put their resources toward catching the actual criminal.

Again, I don’t think that it makes any sense at all to try to hold Palin, Beck, etc. legally culpable here. However, I do think everyone, no matter their political affiliation, should try to keep anything that looks like approval of political violence out of their speechifying.

Question: I’ve seen several references to Giffords’s opponent having a shoot-her-portrait fundraiser or something, but no news links. Does someone have one?

[Cisco]

I disagree completely, LHOD. Did you hear about the MMA fighter who recently joked that he’d like Obama to be his next opponent? That’s about 10 orders of seriousness below what Palin and the Tea Partiers have said and done in the last 2 years. He got a nice surprise visit from the Secret Service. I’d link you but I’m posting from my phone. Google News the name Jacob Volkmann and plenty of stories should come up.

Anybody who doesn’t think the average person would be seriously investigated for making a hit list (even a metaphorical one) and having someone on it get shot in the head is fooling themselves.

[John_Mace]

Except that there are laws specifically aimed at people who would threaten violence against the POTUS. No such law exists for members of Congress. If you watched the talk shows today, you would have seen some (D) Congresscritter from somewhere proposing that such a law is needed.

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making “any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States”.

Seriously, Cisco, you’re speculating wildly without understanding the facts.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Cisco

I disagree completely, LHOD. Did you hear about the MMA fighter who recently joked that he’d like Obama to be his next opponent? That’s about 10 orders of seriousness below what Palin and the Tea Partiers have said and done in the last 2 years. He got a nice surprise visit from the Secret Service. I’d link you but I’m posting from my phone. Google News the name Jacob Volkmann and plenty of stories should come up.

Anybody who doesn’t think the average person would be seriously investigated for making a hit list (even a metaphorical one) and having someone on it get shot in the head is fooling themselves.

John Mace already addressed it, but I’ll add two things:

1. When Jesse Helms made some comment about how Clinton better not come to North Carolina, IIRC, he wasn’t investigated–because it would have been a waste of resources.
2. What possible point would there be to investigating Palin? What crime do you think she broke? Or do you see the investigation itself as a sort of punishment for her asshole behavior?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Oh, and a third thing:
The Secret Service didn’t have complete information when they investigated Volkmann.

[The Secret Service officer was] like ‘I want to let you know I’m a little embarrassed for coming here and doing this because obviously nothing happened.’ He actually apologized for coming, but he had to come.

Turns out he made an asshole comment (“Somebody needs to knock some sense into that idiot”), and someone else overreacted to it by treated it as if making an asshole comment is a crime. The Secret Service talked to him, verified that it wasn’t an actual threat, and (according to him) apologized for the inconvenience.

That’s what they do when they’re not sure if it’s a threat. In the case of Palin’s asshole crosshairs graphic, do you really think there’s any question whether it was a threat?

[Kozmik]

@Susanann

“IF” he was a political operative, he is a very stupid one.
“IF” he was a political operative intent on destroying Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords then why did he only shoot her once, and then shoot his gun 18 more times at OTHER people like old retired people and a 9 year old girl?

A 9 year old girl born on September 11, 2001.

@Susanann

“IF” Congresswoman Gabrielle was his political target, then he would have emptied his gun, ONLY, on Gabrielle and Gabrielle would have been shot 19 times instead of just once.

The bigger question is: why didn’t he empty his gun one more time - on himself?

[Kozmik]

@River_Hippie

Having shot her point-blank, in the head, with a 9mm, it would be reasonable for him to believe that she was killed. He knew he had a nearly full mag, was already fully committed to his act and what the hell, “Only Liberal Democrats would come out to meet a Liberal Democrat…might as well grease a few more.”

I can’t know what he was thinking but that is one possible thought train that might have been going through his mind.

Come on. He shot at a US Representative, a US District Judge, who recieved death threats, a congressional aide, and a little girl who just so happened to be born on 9/11. He knew his targets.

One things for sure, assuming he makes it, it will be an interesting trial.

[Der_Trihs]

@Kozmik

The bigger question is: why didn’t he empty his gun one more time - on himself?

All sort of possibilities there, depending on his exact motives and sanity level. He thinks he’ll get to be a hero/martyr. Or he expected to escape. Or he just didn’t think of it at the time. Or the voices told him not to.

[Huerta88]

QUOTE=Cisco;13335604]If you have made statements contradicted the position I assigned to you, I’m big enough to admit I missed them (no need to play the 3 tries game). So my revised statement reads as follows:
[/QUOTE]

There are at least two reasons your position, such as it is, is ridiculoius.

The first is that we both know most gun nuts (I use that phrase with affection) are of the Right, in fact. We have some lefty/Libertarian allies, whom we love, but come on.

Second is – check my statement. The idiotic assertion I was responding to (“some on the right love easy gun availabity precisely because it empowers gun crazies to assassinate their political enemies”) is an equally-idiotic assertion if you replace “hard core NRA crazies” for “some on the right.”

I read the NRA magazines (do you? I thought not). They speak never. of crating some free-floating force of assassins (which the idiotic post to which I responded to posited as the motivations of gunners, with no eveidence)

The post I responded to was ridiculousa, your respone thereof moreso. There is no world in which anyone “on the right” advocates gun rights on the basiis of “empowring crazies to kill lefy [oh but this lady isn’t] politicians.”

[Huerta88]

@Huerta88

QUOTE=Cisco;13335604]If you have made statements contradicted the position I assigned to you, I’m big enough to admit I missed them (no need to play the 3 tries game). So my revised statement reads as follows:

There are at least two reasons your position, such as it is, is ridiculoius.Ah geez

The first is that we both know most gun nuts (I use that phrase with affection) are of the Right, in fact. We have some lefty/Libertarian allies, whom we love, but come on.

Second is – check my statement. The idiotic assertion I was responding to (“some on the right love easy gun availabity precisely because it empowers gun crazies to assassinate their political enemies”) is an equally-idiotic assertion if you replace “hard core NRA crazies” for “some on the right.”

I read the NRA magazines (do you? I thought not). They speak never. of crating some free-floating force of assassins (which the idiotic post to which I responded to posited as the motivations of gunners, with no eveidence)

The post I responded to was ridiculousa, your respone thereof moreso. There is no world in which anyone “on the right” advocates gun rights on the basiis of “empowring crazies to kill lefy [oh but this lady isn’t] politicians.”
[/QUOTE]

ETA: Ah geez, I was never reponding to Cisco it was to Tomndeb. My apologies to the former.

[Merneith]

I’ve already made my feelings felt so lets see if I can bring some facts.

1. The gun was legally purchased at a Sportsman’s Warehouse store in Tucson
   Cite: AP, via Huffpo, Cite:WSJ

1a. He bought the ammo from Walmart. The first Walmart he tried turned him down because he was acting strangely but the second one didn’t.
Cite: CNN

2. Also from the WSJ cite, Loughner had met Gifford previously. He asked her about knowing what words mean and she reportedly answered him in Spanish. (No idea what she said specifically).

2a. The police have found items in Loughner’s safe which include a letter thanking him for attending a previous “Congress on the Corner” event and a document, probably written by Loughner, with the words “my assassination” and “I planned ahead”. He’s due in court today (Monday).
Cite: Huffpo Cite: the whole criminal complaint vs Loughner (pdf), Cite: CNN

3. The second suspect has been interviewed and cleared - he’s just a cabbie
   Cite: Cnn (same article as above)

4. Also from that CNN article, Loughner is being represented byt he lawyer who represented the Unabomber and Zacharias Massouei. (Just a note, I’m glad Loughner is getting proper representation but that poor lawyer must have racked up some serious bad karma to get that line up.)

5. US Rep Danny Davis, D-IL (Chicago) received a note on Saturday saying “You’re next”.
   Cite: Chicago Breaking News

6. The 911 call has been released
   Cite: huffpo

7. Loughner’s complete list of favorite books, from his YouTube Channel profile:
   Cite:Youtube

Books:
I had favorite books: Animal Farm, Brave New World, The Wizard Of OZ, Aesop Fables, The Odyssey, Alice Adventures Into Wonderland, Fahrenheit 451, Peter Pan, To Kill A Mockingbird, We The Living, Phantom Toll Booth, One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, Pulp,Through The Looking Glass, The Communist Manifesto, Siddhartha, The Old Man And The Sea, Gulliver’s Travels, Mein Kampf, The Republic, and Meno.

“We the Living” is by Ayn Rand. I assume “Meno” is the one by Plato, not the playwrite/journalist Joe Meno. “Pulp” … I don’t know if that means he likes the pulp fiction genre or the book “Pulp” by Charles Bukowski, a satire of same. “Siddhartha” is probably the Hermann Hesse book, not actual writings of Buddha, I’m guessing.

It reads like a high school reading list. I wonder how many of these he actually read.

8. Profiles of the six victims at LA times
   Profiles of the Arizona shooting victims

[HMS_Irruncible]

@Huerta88

amounts to an affirmative proposition that gun rights advocates have, as a principal motivation, the goal of arming crazies who will then go on to eliminate the political opponents of “some in the right.” I rightly called bullshit on that because it’s a bullshit argument and comports not at all with reality.

One need not imagine a mustache-twirling cabal of wingnuts thinking “aha, I’ve armed almost all the paranoid schizophrenics, soon all the liberals will be shot in the street!” You only need to observe that the right is both whipping up a frenzy and striving to arm everyone they possibly can. You only need to observe that this has a chilling effect on people who would rather talk their problems out in a parliamentary democracy. Righties may not be explicitly building a lunatic clone army, but one can scarcely help noticing the ways in which they benefit from having one.

[Marley23]

@Merneith

4. Also from that CNN article, Loughner is being represented byt he lawyer who represented the Unabomber and Zacharias Massouei. (Just a note, I’m glad Loughner is getting proper representation but that poor lawyer must have racked up some serious bad karma to get that line up.)

She obviously has a lot of experience in dealing with cases related to terrorism. She’s a federal public defender.

It reads like a high school reading list. I wonder how many of these he actually read.

Some of those books are very common on high school reading lists. Then again, he’s 22, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if he encountered some of his favorites that way. And some of those books aren’t standard high school fare. Who knows what he thought some of the authors were talking about. Since he murdered a bunch of people who’d done nothing to him, I suppose he got the gist of Hitler’s message.

[Merneith]

@Marley23

She obviously has a lot of experience in dealing with cases related to terrorism. She’s a federal public defender.

I know. Still. I can’t help thinking that some days that must feel like being the best free-throw shooter on the Washington Generals.

Some of those books are very common on high school reading lists. Then again, he’s 22, so it wouldn’t be a surprise if he encountered some of his favorites that way. And some of those books aren’t standard high school fare. Who knows what he thought some of the authors were talking about. Since he murdered a bunch of people who’d done nothing to him, I suppose he got the gist of Hitler’s message.

I was struck by the pathos in the way he started that statement: “I had favorite books”. I don’t know if it means anything - probably not. But I can’t help wondering if he wasn’t referring to a different time in his life, a time before his thoughts made reading to difficult? We’ll probably never know.

[Marley23]

I’m not sure when he said what, but in his last YouTube video he refers to himself in the past tense. The easiest reading is that he didn’t expect to survive the assault.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Cisco

Now it’s time for you to answer a question. Do you seriously believe that if I created a hit list (joking or not; metaphorical or not), posted it all over the internet, and someone on that list was shortly thereafter shot in the head, that I would not be investigated? Because it is going to be very difficult to take anything else you say seriously if you double down on that stance.

Reposting this page where Kos puts “a bulls eye” on a “target list” of “Democrats who sold out the Constitution,” including Giffords.

This is not a tu quoque, but just an indication of how standard this rhetoric is and how easily it can escape one’s notice.

[Cisco]

When you heard the terrible news from Arizona, were you completely surprised? Or were you, at some level, expecting something like this atrocity to happen? Put me in the latter category.

Last spring Politico.com reported on a surge in threats against members of Congress, which were already up by 300 percent. A number of the people making those threats had a history of mental illness — but something about the current state of America has been causing far more disturbed people than before to act out their illness by threatening, or actually engaging in, political violence.

Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. It’s hard to imagine a Democratic member of Congress urging constituents to be “armed and dangerous” without being ostracized; but Representative Michele Bachmann, who did just that, is a rising star in the G.O.P.

Read the rest at The New York Times Opinion Page.

[Jack_Batty]

@Tom_Tildrum

Reposting this page where Kos puts “a bulls eye” on a “target list” of “Democrats who sold out the Constitution,” including Giffords.

This is not a tu quoque, but just an indication of how standard this rhetoric is and how easily it can escape one’s notice.

Even if it was a tu quoque, it would be a shitty one:

And while people like me will focus on the task at hand this year, it won’t be long after Election Day that we’ll start looking at the 2010 map, looking for those great primary challengers.

Who to primary? Well, I’d argue that we can narrow the target list by looking at those Democrats who sold out the Constitution last week. I’ve bolded members of the Blue Dogs for added emphasis.

– snipped long list of Congresspeople –

Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district. If we can field enough serious challengers, and if we repeat the Donna Edwards and Joe Lieberman stories a few more times, well then, our elected officials might have no choice but to be more responsive. Because if we show them that their AT&T lobbyist buddies can’t save their jobs, they’ll pay more attention to those who can.

This, apparently is the left’s equivalent of cross-hairs … oops, I mean surveyor’s marks … on the names of candidates when urging constituents to ‘re-load’ because the very existance of America is at stake.

[Merneith]

@Tom_Tildrum

Reposting this page where Kos puts “a bulls eye” on a “target list” of “Democrats who sold out the Constitution,” including Giffords.

This is not a tu quoque, but just an indication of how standard this rhetoric is and how easily it can escape one’s notice.

Nothing in that link includes a graphic with actual bullseyes over the districts of the specific members, unlike Palin’s rifle crosshairs graphic.

Also, bullseyes are generic images, not the same as Palin’s deliberately threatening rifle crosshairs image.

Palin’s painting rifle scopes on Democratic targets did not go unnoticed specifically because it was different that the standard imagery. That was the point of it.

I’m sure she thought she was being clever. She also probably thought it was clever when she or someone on her team tried to hide her original image immediately after Giffords was shot.

[x-ray_vision]

Posted on Pharyngula today:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/01/dont_politicize_this_tragedy.php